ISLAMABAD:
As Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) intensifies preparations for a street movement and the establishment maintains a firm stance against the opposition party, Pakistan’s political landscape remains plagued by uncertainty and growing mistrust.
In this context, a senior minister in the PML-N government has once again raised the idea of a high-level dialogue involving the country’s main power centres, an idea that has emerged before but has never gone beyond rhetoric.
The Prime Minister’s Political Affairs Advisor Rana Sanaullah recently outlined what he described as a meeting of the country’s five key stakeholders.
According to Sanaullah, two of them are Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif, while the third is President Asif Ali Zardari.
The fourth, he said, is the PTI’s jailed founder Imran Khan, adding that “everyone knows who the fifth is,” a comment widely interpreted as a reference to military leaders.
Indeed, Sanaullah’s comments amounted to a call for dialogue between Pakistan’s political leaders and the establishment. However, analysts point out that identifying stakeholders is much easier than persuading them to sit on the other side of the table.
Previous attempts to arrange high-level compromises have failed, leading to skepticism over whether the latest proposal represents anything more than a political phrase.
Former PTI leader Fawad Chaudhry ruled out the feasibility of the proposal under the prevailing conditions.
“It is not possible in the current political climate,” he said, arguing that the real obstacle lies in the unwillingness of both the government and the establishment to engage in genuine dialogue.
His comments underscore the depth of mistrust that continues to paralyze political engagement.
Journalist and political analyst Mazhar Abbas echoed that assessment, saying Sanaullah’s proposal lacked practical substance.
“Rana Sanaullah’s proposal lacks practical follow-up,” Abbas said, stressing that the responsibility for initiating dialogue lies with the government.
He maintained that confidence-building measures, including notification to opposition leaders in Parliament and allowing PTI leaders to access Imran Khan, were prerequisites for any meaningful engagement. In the absence of such measures, he suggested, the proposal seemed more symbolic than viable.
Veteran political analyst Hassan Askari also expressed doubt, saying dialogue was unlikely under the current circumstances due to wide political differences and deep-rooted mistrust. Without genuine confidence-building measures, he warned, political deadlock would persist.
Adding another layer of complexity, Rana Sanaullah has said that confidence-building would only be possible if social media accounts that allegedly run hate campaigns against the army and its leaders were closed.
Responding to this, Mazhar Abbas said that such concerns could be raised once the talks were underway. He argued that the immediate priority should be to initiate dialogue rather than setting preconditions that further delay engagement.
Hassan Askari, for his part, stressed that building trust must be reciprocal.
“Just as Rana Sanaullah is making a demand, the PTI also has certain demands. Both sides should reach a compromise instead of waiting for the other to act without offering anything in return,” he said. “Trust-building occurs on a reciprocal basis.”
As debate continues over the deadlock in dialogue, attention has also focused on whether Nawaz Sharif could play a more active role, an idea raised by Mehmood Khan Achakzai and other PML-N figures.
Mazhar Abbas noted that Achakzai enjoys direct access to Nawaz Sharif and that the former prime minister could take the lead. Given their cordial relationship, Sharif’s participation could help open channels between the government and the opposition.
Hassan Askari, however, urged caution, arguing that it was premature to speculate on Nawaz Sharif’s role. In his opinion, those who wield real power must first align themselves. Without an understanding between the prime minister and the army chief, he said, dialogue will remain elusive.
Similar questions have been raised about President Zardari’s potential role in overcoming the deadlock. Abbas noted that Zardari could not act independently and that his participation would depend on a broader agreement between the government and the opposition.
Askari agreed, saying the president had no autonomous authority in this regard. Real influence, he argued, lies with the prime minister, the establishment and Imran Khan, and until these three accommodate each other, meaningful dialogue will remain out of reach.
Seen from this perspective, the prospects for flexibility on the part of the establishment seem limited. Mazhar Abbas noted that the establishment continues to maintain a hard line on the PTI, Afghanistan and terrorism-related issues, leaving little room for an immediate agreement.
Hassan Askari agreed, concluding that dialogue will only be possible when stakeholders prioritize compromise over confrontation, take reciprocal action and move beyond deep-rooted grievances. Until then, Pakistan, he said, will remain trapped in political limbo.
