- By: Barrister Usman Ali, Ph.D.
Following the imposition of emergency measures and governor’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan’s federal government has authorized the provincial governor to administer the province on its behalf, assisted by an 11-member advisory council. Yet transferring authority is only an administrative step. The real test will be whether this intervention improves security and governance. If it fails, Islamabad risks damaging its credibility while giving Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) a political lifeline, pushing questions about the party’s long provincial record into the background.
Relations between the federal government and the PTI-led provincial administration had deteriorated, particularly after a protest march backed by provincial authorities. On October 11, 2026, the federal government imposed emergency measures and governor’s rule and approved troop deployment. It argues that the provincial administration failed to contain terrorism, cooperate with state institutions and take a sufficiently firm position against militant groups. PTI calls the intervention undemocratic and an infringement on provincial autonomy.
Articles 232 and 234 of Pakistan’s Constitution provide for emergency measures and federal intervention in provincial administration under different conditions. Whether those conditions have been met is a legitimate constitutional question. However, these arrangements must not become a permanent substitute for democratic rule.
The security crisis is undeniable. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has endured years of militancy alongside unemployment, economic hardship and administrative weakness. Civilians, soldiers, police officers and other law enforcement personnel have paid a heavy price. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, terrorism-related violence and counterterrorism operations in the first nine months of 2026 killed 319 security personnel and 251 civilians; 1,132 militants were also killed. In the same period of 2025, 327 security personnel and 188 civilians died. Provincial police figures recorded 122 officers killed and 175 injured in the first half of 2026, compared with 63 killed and 84 injured a year earlier.
Senior officers have also been killed, including personnel holding the ranks of lieutenant colonel, major, captain, superintendent and deputy superintendent of police. Kidnappings compound the threat: one research institute reported 54 abductions in 2024 and 127 in 2025. In June 2026, eight police personnel, including a station house officer, were abducted in South Waziristan and later recovered. Assistant Commissioner Shah Wali Khan was killed in a terrorist attack in December 2025, while an Election Commission director general was shot dead in Tank. Such incidents threaten both public safety and the state’s ability to function. They also create fear among public servants and families who must continue working in vulnerable communities despite persistent threats.
The provincial leadership had a duty to cooperate with security institutions and put lives ahead of political disputes. When political confrontation obstructs practical cooperation, ordinary people and frontline personnel bear the consequences, as has happened in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
PTI has governed Khyber Pakhtunkhwa since 2013, apart from caretaker periods. Its record therefore warrants serious scrutiny. How much lasting progress has it delivered in education, healthcare, employment, local government, policing and administrative reform? Many problems remain unresolved, while considerable political energy has gone into confrontation with Islamabad. Rallies and slogans cannot replace effective public services.
PTI should provide measurable evidence for its reform claims, acknowledge failures and explain why fundamental problems persist after 13 years in power. Blaming Islamabad cannot absolve provincial leaders of responsibilities they have exercised for more than a decade.
Leadership choices deserve examination too. The ability to mobilize supporters or confront federal authorities should not outweigh administrative competence, judgment and crisis management when selecting a chief minister. A government absorbed in political confrontation risks neglecting the people it was elected to serve. Political loyalty and campaigning skills are no substitute for the capacity to administer a province facing a major security crisis.
Peaceful protest and dissent are democratic rights. But using public resources unlawfully for political campaigns, disrupting public movement without justification, damaging property or resorting to violence cannot be excused as political activism. Equally, federal authorities must not suppress peaceful protests or legitimate demands through force. The same standards should apply to government and opposition alike.
Disputes over Imran Khan’s imprisonment, access to family and legal counsel, and medical care have also intensified tensions. Every detainee deserves the protections guaranteed by law. After a prison visit, his sister, Dr. Uzma Khan, described his physical condition as stable, while some PTI figures expressed more serious concerns. Contradictory statements should not replace independent medical assessments. Exaggerating illness for political gain would be irresponsible, but dismissing genuine medical concerns would be equally wrong. Physical health, psychological effects of detention and specific medical conditions should be considered separately rather than treated as interchangeable claims.
Social media has widened political participation while amplifying misleading videos, unverified allegations, personal abuse and inflammatory rhetoric. Some overseas commentators and domestic activists have contributed to this deterioration in public debate. Criticism of politicians and state institutions is a right; threats and incitement to violence are not. Any government response must rest on clear laws, evidence, judicial oversight and consistent enforcement, rather than becoming a tool for silencing dissent. The distinction between criticism and unlawful threats must remain clear.
Governor’s rule now needs a credible plan, not just new appointments. Islamabad should publish clear objectives, responsibilities, deadlines and a timetable for restoring constitutional government. Progress should be judged by sustained reductions in attacks, stronger policing, better public services, development work and improvements people can actually feel. Regular public reporting on security incidents, investigations and service delivery would allow citizens to assess results. Excluding elected representatives and local institutions could further undermine long-term stability. Security gains, if achieved, will be difficult to sustain without local trust, accountable policing and functioning civilian institutions.
If the intervention delivers, it may rebuild public confidence. If it fails, questions about its justification will intensify. There is also a political paradox: rather than answering for its provincial performance, PTI could depict itself as the victim of federal overreach. Pakistan’s history shows how heavy-handed measures can generate sympathy for the parties they target. The debate might then shift from PTI’s governance record to its claims of persecution. That outcome is not inevitable, but it is a risk the federal government cannot ignore. By taking responsibility for provincial administration, Islamabad also assumes responsibility for showing that its intervention achieved more than a change in who holds office.
At this critical point, every political party in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has a responsibility beyond point-scoring. They should sit together, identify shared security priorities and help develop practical solutions. When the federal government or provincial administration takes lawful, constructive steps towards peace, rivals should support them, while challenging failures with evidence and workable alternatives. Public safety is not the property of any party; it is a common obligation. Opposition should not mean rejecting every useful initiative, and cooperation should not require abandoning the right to scrutinize those in power.
PTI must also give greater weight to parliamentary engagement, dialogue and accountability than to constant confrontation. Islamabad must hear legitimate grievances, safeguard detainees’ rights and leave the door open to negotiation. The province’s residents need safety, jobs, schools, healthcare and empowered local institutions, not another endless struggle for political advantage.
Ultimately, governor’s rule will be judged by results, not speeches. If terrorism and hardship persist, Islamabad cannot evade responsibility. Success should mean neither PTI’s defeat nor the federal government’s political triumph. It should mean safer communities, stronger democratic institutions and a credible path towards lasting peace.