Negotiation and reconciliation go hand in hand in politics. The goal is to build political trust and reach an agreement by eliminating mutual doubts and suspicions. Reconciliation and negotiation are interdependent because without negotiation, reconciliation cannot occur. In politics, stubbornness leads to neither negotiation nor reconciliation. Political negotiation and reconciliation cannot begin until both parties are willing, as it cannot be a one-sided process. It is a strategic approach to open the closed doors of politics and create opportunities to move forward together.
However, when any party demonstrates stubbornness and refuses to back down from its terms, the door to negotiations remains closed. Discussing negotiations and reconciliation in a cunning manner while continuing to provoke is not positive politics. Such a strategy may serve the negative interests of a group but is not beneficial for the nation and the country. Trying to manipulate others in the negotiation process for personal and group interests does not improve the situation; it only leads to further deterioration. I believe that the onus of opening the door to negotiation and reconciliation lies more on the ruling party, as failure to advance the reconciliation process harms the government the most.
In Pakistan, the current political climate of tension and mistrust sees all political stakeholders, whether in government or opposition, emphasizing that the solution to existing issues lies only in negotiation and reconciliation. But the question remains: if everyone agrees on negotiations and reconciliation, what are the obstacles that prevent the path of negotiation? Why are both sides moving away from the politics of reconciliation? The obstacles hindering negotiations between the government and the opposition, particularly the PTI and its founder, stem from numerous issues and contradictions. According to the PTI, the mandate of the current government is based on false premises.
Therefore, negotiating with it would mean accepting the government’s public mandate. Similarly, the PTI’s founder often suggests in his statements that the government lacks the authority to negotiate and that real power lies with the establishment, making negotiations with it more fruitful. Within the government, some favor negotiations, while others oppose them. The pro-negotiation group believes that the government cannot function effectively without engaging the PTI and that reconciliation is necessary. In contrast, the opposing group argues that negotiating with the PTI would grant it significant political relief and alienate other stakeholders, potentially harming their political interests.
Hence, the PML-N, particularly after the events of May 9, is unwilling to withdraw its stance against the PTI. According to them, negotiations are impossible until the PTI’s founder apologizes to the nation for the events of May 9, a stance that aligns with the establishment. Moreover, the PML-N leadership is unlikely to extend political support to the PTI’s founder or risk straining its relations with the establishment unnecessarily. The PTI’s priority is to settle matters through negotiations with the establishment, and under such circumstances, the PML-N sees no reason to provide a platform for the PTI. The PPP also supports the PML-N on this matter and is reluctant to provide any political pathway to the PTI.
The PTI’s desire for direct negotiations with the establishment is formally unfeasible. However, there is some truth to reports that certain facilitators have attempted to broker talks between the PTI and the establishment, though these efforts have not been successful. There exists a faction within the PTI that opposes confrontation with the establishment at all costs and believes in finding a path to reconciliation. Many PTI leaders are rumored to have behind-the-scenes connections with the establishment and do not fully endorse Imran Khan’s stance, something Khan himself is aware of, leading to distrust and lack of confidence in several party members.
The problem is that the country’s politics and economy are in a deadlock. We cannot progress without negotiations and reconciliation. This deadlock has deepened a significant political divide at the national level, further entangling national politics, the economy, and security matters. Finding a solution and turning the impossible into possible through reconciliation is in the best interest of the state and all parties involved; this should be the national priority.