THE recent political circus in Islamabad — replete with tear gas and the burning of trees — has distracted the nation from some media reports of developments in Kabul where senior establishment figures are believed to be holding negotiations with the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). While fighting for political survival at D-Chowk, have the PML-N and PTI lost the battle for civilian supremacy over a process that could have existential implications for the country? Certainly, their bickering inside and outside parliament deflected their attention from the militant threat.

News of the negotiations with the TTP is unconfirmed, leaking on social media with little scrutiny by mainstream media or civil society. What is clear is that the on-off talks with the TTP that have taken place since last autumn are not being channelled through parliament.

Read more: The Taliban mindset

This is not a surprise for Pakistanis, who have been long accustomed to the fact that security policies are not shaped by their civilian leaders. But disengagement of elected representatives from shaping Pakistan’s approach to militant forces could impact Pakistan’s political and social trajectory in a way that will weaken democracy.

The TTP’s demands have always ranged from the predictable to the intolerable. For instance, media reports have earlier mentioned that it has been demanding the release of its prisoners, dropping of legal cases against its leadership, and troop withdrawal from the erstwhile tribal areas.

Politicians’ input in resolving militancy issues must be clear.

More recently, commenters on social media have suggested some demands tread into the realms of governance and law. However, the demands have not been made public officially. For ceasefire negotiations to have credibility, they must be handled transparently, with elected representatives informing the public about demands, compromises, and any concessions made.

Read: Will give TTP a chance if they respect the law of Pakistan, says Fawad

Our elected representatives must also demonstrate to Pakistanis that negotiations are taking place with the nation’s best interests in mind. The last government had made it clear that the state would only negotiate with those who respected the Constitution. The current government must make its position clear too. Instead of political bickering, major parties should come together to jointly craft ‘red lines’ to steer the course of negotiations, ensuring that any concessions serve Pakistan while protecting its Constitution, laws and society.

There can be no denying that the TTP — like its patron, the Afghan Taliban — is committed to an ambition of implementing a Sharia-based ruling order in Pakistan in the same way that Afghanistan now has. No concessions at any time will check this ambition. Parliament must have a say in any agreement.

Parliament should also have a say on the timing of negotiations. The TTP is currently emboldened as it has well-established bases in Afghanistan, and close ties with the Afg­han Taliban’s leadership as well as rank and file. They know that the Afghan Taliban wo­u­ld not risk a confrontation with the TTP while still consolidating its governing position.

Indeed, the Afghan Taliban have already made clear that they will not ‘handle’ the TTP on Pakistan’s instruction; they are mer­ely mediators. This way, the Afghan Taliban preserve both their allegiance to the TTP and their political relations with Islamabad.

All the more reason why we need parliament to steer this process. A Pakistan trying to manage an uncertain ceasefire with the TTP would need holistic planning; both to ensure the success of negotiated outcomes, and to plan for all scenarios in case the agreement breaks down. This would require coordination across the areas of security preparations, devolved government, infrastructure planning, education policies and even healthcare delivery in the form of vaccination campaigns.

A parliament-led outcome may not be significantly different from the one that is reportedly being negotiated. After all, a PPP government presided over the first passage of the Nizam-i-Adl, and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, while Punjab chief minister, appealed to the TTP to spare Punjab (implicitly at the cost of the rest of the country). But Pakistanis must know what their representatives are willing to concede on their behalf, and know that they can vote them out if they disagree with the approach.

In the context of potentially accommodating militants in exchange for what can only be a tenuous ceasefire (given the group’s history of quickly breaching any agreements with the government or military), the conciliatory tone of Sharif’s speech on Friday is welcome. His call for the public to eschew polarisation is key to refocusing the country’s attentions on critical security developments. And his vision for an inclusive Pakistan where minorities and women feel safe offers an essential counterpoint for those of us who do not relish the idea of life under the TTP’s shadow.

The writer is a political and integrity risk analyst.
Twitter: @humayusuf

Published in Dawn, May 30th, 2022