The Economist published a highly scrutinized report alleging that Bushra Bibi, the wife and former spiritual guide of ex–Prime Minister Imran Khan, exerted unusually deep “spiritual” and political influence over key decisions during his tenure. According to the magazine, her purported role extended far beyond that of a private spouse, shaping major government appointments, policy choices, and even routine state operations.
The report claims that intelligence briefings were allegedly routed to her, that policy was swayed by her dreams and visions, and that Khan’s marriage to her may have been politically motivated. These allegations raise troubling questions about the intrusion of mysticism, personal loyalty, and informal power networks into the core machinery of Pakistan’s governance.
If true, the claims carry wide-ranging implications for Pakistan’s political stability and global reputation. They reinforce concerns that national decision-making may have been influenced by unverified spiritual counsel rather than institutional merit or strategic reasoning, potentially weakening public trust and international confidence. The controversy has intensified Pakistan’s already polarized political climate, contributing to public frustration and fears that key institutions were strained rather than strengthened during PTI’s tenure. For many citizens, the ongoing disputes involving Bushra Bibi, Farah Khan, and PTI leadership deepen the sense that personal influence and irregular practices overshadowed national interests, leaving behind greater division, instability, and institutional fragility.
Citizens across Pakistan distinctly recall how, during the PTI government’s period in office, the names of Bushra Bibi and Farha Gogi were in constant circulation across media discussions, political rally speeches, and private drawing-room conversations. Critics frequently argued that figures personally close to Imran appeared far too often in politically sensitive discussions for the comfort of institutionalists, and these critics claimed that the distinct impression created was that informal, unverified networks were systematically acquiring far greater significance than the established, official channels of governance. The prevailing perception is that such figures became symbols of unaccountable and arbitrary influence. The PTI’s years in government are often remembered not for foundational institutional strengthening but for a torrent of controversies, including disputes over appointments, perceived governance paralysis, and continuous high-pitched political confrontation, whose lingering shadow continues to influence politics.
The most troubling aspect is not any single incident, but rather how deeply personal relationships, narrow goals, and personal political survival consistently appeared to take precedence over the country’s broader well-being. In public conversations, heated television debates, and prolific social media engagement, it is frequently asserted that the PTI’s political strategy, both during its time in government and its subsequent period in opposition, has consistently revolved around confrontation with the state, the judiciary, and the military establishment, rather than institutional cooperation. People commonly say the PTI often framed simple political disagreements as existential, thereby polarizing the country further. Furthermore, instead of delivering meaningful reforms or stability, PTI’s governance was perpetually overshadowed by internal conflicts, administrative uncertainty, and a growing divide between government and key national institutions.
In the current volatile political climate, Pakistanis commonly express alarm at the PTI’s continued reluctance to align itself unequivocally with the national security consensus, particularly on counter-terrorism. The most sensitive concern relates directly to KP, whose population is again facing intensifying terrorism. Civilians, policemen and soldiers have been tragically killed in repeated attacks.
The people of KP have endured two continuous decades on the frontline of the long war against various militant groups, and for them, national unity in the face of terrorism is not merely an abstract political slogan but a matter of survival. They rightfully expect every single political actor, regardless of affiliation, to fully support the state, the military, and all law-enforcement agencies. However, the PTI’s public positions on counter-terrorism operations appear evasive, contradictory, or outright obstructive. People believe it is actively resisting actions essential for restoring stability. The citizens commonly interpret the PTI’s approach as being primarily politically motivated.
The time has definitively come for the public to demand rigorous accountability, not merely for traditional corruption or administrative incompetence, but also for political behaviour that undermines national cohesion. Whether these concerns will ultimately shape future politics remains crucial, but the sentiment is unequivocally clear: people desire stability, unity, and a leadership firmly grounded in responsible action, not self-serving personal agendas.
Criticism intensified dramatically when the KP provincial government, led by CM Sohail Afridi, decided to oppose the regulations associated with the Action in Aid of Civil Power. This 2011 ordinance had been carefully designed to provide necessary legal backing for the sustained presence of security forces within the tribal areas during the absolute height of the militancy. Crucially, it established structured mechanisms for the detention of individuals clearly linked to terrorist organizations in specially designated centres, while simultaneously ensuring vital oversight measures such as the establishment of civilian-military boards, defined time limits for detention, and rules prohibiting any torture.
Its entire purpose was to create a legally defined, structured, and accountable framework for counter-terrorism operations devastated by extremist violence. The ordinance was correctly viewed as essential when militant networks had embedded themselves, rendering conventional law-enforcement methods insufficient.
For most Pakistanis, particularly for KP inhabitants who personally endured the bomb blasts, suicide attacks, assassinations, and kidnappings, the abolition of this legal framework seemed irresponsible. The ordinance provided the state with the necessary legal ability to respond swiftly and decisively against emerging militant cells before they could regroup. Removing this legal tool severely handicaps the security forces at a time terrorism is resurging.
Abandoning this ordinance may grant hostile elements greater operational space, and people suspect the provincial leadership is consciously prioritizing narrow political grievances over the safety of its citizens. The citizenry expresses deep frustration, arguing that at a time when security forces are making the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty, the political leadership should be standing with the state rather than weakening the legal apparatus specifically designed for terrorism.
More broadLY, the CM’s actions are viewed as representative of a more extensive PTI trend. Just as Imran was perceived to place personal loyalty and goals above the national interest, Afridi is alleged to be aligning provincial policies with the PTI’s narrow political strategy rather than with paramount national security needs. Much of the PTI’s current political energy appears focused on the sole goal of relief for Imran Khan, and this focus has, in the public view, severely overshadowed their fundamental responsibility toward effective governance. Citizens believe that PTI leaders are intentionally adopting confrontational stances not because they genuinely benefit the people of KP, but because they increase political pressure on national institutions. This approach is widely interpreted as dangerous, and misaligned with the country’s security threats.
A clear sentiment has now emerged across the country: the public perceives a worrying, consistent pattern, extending from the actions of Imran Khan to Bushra Bibi, to Farah Gogi, and now to Sohail Afridi, of persistently prioritizing personal agendas over collective national priorities. The PTI’s leadership frequently presents itself as a victim of political persecution while concurrently failing to acknowledge the damaging consequences of its own political decisions. People and political analysts consistently highlight how the PTI’s aggressive confrontations with national institutions, its frequent refusal to engage in constructive dialogue, its deep-seated reliance on dramatic, hyperbolic narratives, and its alleged promotion of unverified and often inflammatory accusations have collectively created a political environment where the unity and essential stability of the country are constantly compromised. According to them, the PTI’s political style is one that demonstrably thrives on intense polarization rather than consensus-building, on political spectacle rather than substantive reform, and on confrontation rather than cooperation.
Pakistanis are insisting the nation can no longer afford a style of politics solely built upon bitter personal rivalries, a charisma cult, or the continuous assertion of unverified claims. They emphasize that Pakistan’s current, multifaceted challenges are too dire for political actors to indulge in strategies that divide rather than unite. In the public’s view, Pakistan requires leadership that unequivocally places national security, economic recovery, and institutional resilience above everything. They stress that political actors must immediately cease weaponizing divisive narratives undermining national institutions, especially when soldiers and civilians are sacrificing their lives daily in the difficult fight against terrorism.
The citizenry believes the people are weary of politicians who self-servingly present themselves as national saviours while engaging in political behaviour creating deeper and more destructive rifts within the country’s fabric.
The continuous political drama surrounding the PTI, its leadership, its multiple controversies, and its currently perceived approach to governance in KP has pushed people to express not only significant disappointment but also rejection of what they see as profoundly destabilizing political conduct. In their conversations, they articulate the sentiment that Pakistan deserves better— better leadership, more effective governance, stronger institutions, and greater national unity. They argue passionately that the long-term future of the country must not be sacrificed at the altar of narrow, short-sighted personal political ambitions.
The time has definitively come for the public to demand rigorous accountability, not merely for traditional corruption or administrative incompetence, but also for political behaviour that undermines national cohesion. Whether these concerns will ultimately shape future politics remains crucial, but the sentiment is unequivocally clear: people desire stability, unity, and a leadership firmly grounded in responsible action, not self-serving personal agendas.
