Author: Ayaz Amir
Original Publication: Roznama Dunya
More than three and a half years after Pakistan’s political order was reshaped under a hybrid arrangement, the promise of stability remains unfulfilled. In a hard-hitting column, senior journalist Ayaz Amir argues that prolonged political imprisonment, relentless propaganda, and claims of economic recovery have failed to address the country’s real crisis: deep-rooted anxiety within the system itself. As inflation bites, public trust erodes, and dissent persists despite repression, the gap between official narratives and ground realities continues to widen—raising urgent questions about governance, legitimacy, and Pakistan’s political future.
What has actually been achieved?
History offers sharp contrasts. In three years, figures like Napoleon and Hitler reshaped Europe. In Pakistan’s case, however, the period following regime change raises a far more troubling question: what has actually been achieved? The Constitution has been visibly distorted, the credibility of the judiciary questioned, and an unprecedented wave of cases, convictions, and political pressure unleashed. Yet despite all this, the core problem persists—fear, restlessness, and political insecurity remain intact.
“Stability” has been restored
Authorities continue to claim that “stability” has been restored. But can today’s Pakistan truly be described as stable? Inflation continues to crush ordinary citizens, purchasing power has plummeted, and public frustration is visible everywhere. Despite official declarations that the economy has recovered, people struggling to afford daily necessities experience a very different reality. These claims, Amir argues, border on mockery.
Instead of relief, new pressures are being imposed on the poorest segments of society—street vendors, daily wage earners, and small traders—through excessive fines and enforcement drives. Traffic challans multiply, and the already distressed public feels further suffocated. Certain ministers appear more focused on issuing provocative statements than addressing real governance challenges. The fundamental disconnect remains: the government operates in isolation, while a clear majority of public opinion stands firmly elsewhere.
Despite relentless propaganda campaigns, public sentiment has not shifted. Official narratives are widely disbelieved, and sustained attacks against a particular political party and its leader have failed to weaken their popular support. Social media has only amplified this disconnect, exposing contradictions and turning state-crafted narratives into subjects of ridicule.
Reality contradicts rhetoric?
If economic indicators had genuinely improved, if inflation had eased and living standards had risen, perhaps such narratives might have gained traction. But performance is visible and undeniable, and excessive political repression only deepens the credibility gap. The question, therefore, remains unavoidable: how can public acceptance be achieved when reality contradicts rhetoric?
A telling example, Amir notes, was the handling of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Chief Minister’s private visit to Lahore. Markets were shut down out of fear that public gatherings might expose popular sentiment. A more confident and democratic response, providing protocol, security, and allowing political engagement, would have enhanced the government’s image. Instead, insecurity prevailed, damaging the Punjab government’s reputation rather than that of the visiting leader.
Economically, uncertainty continues to dominate. Whisper campaigns against the finance minister reflect deeper instability. Had the hybrid system been capable of delivering results, it would have done so by now. Instead, the economy survives on borrowed support. The textile sector is collapsing, exports remain stagnant, imports continue to rise, and despite the creation of investment facilitation bodies, tangible foreign investment remains questionable.
Ayaz Amir also turns to symbolism and state representation. While personal criticism is avoided, he points out that a prime minister represents the country wherever he goes. Diplomatic settings demand decorum and consistency. Unconventional attire at international forums, bright ties, double-breasted suits, or ill-suited blazers, may appear trivial, but they shape global perceptions of the state. Leadership style, including presentation, carries national implications.
Where is the country headed?
Ultimately, the larger concern is direction. Where is the country headed? What is the destination? Political stagnation mirrors economic paralysis. Courage and political maturity are required, especially in handling prisoners of conscience. Detentions are not voluntary, and while freedom is curtailed, basic rights must still be respected. Restrictions on family visits only intensify political tension rather than easing it.
Reducing political hostility is not a concession, it is a necessity. Allowing lawful meetings between family members will not cause the system to collapse. Instead, it may signal confidence, humanity, and a willingness to de-escalate. Without such steps, anxiety will persist, prisons will remain full, and stability will remain an illusion rather than a reality.
Author: Ayaz Ameer
Original Publication: Roznama Dunya
(Adapted & Reported in English for Web Publication)