Tahir Maqsood Chheena
In the complex landscape of Pakistani politics, the use of measured and temperate language remains a cornerstone of responsible governance and public engagement. While robust criticism is an inherent part of any vibrant democracy, the increasing use of harsh invectives by politicians — and now even elements within the security establishment — has created a worrying trend of verbal escalation. In today’s climate of polarisation and short tempers, the parameters of acceptable discourse are being dangerously stretched, threatening the norms of civility and the stability of institutional relationships.
A recent press briefing by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) on Friday illustrates this growing concern. The remarks, which targeted the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) and its founder Imran Khan without explicitly naming him, were unusually harsh. Mr. Khan was labelled a “mentally ill” individual and a “security risk,” while the PTI was accused of colluding with foreign actors, including India and the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). The civilian leadership appeared to endorse these statements, with the Information Minister affirming “every word” and the Defence Minister defending the press briefing. Such public characterisations of a major political party and its leadership by an institution of the state cross the boundary of normal political critique and signal a concerning departure from democratic norms.
Targeting political opponents is not new in Pakistan. Historically, the military has, at various points, questioned the patriotic credentials of politicians it sought to remove from power, only to politically rehabilitate some later. Figures such as Fatima Jinnah during the Ayub Khan era experienced such treatment, reflecting the longstanding entanglement of politics and institutional authority. Politicians themselves have also been no strangers to harsh rhetoric, often levelling accusations of corruption or anti-state conduct against rivals. Leaders like Ghaffar Khan, Wali Khan, Benazir Bhutto, and Nawaz Sharif have all faced politically charged verbal attacks in the past, illustrating that Pakistan’s political culture has long included personal and institutional critique.
However, the intensity and nature of recent language represents a new level of toxicity. Imran Khan, the subject of Friday’s ISPR briefing, has himself employed coarse language against both political rivals and elements within the military, exacerbating tensions. Yet, the escalation from political rhetoric to terms that question an individual’s mental health or loyalty to the state marks a significant and worrying shift. Such discourse does not only polarise public opinion; it undermines the credibility of institutions, erodes trust, and distracts from urgent governance challenges facing the nation.
The implications of this trend are particularly serious for national institutions and public office-holders. Those tasked with safeguarding the country — whether through governance, security, or oversight — carry the responsibility to exercise restraint in their statements. The constitutional framework delineates clear boundaries of authority and accountability. Violating these norms by using language that equates political opposition with threats to the state risks inflaming divisions and weakening the country’s ability to respond effectively to pressing challenges, including terrorism, economic instability, and regional security tensions.
Furthermore, this culture of verbal escalation does little to resolve Pakistan’s ongoing political crises. It fosters mistrust between civilian and military actors, encourages retaliatory rhetoric, and makes constructive dialogue increasingly difficult. For democracy to function, it is essential that political critique remains rooted in policy and performance evaluation rather than personal attacks or unfounded allegations of anti-state behaviour. Healthy competition and accountability are central to democratic governance, but they must operate within a framework that respects institutional integrity and public confidence.
The PTI, despite its internal challenges and missteps, continues to enjoy significant public support. Criticism of the party, as with any political formation, should focus on policies, governance records, and electoral accountability. Equating political opposition with anti-state tendencies risks alienating millions of citizens whose electoral choices reflect genuine democratic participation. In a democracy, dissent and critique are not only expected but necessary. The state, its institutions, and political actors must ensure that dissent is not criminalised through the language of intimidation or delegitimisation.
Ending this cycle of toxicity requires a conscious effort from all stakeholders. Politicians must moderate their rhetoric, focusing on constructive debate rather than personal attacks. Security and other state institutions must confine themselves to their constitutional mandates, avoiding engagement in political character assessments. Media, civil society, and opinion leaders also have a role to play by promoting discourse that values evidence, policy debate, and reasoned argumentation over sensationalism. Only through collective responsibility can Pakistan’s political culture evolve towards maturity and stability.
In the current climate, measured language is not merely a courtesy; it is a strategic necessity. Pakistan faces significant internal and external challenges, including economic pressures, regional tensions, and the threat of terrorism. In such circumstances, divisive rhetoric weakens the national response to crises and risks creating enduring political fractures. Constructive engagement and respectful critique can foster public trust, improve institutional effectiveness, and encourage collaborative governance across the political spectrum.
Ultimately, democracy thrives on debate, dissent, and differing viewpoints. Yet, for democratic institutions to remain resilient, debate must occur within norms of civility and legality. Labelling opponents as enemies of the state, or casting aspersions on mental fitness and loyalty, is not only counterproductive; it threatens the very fabric of national cohesion. Pakistan’s future depends on a culture of responsible discourse, where differences are managed through dialogue, policy critique, and democratic processes rather than through invective and mistrust.
The pressing need of the hour is to reclaim political discourse in Pakistan. Politicians, security officials, and public office-holders must all adhere to a principle of measured, respectful, and evidence-based communication. By doing so, Pakistan can navigate its political, economic, and security challenges more effectively, reinforcing democratic norms while safeguarding institutional credibility. Tempered language, in politics, is not optional — it is a pillar of national stability and a prerequisite for sustainable governance.
<a href=”http://republicpolicy.com”>Follow Republic Policy</a>
