The federal government’s suggestion that Governor’s Rule may be imposed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa reflects a moment of deep institutional strain. There is little dispute that KP faces a severe security crisis, and the incumbent government of Chief Minister Sohail Khan does not seem willing to engage in a cohesive response to rising terrorism and aggression from across the Torkham Border. Yet resorting to Governor’s Rule risks compounding this failure. It would be viewed not merely as an administrative step but as an intrusion into provincial autonomy—one that would reverberate beyond KP and reignite long-standing anxieties about centre-province relations in Pakistan.
The Constitution does allow for Governor’s Rule under exceptional circumstances. However, constitutional permissibility does not guarantee political wisdom. KP’s electorate placed its trust in the current provincial government, however imperfectly it has exercised that mandate. Suspending that mandate, even temporarily, would set an unsettling precedent for the future of the 18th Amendment and the broader federal balance. It may also strengthen narratives of disenfranchisement in a province where perceptions of marginalisation run deep and where federal decisions are often judged through a lens of historical grievance.
For Islamabad, the measure would likely yield only short-term relief. Governor’s Rule cannot serve as a medium-term governing framework. Eventually, the province would revert to the same political configuration unless the centre intends to prolong direct rule for years—an outcome both impractical and politically untenable. The hard reality is that administrative instability in KP cannot be addressed by episodic federal intervention. It requires continuity, local legitimacy and a sustained provincial ownership of governance.
At the same time, the PTI leadership bears responsibility for creating an environment in which such extreme options are even contemplated. The party’s mixed signals on national engagement, refusal to participate constructively in institutional processes and tendency to treat KP as a political redoubt rather than a province requiring urgent governance have all contributed to today’s impasse. Episodes such as a close family member of Imran Khan appearing on Indian right-wing media to criticise the Pakistani state only fuel federal distrust and heighten anxieties about the party’s internal discipline and external messaging. These dynamics weaken KP’s ability to demand constitutional deference and strengthen arguments, however flawed, for federal intervention.
Still, Pakistan’s long-term stability depends on adhering to constitutional boundaries, not stretching them. The government must resist shortcuts that undermine provincial autonomy, and the PTI must recognise that responsible governance is inseparable from political legitimacy. KP’s challenges are grave, but they will not be solved through temporary overrides of democratic mandates. What is needed instead is renewed political maturity on all sides, sustained engagement across institutions and a clear recognition that fragile boundaries—once breached—are difficult to restore.
