Islamabad, Oct 25 — The imposition of emergency and Governor's Rule in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province on October 11 and the removal of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf-led provincial government of Chief Minister Sohail Afridi and his subsequent arrest could have key political consequences, a media report said.
Noting that the Federal government cited "escalating militant violence and the provincial administration’s alleged failure to co-operate adequately with counter-terrorism operations as the reason for the decision", journalist Raja Muneeb, in an article titled "Islamabad’s Governor’s Rule Gambit: How Pakistan’s Political Interventions Deepen Alienation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" for ‘The Pamphlet', argued that while the security threat is real, forceful removal of the government can’t be the solution because, rather than controlling the militant activities, it would deepen the political alienation that would undermine the democratic institutions of the state.
The PTI has rejected the Federal government's allegation, calling the move politically motivated and an attempt to overturn its electoral mandate.
The article highlights that Pakistan has a history of removing provincial governments and cited the example of how Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto removed the provincial government of Chief Minister Sardar Inayatullah Khan Gandapur in NWFP, as the province was then called, in 1975.
According to Muneeb, the dismissal was part of the wider confrontation between Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the National Awami Party (NAP). "NAP was banned in 1975, and the confrontation between Islamabad and its nationalist opponents escalated into a broader political crackdown," he wrote.
Muneeb further said that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s "present crisis extends far beyond Governor’s Rule", as he identified the key historical roots that gave birth to the militancy crisis in the province.
Firstly, the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan made Pakistan a major centre of the Afghan mujahideen campaign, helping create networks that outlasted the conflict.
Secondly, the 2007 emergence of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which marked a major escalation of militant violence inside Pakistan.
Also, military operations and displacement in Swat, South Waziristan, North Waziristan, and other districts experienced militant control, military operations, and mass displacement.
The article further sheds light on PTI’s history of governing Khyber Pakhtunkhwa since 2013 and retaining a substantial political base in the 2024 general elections. The now-removed government provided an important political platform for the supporters of former Prime Minister Imran Khan. Muneeb stated that removing an elected government with a substantial constituency raised questions about the political motivations of the federal intervention.
The article states that the Federal government invoked articles 232 and 234 of Pakistan’s Constitution, citing militant violence and provincial administrations’ alleged failure to respond effectively.
Meanwhile, PTI has rejected the allegations of the government that the former was unable to contain the militant activities in the region and said that the removal of the Chief Minister was politically motivated to weaken a political rival.
The article also highlights that the latest move dictates that electoral mandates can be overridden for political reasons, and further marginalises PTI supporters. It argued that centralised control may intensify the instability in the region which it initially sought to control. It further stated that to actually counter terrorism, the central government might have to find a solution rather than dissolve an elected government.