A clear reflection of this fractured state is the party’s handling of one of its most pressing challenges: securing the release of Imran Khan. Despite his nearly two-year imprisonment, PTI’s efforts in this regard have been sporadic at best and timid at worst. While leaders continue to invoke resistance and defiance in rhetoric, their actions betray a lack of resolve.
One case in point is the Chief Minister of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Ali Amin Gandapur, who has made numerous aggressive statements about the consequences of any move to suppress the party or obstruct protest movements. Yet, when the time comes to stand in solidarity, he evaporates like mist in the morning sun. This brand of performative bravado has eroded the confidence of party workers and raised serious questions about the K-P government’s willingness to genuinely challenge the prevailing status quo.
Meanwhile, the PTI diaspora, particularly those based in the United States, have assumed the role of digital activists, leveraging monetised platforms to engage in political commentary. While their efforts may reflect a sense of loyalty, their rhetoric is increasingly detached from the structural and political realities on the ground. The political order in Pakistan has been effectively taken hostage by entrenched power centres, and challenging it requires nuanced strategy rather than provocative sloganeering. Unfortunately, much of the diaspora’s messaging resorts to coarse and inflammatory language against state institutions, in particular. Such narratives do not advance political objectives; rather, they harden institutional hostility, further isolating Khan and potentially prolonging his incarceration.
Then there are those leaders who have gone into hiding. Their reluctance to surface is understandable in a climate of state pressure and arbitrary arrests, but the frequent release of statements by them only compound Khan’s troubles. These individuals are often deeply dissatisfied with the conduct of party representatives, whether inside or outside the assemblies. Their statements consistently reveal internal discord, as they insist on an uncompromising adherence to Imran Khan’s directives and reject any negotiation with the government or engagement with power centres. Their suspicion of other party members and rejection of political pragmatism narrow down the space for dialogue and reconciliation. Such rhetoric not only closes the door on political resolution but also confuses the party’s supporters and undermines strategic coherence.
The fourth group comprises those sitting in legislatures across the Centre and provinces. These are elected representatives who enjoy the legitimacy of the vote and yet fail to act as tribunes of the man who made their political careers possible. Why? Because Khan’s release could spell the end of their relevance. The current arrangement allows them to function within the power structure — albeit marginally — without the disruptive presence of Imran Khan.
At present, the most sincere and sustained efforts to secure Imran Khan’s release appear to come from his sisters and a small group of committed ideological party workers, both within Pakistan and among the diaspora. However, a striking irony persists: PTI’s official leadership largely refuses to acknowledge these actors. Khan’s sisters are often dismissed on the pretext that they “do not understand politics”, while the contributions of ideological workers are met with indifference and increasingly viewed as a burden on the party’s compromised positions and shifting strategies.
The situation bears a haunting resemblance to the aftermath of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s incarceration. Many of Bhutto’s party men shook hands with General Zia-ul-Haq, enabling the machinery of repression to move forward while Bhutto climbed the gallows. PTI risks repeating the same historical error.
Imran Khan, for all his strengths, is not beyond critique. His tenure as Prime Minister saw multiple miscalculations: inconsistent economic management, alienation of allies, and a premature attempt to become part of the power structure he once opposed. He built enormous political capital through sheer public engagement, but squandered it by stepping into the shoes of the power-that-be too soon. Had he waited, he might have exhausted the hybrid model and returned with full civilian strength. He had the rare opportunity to dismantle the status quo and pave the way for a truly democratic order – one where elected representative, not unelected institutions, held sway. That moment was lost.
Unless PTI’s leadership rediscovers its purpose, aligns itself with a realistic strategy and is willing to put life, fortune and political capital on the line, Khan’s imprisonment will not end.
As Martin Luther King Jr once said in his ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’, “We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability… We must be prepared to undergo hard training, to stand firm in discipline and purpose.”
Nelson Mandela, too, reminded us that, “Forgiveness liberates the soul… It removes fear. That’s why it is such a powerful weapon.” His decision to forgive his incarcerators paved the way for national reconciliation and his own rise to power.
The call for disciplined political engagement is more urgent than ever for PTI, whose leadership must recognise that inflexible positions and rigid thinking seldom produce meaningful or lasting political transformation.
But the million-dollar question is: do those currently in power within PTI, the ones cashing in on Imran Khan’s name through social media and those living comfortably in luxury abroad truly want to see him released? Or is keeping him behind bars simply more convenient for their power and profit?