By Dr. Abdul Sattar
Disagreement is the lifeblood of democracy. Without it, there is no accountability, no debate and no progress. But when disagreement hardens into hatred, and political rivalry turns into social enmity, democracy begins to consume itself. Pakistan has reached a troubling point where political differences increasingly divide families, friendships and communities.
Today, political polarisation is no longer simply about tax policy, foreign policy or economic priorities. It is increasingly about identity. Supporters of one party often view supporters of another not as fellow citizens with different ideas, but as enemies, traitors or threats to the country. The most damaging consequence is the erosion of a shared moral compass. We are losing the ability to distinguish between right and wrong independently of who is responsible.
If a leader from “our side” makes a mistake, we defend it, justify it or pretend not to see it. If the same mistake is made by “the other side”, we demand resignation, punishment and public condemnation. Conversely, when an opponent does something right—builds a hospital, provides relief, supports a sound policy or upholds the Constitution—acknowledging it can feel like betrayal. Truth itself begins to acquire a political affiliation. Facts become “our facts” and “their facts”. That is far more dangerous than an ordinary policy disagreement, because a nation that cannot agree on basic facts cannot agree on how to solve its problems.
Three forces have contributed significantly to this crisis.
First is POLITICAL RHETORIC. Over the years, political debate has increasingly shifted from policies to personalities. Instead of asking, “Why did your energy policy fail?” we hear, “You are a foreign agent.” Instead of asking, “Why is governance weak?” the debate turns to accusations about personal character and family. Once politics becomes a battle between good and evil, compromise becomes almost impossible. You negotiate with a political opponent; you do not negotiate with someone you have declared an enemy.
Second is TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL MEDIA. Algorithms increasingly place people inside information bubbles, showing them material that confirms what they already believe. Disinformation can travel faster than correction. A false claim can circle the country before the truth has even had a chance to catch up. The result is not merely misinformation; it is the creation of parallel realities in which each political camp believes that only its version of events is legitimate.
Third is our ELECTORAL CULTURE. When elections are heavily influenced by money, biradari networks, patronage and allegations of selective use of state machinery, politics becomes less about competing visions and more about controlling power. The winner is tempted to treat victory as a mandate for everything; the loser is tempted to regard the entire process as illegitimate.
Politics becomes a winner-takes-all struggle, leaving little incentive for consensus-building. The cost is enormous. When opposition becomes opposition for its own sake, legislation suffers. When every economic reform is dismissed as a conspiracy, confidence and investment suffer. When institutions are attacked whenever their decisions displease one political camp, their credibility suffers. Pakistan faces challenges that no single government can resolve in one five-year term: economic instability, water insecurity, climate change, unemployment, population pressures and an education deficit. These require long-term strategies, political continuity and broad national consensus. Yet in a polarised political culture, every new government is tempted to dismantle the policies of its predecessor and start again. The result is policy whiplash rather than continuity, and stagnation rather than sustained progress.
Pakistan is not alone in confronting political polarisation. The United States is experiencing levels of partisan division rarely seen in its modern history. Yet other democracies have developed stronger mechanisms for managing political differences. In Canada, ideological divisions are real, but there remains broad respect for the legitimacy of Parliament, elections and constitutional institutions. In Germany, coalition governments often require parties with different programmes to negotiate and govern together. In Japan, political competition exists alongside a strong tradition of institutional continuity and a professional civil service. These examples do not suggest that advanced democracies are free from disagreement. Rather, they show that disagreement can be managed without turning political opponents into national enemies.
The lesson for Pakistan is not to eliminate political conflict. That would be contrary to democracy. The lesson is to civilise political conflict. Political parties must take the lead. They should discourage abusive language, strengthen internal democracy and train their workers to understand that the opponent across the political aisle is a rival—not an enemy. Elections end on polling day; national responsibilities do not.
Pakistan already possesses constitutional and parliamentary mechanisms for consensus-building, including the Senate, the Council of Common Interests and parliamentary committees. These forums should be used more effectively for issues of national importance such as water, energy, population, the census and resource distribution. The Election Commission must command confidence across political divisions. State institutions must be protected from partisan pressure. The media must resist the temptation to turn every disagreement into a spectacle of outrage. Political debate should return to evidence, policy and accountability.
But institutions alone cannot solve the problem. Citizens have a responsibility too.
Before sharing a post, defending a politician or condemning an opponent, every voter should ask one simple question: “If the other side had done exactly the same thing, would I still feel the same way?” If the answer is no, we are not defending a principle. We are defending a tribe.
Pakistan does not need political uniformity. That would be incompatible with democracy. What it needs is political maturity: the ability to disagree passionately without denying the other person’s right to disagree. There must be a minimum national consensus on certain non-negotiables: the Constitution, the rule of law, economic stability, education, water security, climate resilience and the integrity of state institutions. The party that wins an election must govern for everyone, including those who voted against it. The parties that lose must oppose responsibly—criticising policies without denying the legitimacy of the democratic process.
Ultimately, democracy is not tested by how we treat our allies. It is tested by how we treat those with whom we profoundly disagree. Perhaps the most important democratic virtue Pakistan needs to recover is also the simplest: the courage to call wrong “wrong” even when it is committed by our own side, and to call right “right” even when it comes from our political opponent.
That is not weakness. It is not betrayal. It is political maturity.
Pakistan can afford political competition. It can afford passionate debate. It can even afford loud disagreement. What it can no longer afford is a political culture in which truth becomes partisan and fellow citizens become enemies. Because if we lose our ability to see each other as fellow citizens, we risk losing everything else that holds the nation together.
