Sindh needs an opposition that challenges bad governance without inviting a stronger unelected authority to dominate politics.
Sindh needs leaders who defend the ballot even when they lose, condemn interference even when it helps them, and expose corruption wherever the evidence leads—including within their own ranks.
Dr. Mazhar Lakho | USA
The Grand Democratic Alliance speaks loudly about corruption, rigged elections and the failures of Sindh’s government. Those are legitimate issues. But an opposition alliance cannot claim the mantle of democracy while its most prominent leaders praise military power and suggest that the army, rather than elected representatives, is the only force capable of governing Pakistan.
In February 2024, GDA chief Pir Pagara described the army as the “symbol of the federation” and said that no one could control the federation except the military. He also speculated publicly about emergency rule or martial law. These were not minor slips of language. They revealed a political outlook in which democracy is welcomed when it serves a leader’s cause, but military intervention is treated as an acceptable answer when civilian politics becomes inconvenient.
That is a profound contradiction. A party cannot credibly condemn electoral manipulation while normalizing the institution most often accused of shaping political outcomes from behind the scenes. It cannot protest that voters were denied their choice and then imply that the army should decide who governs. Military rule does not rescue democracy; it subordinates it. It weakens parliament, provincial autonomy and the public’s right to remove leaders through elections.
The GDA also needs to confront the politics of its own leadership. Pir Pagara’s family holds a hereditary spiritual position, while the political leadership of the PML-F and the alliance has also been closely associated with the Pagara household. Religious devotion may be personal and freely chosen. Political authority, however, must be earned through open debate, democratic selection and accountability. No family—however respected its history—should be exempt from those standards.
The same test applies to the alliance’s supporters, loyalists and political dependents. Calling opponents corrupt is easy. Proving allegations, disclosing public records and accepting independent scrutiny are harder. The GDA has repeatedly accused the Sindh government of corruption and demanded accountability; it has also recently made serious allegations about narcotics and corruption in provincial institutions. Those claims should be investigated on evidence. But an alliance demanding scrutiny of others must welcome equal scrutiny of its own leaders, finances, candidates and relationships with powerful institutions.
This is where the GDA’s opposition risks looking selective. If accountability means only investigating rivals, it is not accountability—it is a political weapon. If “democracy” means respecting the vote only when the result benefits one’s own camp, it is not democratic principle. And if the army is praised as the ultimate arbiter, then complaints about stolen mandates ring hollow.
Sindh needs an opposition that challenges bad governance without inviting a stronger unelected authority to dominate politics. It needs leaders who defend the ballot even when they lose, condemn interference even when it helps them, and expose corruption wherever the evidence leads—including within their own ranks.
The GDA cannot build public trust on slogans alone. It must answer a basic question: does it want a genuinely democratic Sindh, or merely a share of power under military patronage? Until its leaders clearly reject intervention in civilian politics and submit themselves to the same accountability they demand of others, their democracy claims will remain compromised.
Read: Gorakh Hill: Sindh’s Treasure under Threat
____________
Dr. Mazhar Lakho, Belleville,Illinois, USA
