Barrister Usman Ali
Political maneuvering to bring down the government in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) has reached a fever pitch. Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) claims it has secured the numbers needed to form a new government, declaring itself fully prepared to take the reins. Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) (PML-N), meanwhile, has made it clear that it will not vote for the PPP’s candidate. But in a telling sign of how power works in Pakistan, it will support the no-confidence motion against the sitting prime minister, opening the door for a change in government without going to the polls. Consultations at the federal level are already underway, and a formal transfer of power appears imminent. The political landscape in AJK has been jolted ,and the tremors are echoing through the corridors of power in Islamabad.
In the 2021 general elections, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) secured 25 of the 53 seats in the legislative assembly, giving it a clear majority. PPP won 11 seats and PML-N took 6. After the allocation of reserved seats and behind-the-scenes deals, the numbers shifted slightly but PTI maintained control. Yet internal fractures, court rulings, and shifting alliances in the opposition have shaken that foundation. In just four years, AJK has seen three prime ministers replaced ,and a fourth change is on the horizon. Abdul Qayyum Niazi was ousted in 2022 after internal party revolt. Sardar Tanveer Ilyas followed but was disqualified by the courts in 2023, leading to Chaudhry Anwar-ul-Haq taking office. None of these transitions involved fresh elections. All were “in-house” power shifts ,the arithmetic of survival in a fragile parliamentary structure.
PPP’s latest push is built around alliances with a forward bloc and those familiar “political migratory birds” , lawmakers who drift with the wind and pledge loyalty to whoever seems poised to win. A key dinner at Sindh House in Islamabad, hosted by senior PPP leader Faryal Talpur, gathered these lawmakers. They declared full confidence in the leadership and pledged their support, as they have done with others in the past, only to switch sides again when circumstances changed. The party is presenting this as a democratic triumph, but in reality it is a continuation of the same political culture that has undermined democratic institutions for decades. Forward blocs, fluid loyalties, and backroom bargaining are not anomalies; they are the operating system of Pakistani politics. In AJK, it’s merely a smaller stage for the same national play.
This pattern is not new. Since 1947, most governments in Pakistan have fallen not through normal democratic processes but through pressure, manipulation, or outright intervention. Khawaja Nazimuddin was dismissed in 1953, and the Tamizuddin Khan case dealt an early blow to parliamentary sovereignty. Muhammad Ayub Khan imposed martial law in 1958, halting democratic evolution. In the 1970s, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto dismissed National Awami Party’s provincial government in Balochistan and imposed governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, setting a precedent for federal overreach. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq overthrew Bhutto in 1977, ushering in an era of repeated dismissals under Article 58(2)(b). Pervez Musharraf followed suit in 1999. Even after the restoration of civilian rule in 2008, real power remained heavily influenced from behind the scenes.
In 2018, the election was marred by the sudden collapse of the Results Transmission System (RTS), a fact acknowledged even by the Election Commission of Pakistan. Opposition parties and observers alleged widespread manipulation, accusing elements in the military and judiciary of tilting the playing field in favor of PTI. The party went on to form governments in the center and provinces through deals with independents and forward bloc members. Whether or not these allegations were ever legally proven, the political damage was real: public trust in electoral fairness took a serious blow. Similar doubts are already swirling around the 2024 electoral process.
The role of turncoats and forward blocs has been a consistent cancer in Pakistan’s political system. These are not ideological defectors but transactional actors, motivated by personal gain, coercion, or the promise of power. Their loyalty is to opportunity, not principle. Every major party has relied on them at some point. In 1988, the establishment backed the Islamic Democratic Alliance to counter PPP. When PML-N came to power, it used the same tactics it had once condemned. In 2002, Pakistan Muslim League (Q) assembled a government by buying off independents. In 2018, PTI did the same. And if current trends are any guide, PPP is ready to repeat the cycle in AJK.
The contrast with mature democracies is stark. In countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, when a government loses its majority, it steps down or seeks a fresh mandate through elections. Lawmakers who break with their parties resign or wait for voters to judge them at the next polls. There are no forward blocs, no secret deals, and no manufactured numbers. That is what lends those systems their stability, not perfection, but the primacy of rules over opportunism.
For Pakistan, this is the real test. If democracy is to mean anything more than slogans, the culture of horse-trading must end. Lawmakers who defect should automatically lose their seats. Parties should resist the temptation of short-term victories through backroom deals. When a government loses its majority, the legitimate path is new elections ,not power games orchestrated in drawing rooms and guest houses. This message is especially relevant for PPP, which has itself been targeted many times by the same tactics it is now using. What goes around comes around. Power secured through manipulation is temporary; legitimacy earned through the ballot is enduring.
This moment demands courage from Pakistan’s political class. Respect for the people’s mandate ,not manufactured majorities, is the foundation of any real democracy. Unless parties end the politics of turncoats, forward blocs, and backdoor deals, the democratic project will remain stuck in a loop of instability. If they refuse, then their lofty speeches about constitutionalism and democracy will ring hollow. Slogans don’t build systems, principled choices do. And Pakistan’s history has already shown where the other path leads.
Leave a Reply