Emergency and governor’s rule: KPK at a crossroads

EDITORIAL: With the federal government following through on its threat to impose emergency and governor’s rule on Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) on October 11, under Articles 232 and 234 of the Constitution respectively, Pakistan’s democratic project has descended further into murky waters, as the displacement of an elected provincial government deepens the country’s already entrenched democratic deficit.

Although federal ministers sought to justify the move at a press conference by accusing the PTI government in KPK of failing to effectively tackle militancy and cooperate with the Centre on security, and of frustrating repeated attempts at a negotiated settlement, whether overriding the electorate’s mandate was the most appropriate response to the province’s precarious security situation remains a troubling question.

There is little doubt that militant violence in KPK has escalated in recent years, demanding a more effective response and a concerted effort to restore the writ of the state and the rule of law. The PTI government, too, has had its failings on security and governance, particularly with its persistent emphasis on dialogue with militant groups despite evidence of their unwillingness to renounce violence and continued defiance of the state. But the problem extends beyond the performance of any one administration.

Law enforcement agencies have repeatedly warned that the gains made through military operations are difficult to sustain without meaningful political engagement with local communities and effective civilian governance in affected areas. Without these, militant networks can re-emerge, undoing gains secured at considerable human and financial cost.

For local communities, this cycle is deeply dispiriting. They endure repeated operations, displacement and livelihood losses, only to see militancy persist or return. This erodes trust in the state’s ability to deliver lasting peace, weakening residents’ willingness to support operations or cooperate against militants for fear that the latter will eventually return.

Breaking this cycle requires not only effective security measures but also political outreach, responsive administration and a sustained state presence after operations conclude. These are objectives that depend on functioning civilian institutions and the cooperation of elected representatives, making political engagement more, not less, important.

Against this backdrop, the Centre’s decision to impose governor’s rule appears to be a step too far.

The deteriorating security situation warranted decisive intervention, but the federal government could have limited itself to imposing an emergency under Article 232, allowing the chief minister, the provincial cabinet and the KPK Assembly to continue functioning while granting Islamabad extensive powers to address the security crisis. These include the power to legislate on provincial matters during the emergency, with federal law prevailing over conflicting provincial legislation.

Such an arrangement would have strengthened the Centre’s hand without suspending the entire elected provincial executive. Instead, governor’s rule under Article 234 transfers executive authority to the governor and places the provincial assembly’s legislative powers in Parliament’s hands.

The decision, then, signals not only the Centre’s profound distrust of the PTI administration, but also ends up disregarding the mandate given to it by KPK’s voters.

The immediate priority must now be to prevent this confrontation from becoming another obstacle to lasting peace in the province. The federal government and the PTI must return to the negotiating table to agree on a workable counterterrorism strategy, ensure effective coordination between federal and provincial authorities, and pave the way for the restoration of the elected KPK government.

Governor’s rule must not become an extended substitute for political engagement. Its purpose, if it is to be justified at all, must be narrowly defined and temporarily, with the restoration of the elected government as the overriding objective.

KPK’s people deserve security, functioning governance and a meaningful say in their future. They should not have to choose between the state’s protection from militancy and their democratic right to be governed by their elected representatives.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026