Pakistan’s history of federal interventions raises an uncomfortable question: how secure is an electoral mandate when extraordinary powers can displace an elected government?
By Laraib Mushtaq
Federal government imposed the emergency and Governor Rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on 11th October, 2026 which raises a serious question and it once again it brought a constitutional argument to the front. Setting aside an elected government which got the 2/3rd majority in the province is more than a political move. It raises the serious questions about the independence of politics, people’s mandate, electoral process, constitutional restrictions and democratic system of the country.
In the history of Pakistan, the country has witnessed the similar interventions before which is disturbing. We have always witnessed that whenever the government has used the extraordinary powers to resolve political and administrative issues it leads to severe political crisis and controversies.
Unfortunately, we haven’t learned from the history of our country. Pakistan witnessed its first Governor rule in 1949 the then Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan imposed Governor Rule in the province of Punjab and dismissed Chief Minister Nawab Iftikhar Hussain Mamdot. Then in 1951 in Sindh, when the then Chief Minister Muhammad Ayub Khuhro was dismissed on the corruption and poor administration allegations. These incidents revealed that how weak the provincial governments could become when the political powers was centralized.
After the 1973 constitution, these incidents were happened again. In 1973, Baluchistan elected government was overthrown by the then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto leading to the troubled relationship between the federal and the province making it the significant chapter in the history of Pakistan.
In 1975 and 1994, NWFP now called as Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) witnessed the Governor Rule. Benazir Bhutto overthrown the then government of PML-N. Then General Pervaiz Musharraf imposed the emergency in 1999 and dismissed the government of PML-N followed by the martial law which creates the tensions in the politics of the country. Similar steps were taken in Punjab in 2009 when the government of PML-N was overthrown by the federal government on the disqualifications of the Sharif brothers by the Supreme Court. Balochistan witnessed the Governor Rule in 2013 because of the terror attacks on the Hazara Community.
But these incidents has aroused from different political and security challenges and it would be inaccurate to interpret them as constitutional. However, they highlight the tensions between the province and the federal authority in the country.
This situation must be considered when talking about the situation in KPK. The Federal government had justified its decision by referring the terrorism and security conditions and the lack of cooperation by the provincial government to counter the terrorism. These are the serious allegations that cannot be ignored. It is the responsibility of the state to protects its citizens against any kind of terrorism.
However, admitting the seriousness of the security issue does not resolve the constitutional issue. Does the existence of such challenges is necessary to justify removing an elected provincial government without the consent of the concerned government? Were less intrusive constitutional alternatives genuinely considered?
The Constitution’s Articles 232 and 234 offer procedures for handling exceptional situations. While Article 234 is applicable when a provincial administration is unable to operate in conformity with the Constitution, Article 232 deals with crises resulting from specific threats. Both clauses function within procedural and constitutional bounds. While Article 234 offers a different constitutional process, Article 232 requires a resolution of the relevant Provincial Assembly in some situations. But not all political disputes or administrative blunders warrant the use of these extraordinary powers.
This distinction is important. An elected government can be held criticized, investigated and held accountable. However, allegations alone to exercise the extraordinary constitutional powers are not enough. It requires a strong factual basis, compliance to the constitutional procedures and investigation by the institutions by upholding the constitution.
The 18th amendment has strengthened Pakistan’s federal structure by expanding the provincial authority. The realization that provinces are more than just Islamabad’s administrative extensions was their fundamental significance. They have governments answerable to their own voters and powers safeguarded by the constitution. Therefore, any intervention that takes the role of provincial administrative authority needs to be handled extremely carefully.
It is also impossible to ignore the democratic cost. Both political leaders and the people who voted for them suffer when an elected provincial government is overthrown. Even if the government they elect is politically at conflict with the federal government, their election decision is still protected by the constitution. The situation which has arises in KPK over the past 3 days is very critical and alarming.
An important lesson can be learned from Pakistan’s experience. The political disputes, institutional flaws, or security issues that caused the crisis may not always be resolved by extraordinary actions, even though they might offer a quick administrative solution. Functioning institutions, political discourse, and accountability within the constitutional framework are necessary for long-term stability.
When political interests align, administrations’ adherence to electoral mandates is not the true test for constitutional democracy. When differences become challenging, the question is whether they still respect to those mandates.
The Constitution must continue to provide a check on the use of authority, especially when that authority is unusual. Pakistan cannot afford to let extraordinary constitutional measures turn into a typical reaction to political disputes.
The question, therefore, is not simply whether emergency powers exist. It is whether their exercise protects the constitutional order or gradually weakens the democratic mandate that the Constitution itself is meant to safeguard.