On Sunday, the two main opposition parties in Pakistan joined with a coalition of smaller political parties and organizations at a conference in the capital city, Islamabad. The conference culminated in the signing of a declaration stating that the involved parties were now joined into one party, The Pakistan Democratic Movement, whose aim will be to investigate, denounce, and protest the level of military involvement present in Pakistan’s political system.

Pakistan’s current prime minister, Imran Khan, was elected in 2018 and has since faced various allegations relating to accountability, bias, and electoral fraud. Additional criticisms target the military, which has been directly involved in governing Pakistan for the 73 years since independence was gained in 1947. The military is directly responsible for controlling important aspects of Pakistan’s foreign policy and security. Yet Khan’s administration holds that it operates in cooperation and collaboration with the civilian government, especially on economic matters, and so there is no imbalance of power or influence. In response to this, Nawaz Sharif, Pakistan’s former prime minister, maintained the oppositions stance, stating, “We want elected leaders to run the affairs of the country, to manage the economy, and to decide on foreign policy.” The opposition has stated that they see no compromise being possible with the military and are calling for protesting and marches upon the government starting next month.

Despite what may have seemed like the birth of a revolution, as soon as Wednesday, cracks began to appear in the opposition’s foundation. It was revealed that members of the opposition had been meeting with high-ranking members of the military to seek support on political and legal issues. While they have tried to communicate that going forward, these meetings will not occur or if they must, they will be made public, the damage is done and many are questioning if the original declaration that there is no compromising with the military was serious. Additionally, there are those who are wondering how the opposition parties will move forward as they have not announced any definitive dates for the protests, made attempts to rally mass support, or clarified many of the statements made in their initial declaration.

Taken on balance, the formation of the Pakistan Democratic Movement is unlikely to change the established order in Pakistan nor is it likely to exert any real influence over the political landscape. As many analysts have already pointed out, the opposition may seem united, but it is exactly their lack of precise unity that is keeping them on amicable terms. The party has not laid out its specific objectives nor has it ascribed a timeline or schedule to its goals. Political analyst for Al Jazeera, Hasan Askari Rizvi, points out, “Our experience is that political parties are more united when it comes to sloganeering and rhetoric, but when it comes to implementing those things that they have announced, then the individual interests of the parties dominate their disposition.” He goes on to say, “They have agreed to do it, but the only reason they have agreed is because there is no fixed schedule.”

In light of the recent revelation that the opposition is also using the military in an advisory role for political issues, it has become more difficult to see how the oppositions stance on military involvement differs from that of the current administration. The revelation has likely served to only lessen the amount of perceived pressure the opposition  was placing on the current government and will prove to be yet another barrier between them and the support of the public. In addition to the issues of vagueness and ambiguity, the call for the Pakistani people to march on the capital is not a solution conducive to positive change. It guarantees no real outcomes for the people, but only involves them in a situation that could easily become hostile or, in light of the recent pandemic, pose health risks.

If the opposition really wants to effect change in Pakistan, it should specify its objectives in a new declaration, and make greater efforts to show and test that it is a united front. The parties involved must also realize that they cannot form one party and yet still retain their individual agendas and objectives. The calls to mobilize the Pakistani people should be done away with, and a new focus should be placed on garnering support and public involvement in the parliamentary elections of 2021. After all, if the aim is to work on improving the involvement and influence of the civilian government, efforts should be made to make sure they are aware and up to task.

The above criticisms of the opposition and subsequent proposals all presume that there is still a need for the opposition to succeed, however there is little evidence that supports this. The current administration has not fallen out of public favor nor has there been a public outcry for the removal of Prime Minister Khan and his government. This is not to say that the political situation in Pakistan has been one of peace and stability; there has been an ongoing economic crisis has recently forced Pakistan to turn to the IMF for a loan as well as enter into agreements with other nations, most notably China and Saudi Arabia. The economic crisis was the biggest threat to the government until COVID-19 became the main crisis. However, the handling of the pandemic has resulted in far fewer deaths than many other countries and has not placed unbearable strain on the country’s infrastructure or healthcare system. Thus, the government has lately received praise and has subsequently been given room to breathe.

All this to say, the presence of an opposition party, in the form it is currently taking, does not represent a legitimate threat to the current government of Pakistan. There is not enough internal cohesion within the opposition nor is there enough public support to guarantee its success. Even if their internal problems were rectified, there is still no evidence that suggests they would stand a chance against the current government due to a lack of disapproval for the latter.

Dislike for an institution is not always valid or indicative of legitimate problems within said institution. The current government, while not perfect or unburdened, is capable and should aim at increasing its efficacy and resolving the economic crisis. A political restructuring is not in order and the opposition should realize that their claim is unfounded, will not amount to anything at present, and the energy being put into it would be better served helping the current administration improve rather than trying to oust them completely. Should the opposition attempt to continue, it must clearly outline its goals, its commitment to these goals as a united party, and must seek to empower the people and reach them in ways that do not foster an arena of protest and rallying, but rather a forum for suggestion and constructive criticism.