KP: Understanding the Emergency Rule Impact

Though the federal government has taken control of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by imposing emergency and governor’s rule simultaneously, winning the trust of its people will be harder.

Amid the wave of statements from Islamabad, one question has gone unanswered. What exactly is supposed to change for the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa? Will a shopkeeper feel more secure closing his shop after dark? Will a police officer have information, tools and support? Will parents feel less worried about sending their children to school?

These are not questions. They are the standard by which the emergency and governor’s rule imposed on Oct 11 will eventually be judged. Changing the person in office in Peshawar is not difficult. Changing the conditions that have made parts of the province so open to violence is the real challenge.

Islamabad says the PTI government failed to handle a worsening security situation. PTI sees the move as a punishment that is dressed up as a security decision. The truth cannot be found through conflicting press statements. Both sides need proof, and the government that now holds power has a special duty to provide it.

The political situation has not helped its position. The action followed increasing arguments over protests asking for Imran Khan’s release. That does not on its own show the emergency was politically driven. It does mean the authorities should have been ready for doubts. Inversely, the explanations have come rather slowly, creating the impression that the decision was made first and then it is being justified later.

The Constitution is specific about such actions. Article 232 is about an emergency due to a danger, including internal problems that a province cannot control. Article 234 is about a failure: a provincial government that cannot be run according to the Constitution. Each has its rules and protections. They cannot just be combined into an argument that the situation is bad and therefore Islamabad must take control.

The government should show the reason for each step, the evidence supporting it and the time it believes the action is needed. Parliament must do more than agree to decisions that have already been made. The courts also have a role in checking if special powers are used properly. These protections are not just steps. They are there because governments under pressure are most likely to ignore them.

Think about the confusion about how the emergency applies. On Oct 13, the law minister said the “proclamation covered the province”, but special security measures were being focused in 12 districts. Why was that difference not clear from the start? If people and elected officials cannot easily understand where the powers apply, how can they hold anyone accountable for how they are used?

None of this reduces the risk that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa faces. Violence by militants is real, ongoing and costs a lot. According to data from the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS), reported by The News, there were 225 militant attacks in Pakistan in September, compared with 199 in August. The numbers are serious. They tell us the state must act. They do not say that replacing an elected government with a group of experts will make the response better.

“Democracy’s assassins use the very institutions of democracy—gradually, subtly, and even legally—to kill it.” — Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, “How Democracies Die.”

PTI has some answers to give. It cannot claim that it has support from the people and then treat every call for an explanation of its work as an attack on democracy. What did its government do to make police and courts stronger? Where did working with security agencies fail? How were resources used in districts that had repeated attacks? The public deserves an answer, not another exchange of blame.

Islamabad cannot ignore its part in this either. Hence ,it is clear that fighting terrorism does not fit properly  into the borders of a province or region . Managing the borders, intelligence, military actions, investigations and courts depends on a network of organisations. When that network fails, responsibility cannot be blamed on one leader. It also does not make sense for the centre to claim it can fix the problem now while denying any role in how the problem was created.

Then there are the arrests. If the state has a reason for their arrest, it must say what it is. Allow for a proper court review. Politics, even when it is not convenient, is not a crime. The line between disagreement and violence must stay even during an emergency. Especially during an emergency.

The idea of a group of experts to run the province needs to be checked. Expertise is good. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa needs people who can manage hospitals well, work budgets that are reliable and a police force that can do its job. Being good at managing and having the approval of the people are not the same thing. A group chosen by the government can make decisions. It cannot say that the people who live with those decisions have chosen it.

There is also a move that Islamabad should not ignore. Taking PTI out of government may make it easier for the party to avoid the tasks of governing while letting it say that every problem is the centre’s fault. If attacks continue, the question will be clear: what did the governor’s rule achieve that an elected government could not? Extra power brings responsibility. It does not mean escaping blame.

Therefore ,There is a great  solution that can actually work, though it is not as dramatic one as another announcement by the authorities . Parliament should review the legal basis and security goals, including closed-door sessions where sensitive details are protected. The government should share updates on progress: attacks stopped or looked into, cases finished, families helped, schools open and communities able to go back to normal life. Less talk from the press would not be a loss; more real information would be a gain.

Meanwhile, a way to talk politically must stay open. Representatives from the suspended government, other political groups, local people and military officials need a place to deal with their differences, not just to voice them. Police changes, helping witnesses, helping victims and dealing with the problems in poor areas cannot wait for a perfect political deal. They are part of the security plan, not things to add.

Most of all, Islamabad must explain how and when the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa can get their government back within the rules of the Constitution and with the help of Parliament and courts. An emergency without a way out can become a habit. Pakistan has had enough of plans that last longer than they should.

The people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa should not have to choose between safety and having a say in how they’re ruled. The government owes them both. If this action is really about saving lives, its success will be in communities and better organisations. Not just in taking one political party out of power. Power can be given quickly. Trust cannot.