The abandoned negotiations between the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) -Led coalition and the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-E-Insaf (PTI) suddenly collapsed, leaving many questions about why a rare moment of commitment ended before giving any tangible results. Ironically, the failure of these conversations has once again emphasized the deep political distrust of key players and powerful stakeholders, who continue to define the country’s unstable political landscape further combined with economic and legal evil. Negotiations between the government and the opposition began on December 23, 2024, in an attempt to find amicable solutions to the country’s political and economic challenges and solve long -term disputes between the two sides. However, the process hit a disadvantage after only three meetings. PTI had presented its charter on the government requirements in the third round, which, among other things, required the formation of separate legal commissions on May 9, 2023 and November 26, 2024 incidents. In addition, PTI -Charter also sought "support" of the federal and provincial governments of bail, judgment suspension and acquittal of "Political prisoners" identified by PTI. It said these requirements were presented as a "Prerequisite for wider negotiations" About other problems. PTI’s sudden exit now that the five -week -long conversations are over, political analysts believe that PTI’s decision to suddenly move away from the negotiating table was premature and harmful to its own interests. Ahmed Bilal Mehboob, President of the Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat), claimed that PTI should have exercised more patience.

"The sudden dissociation of PTI from the negotiations was not a very wise move. They should have been engaged to give a little more time to government to respond or at least should have participated in the fourth round," Said Mehboob. "They should have negotiated with the government and asked them to explain why PTI’s demands could not be met."

Mehboob pointed out that PTI’s lack of experience in political negotiations may have played a role in its hasty withdrawal. Unlike traditional parties who are used to ups and downs in the negotiations, PTI has struggled to unite democratic compromise standards with its own stiff political culture.

"Negotiations are never a mechanical or linear process; They go back and forth before they hit an appointment. PTI has not been a party of negotiations and is likely to lack the experience and patience needed for political negotiations," Mehboob added. "Although giving and taking or compromise is an integral part of democracy," He maintained, "PTI has felt these as negative features."

Govt uncertainty and PTI’s distrust, while PTI’s decision to suddenly relax conversations have been criticized, the government’s approach to negotiations also left much to be desired. According to Mehboob, the ruling alliance may have been on duty against PTI’s potential rehabilitation in mainstream policy.

"I also feel that the government felt uncertain that PTI is beating an agreement and was again acceptable for the establishment, and it also lacked the zeal after reaching an appointment," he noticed. This skepticism was mirrored by PTI, who saw the government’s reluctance to meet its demands as evidence of insincerity. Professor Tahir Naeem Malik of Numl University believes that PTI believed the government deliberately stopped the process.

"PTI felt that the government was not serious as its claims were not difficult to accommodate," Professor Malik explained. However, he added the government just as frustrated with PTI’s urgent character. "Conversely, the government believed that PTI showed unusually urgent nature in conversations for no reason."

Lack of negotiation culture The mistake in the negotiations highlights a broader problem: Pakistan’s political culture remains largely devoid of sustained negotiation mechanisms. While democratic systems thrive on dialogue and compromise, Malik said that political and powerful players continue to see negotiations as a sign of weakness rather than a necessary tool for governance. PTI’s withdrawal and the government’s hesitation also reflect unwillingness on both sides to engage in the long -lasting, difficult and often frustrating process of meaningful negotiation. As Mehboob pointed out, real political dialogue requires patience, experience and the ability to admit – qualities that none of the pages seemed fully prepared to embrace. What is the next? With the sudden collapse of conversations, the political stalemate is likely to persist and increase economic and government challenges. If meaningful commitment is to take place in the future, both PTI and the reigning coalition need to throw their win-loss approach. Until then, the division of the negotiations will remain another chapter in Pakistan’s long history of political curse.