A January evening with a chill in the air; the capital is on edge, and the question on everyone’s minds is the same: “Election ho bhi rahay hain, ya nahin?” (Are elections even going to take place, or not?)

Although the city is often derided for existing in a ‘bubble’ — always at a distance from the rest of country — one of the unique aspects of life in the capital is the diversity of political thought one encounters here.

From the cafes of Kohsar Market to other rendezvous spots overlooking the hazy Margallas, the conversations and debates play out repeatedly, but the outcome is rarely the same each time.

Be they journalists, bureaucrats, development workers or think-tankers, those who move in these circles pride themselves on knowing beforehand what is going to happen next.

But when it comes to the question of the upcoming general elections, there are as many opinions as there are orders for coffee at the table you’re sitting on.

Among the revolving door cast at such discussions — faces may change but the roles certainly do not — one can always find a jaded PTI supporter, a die-hard Nawaz-ista, a jiyala, a journalist, an economy buff, and one who prefers to remain ‘neutral’.

Reproduced below is an account of just such a discussion. The identities of the people involved shall not be revealed, but this will hardly matter for the perceptive reader, who can read between the lines.

The atmosphere is always cordial — to begin with. Pleasantries and greetings are exchanged, there is some small-talk about the weather before orders for coffee, tea and whatever other fare is on offer have been placed.

It is invariably the Imran Khan supporter who is the first to speak up.

“There are no valid reasons to delay the elections any further,” they say, lamenting the way the party and their colleagues have been treated at the hands of the state.

Their concerns are summed up by an anecdote: “In an off-the-record conversation, a senior civil servant told me he was embarrassed at being part of a system that is busy targeting a particular political party in such a blatant way.”

Then follows a critique of the Supreme Court’s decision to strip the party of its election symbol, which has “effectively erased their presence from the upcoming elections”.

They then turn their sights towards the Nawaz-ista, accusing them and their party of compromising on all their previously espoused ‘principles’, simply to find their way back into the corridors of power.

Their party’s honour challenged, the Sharif sympathiser will fire back: “look who’s talking about principles”. They make no attempt to hide their sarcasm as they observe: “I bet if your party were to get a signal today from on high, they will beg and plead to return to power”.

Meeting the gaze of their fellow discussants, they ask: “Why are you all blaming the PML-N for what’s happening?”

It is, of course, a rhetorical question, and they are quick to answer it before anyone else has a chance to interject: “This is just the outcome of the confrontation Imran Khan got himself into with the establishment. This has nothing to do with the PML-N.”

The acknowledgement of PML-N’s almost cunning opportunism is implied, and their meaning is as plain as “nature abhors a vacuum” to the trained ear.

But the journalist among us cannot resist the chance to stir the pot. “Hold on! Isn’t the PML-N benefiting from this battle between two political giants?”

Before the addressee can muster up a sufficiently witty response, the jiyala makes themselves known.

“We have the high ground, moral and otherwise, this time around. Look how we challenged the Sharifs on their home turf, and they don’t even have the energy to respond in kind. Their eyes are fixed on the powers that be, they’re on crutches”.

By the time the food arrives, the journalists and politicians across the table have gotten into an existential debate on who surrendered political space, who normalised hybrid and who is responsible for the mess they are collectively in.

Between sips of bitter espresso and mouthfuls of confections, an initial consensus emerges: politicians are currently on a weak footing; there is a collective fear that people will lose faith in democracy and grow disillusioned with the vote if fairness is compromised and the lack of a level playing field, or at least the appearance of an uneven one — is not undone.

It is here that the ‘neutral’ observer emerges from the shadows. They have been listening intently, with a smirk so slight it may be even have been mistaken for a grimace.

“Here’s a list of reasons why delaying the elections might be an appropriate course of action,” they declare.

Even as the nay-sayers open their mouths to protest, the ‘neutral’ party shuts them up by mentioning the economy. Like the mention of Voldemort’s name, it brings a slight hush over the gathering.

“Politicians are constantly fighting amongst themselves, making it unlikely they will ever reach a consensus on stable economic policies. State institutions and the caretaker government are currently handling the economy, foreign investment and economic policies, and they’re doing a good job of it. Can any of your parties ensure stability, given their fundamental differences on matters of policy and implementation, alike?”

“Things are currently heading in the right direction, and an election may only bring more instability,” they conclude.

The discussion grows more intense; clouds of vape and cigar smoke mingle with the hazy evening air and hang like clouds above the din of crosstalk.

The IMF and its warnings of the potential impact of pre-election tensions on policy decisions find mention. A journalist argues that an elected government is necessary to effectively address all economic ills. After all, a country cannot be run by an unelected government.

Here, the neutral observer counters: “But isn’t the caretaker government being praised by the IMF?”

The economic buff comes to the journalist’s rescue. “The caretakers have failed to meet the expectations of even those who brought them into power. They had lofty plans, but no time or space to make changes in the team. Tried as they might, they were too beset on all sides to make the ‘one-page plan’ a reality.”

“The caretaker government’s job is not to make long-term policy decisions. We will only come to terms with the extent of the damage done by this set-up when we look back at their tenure and see the missed opportunities for serious economic healing during these months”

As if waiting for their cue, the Insafian leaps back into the fray: “That’s precisely why we need an elected government. The caretaker government lacks the mandate and authority to make major policy decisions. Look at what is becoming of their initiatives. If they can’t even privatise PIA, how will they be able to attract foreign investment in the volumes that they’re boasting of. These are only decisions that an elected government can make.”

For the PML-N supporter, Nawaz is the only man who can make this happen. “He has a firm grip on how to revive the economy and steer it towards prosperity. He’s done it before and he can do it again.”

The journalists in attendance laugh and tear into the claim, asking where this confidence had landed them during the 16 months of PML-N rule under the PDM coalition. Their unrealistic election slogans are called into question, and people demand to know how Mr Sharif’s tired old narrative could possibly bring the dollar back to Rs100, as promised under the Dar Doctrine.

An exasperated passer-by can’t resist but chime in: “So, what now? Do we delay the elections or just get them over with?”

“We’ve held polls in worse conditions. The 2008 elections after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination took place in middle of a far worse security situation,” is the sagacious-sounding response.

There are murmurs of agreement all around; the politicians agree there can be no justification for delaying polls on the pretext of security. To do so would be a victory for violent groups and would send a deeply troubling message about Pakistan’s ability to provide a secure environment for the essential exercise of democratic rights, such as general elections.

As the night draws to a close, we all leave with a sense of uncertainty. No matter which party wins the elections, they will face an uphill battle to restore the faith of the masses in their ability to lead the nation out of crisis. The winners may well turn out to be the losers, and vice versa. Let’s hope democracy can survive this winter of discontent.