national dialog

Although the state of Pakistan has always been in a never-ending crisis since its inception (or that is what generations of Pakistanis have experienced), the irony is that never has anyone been held accountable for putting the country in these situations. What’s worse, a blame game continues till date, where successive governments blame their predecessors for the mess. For more than half of its history, Pakistan has been ruled by military dictators, who also cannot be absolved from their role in our turbulent and traumatic past. Pakistan is again, unfortunately, passing through tough times owing to political polarisation, economic instability and resurgence of terrorism.

Political polarisation has reached to a level where the opposition and government are unwilling to even sit and talk through their contentious, at times, petty issues. The primary objective of both sides is to hold or gain power. No side is thinking about the miseries faced by ordinary citizens of the state.

Similarly on the economic front, the situation is highly discouraging. While inflation has reached a record high, the value of rupee is continuously falling, and our foreign exchange reserves are at an extremely low level. The problem with the economic situation is that Pakistan produces less and consumes more and is excessively reliant on loans to run state affairs and thus, debt has increased exponentially. Last year, this situation worsened due to catastrophic floods at the domestic level and the rise in global food and fuel prices because of the Russia-Ukraine War. These factors have led to an unprecedentedly dismal economic situation in Pakistan.

More recently, encouraged by the establishment of Taliban government in Afghanistan, Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the terrorist organisation responsible for the death of thousands of Pakistanis, has regrouped and once again initiated its heinous activities. Various attempts to negotiate with the TTP (upon repeated propositions from Afghan Taliban) have failed. These negotiations were bound to fail because TTP has not been willing to accept the Constitution of Pakistan as the ultimate canonical document of the state. Last year, TTP was responsible for at least 150 attacks inside Pakistan, resulting in more than 150 deaths. These attacks continue till date, the latest on a mosque in Police Lines Peshawar where a suicide bomber detonated himself during mid-day prayer congregation, martyring more than 100 worshippers.

In Pakistan, when a government is elected or comes to power through a coup d’Ă©tat, it gets busy making efforts to legitimise itself, complete or prolong its term rather than focusing on national development and/or economic uplift. This results in chaos at the domestic level and exposes vulnerabilities that are exploited by external forces.

In order to find a way out of this incessant situation, there is a dire need to initiate a national dialogue. The focus of this dialogue should be political stability, economic revival, rule of law, curbing terrorism, etc. Redefining the role of every state institution and then binding each to its constitutional role may also be a part of this discussion.  In short, the focus of this entire exercise should be to reform the governance of the country.

While several national think tanks have been working towards this end, they have had limited impact, thus far, due to certain lacunas. The problem is who hosts/moderates such a dialogue and who should take part in it.

Given the growing hostilities between state institutions and political parties, no state institution or political figure can host it. At several forums, organised by the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies, it has been recommended that well-respected, apolitical people from civil society should voluntarily step forward to host such a dialogue. All stakeholders, including the incumbent government, opposition, and other national-level political parties, along with representatives from the judiciary, Armed Forces and intelligence agencies, should be invited to participate. There should be open and free discussion about the issues faced by Pakistan. The dialogue should end with a consensus roadmap document with defined objectives ending the political polarisation, reviving the economy, drawing clear and definite boundaries for all state institutions, an agreement for revamping the judicial system to provide speedy justice to people, a plan to deal with the menace of terrorism and a comprehensive check and balance mechanism to ensure adherence by all parties involved. The next important step would be the implementation of the agreed roadmap. The decisions of the dialogue should be given legal cover and accountability mechanisms, making it binding on all stakeholders to implement the agreed upon measures.

The current situation calls for serious deliberation on how Pakistan can move forward from where it is right now rather than beating the old drum of ‘who is responsible’ since in case of the latter, perhaps each and every one of us is responsible, in one way or the other. The dialogue may give hope to the people of Pakistan assuring them that serious efforts are being made to bring the country out of this unending cataract of crises.

Zuhaib Anwar is a Research Assistant at the Centre for Aerospace & Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »