PPP-PML-N alliance ‘born out of necessity’, not love Azad News HD

Introducing 

 On Friday, Punjab Governor Sardar Saleem Haider Khan made a pointed and candid admission: his party’s coalition with the PML-N is not built on shared passion or ideological harmony, but on political necessity. “This alliance is a compulsion, not an act of affection,” he said, speaking at a joint press conference, making clear that—for the PPP in Punjab—joining hands with the PML-N after the 2024 general elections was a strategic and pragmatic decision aimed primarily at achieving political stability rather than a romantic partnership. 

In this statement lies a revealing window into the current state of coalition politics in Pakistan, the inherent tensions within intra-party and inter-party dynamics, the shifting calculus of the PPP in Punjab, and the broader implications for governance, trust, legitimacy and the durability of alliances in a fractious political environment.

The Context: Why an Alliance?

To understand the governor’s comment, one must first trace the circumstances that pushed the PPP and the PML-N into each other’s arms. The 2024 general elections (and ensuing provincial and parliamentary arithmetic) resulted in no party being able to claim a stable majority on its own. In Punjab—Pakistan’s most populous and politically dominant province—the need to form a stable government was pressing. The PPP, which has historically had strongholds in Sindh and pockets elsewhere but relatively weaker footing in Punjab, found itself in a position of strategic choice: either remain in opposition (and potentially be marginalised further) or join a coalition with the PML-N, the largest party in Punjab, and therefore gamble on gaining executive influence, ministerial slots, governorships, and the ability to shape governance.

Governor Haider’s statement echoes remarks he made earlier that the PPP’s decision to support the PML-N was driven by the combined weight of economic, political and national imperatives rather than cosy camaraderie. For example, in May 2024 he said the PPP joined with the PML-N “to tackle economic and political crises … for the country’s interest” rather than because of ideological affection.  He stressed that the stability of governance, particularly in Punjab and at the federal level, was at stake.

Governor Haider and other PPP officials have repeatedly emphasised that given the country’s complex challenges—economic fragility, inflation, governance deficits, security pressures—Pakistan could not afford unstable governments or short-lived alliances. The choice of coalition, then, was less romantic and more practical: to ensure government continuity, maintain administrative status quo, avert a constitutional crisis or political vacuum.

What the Governor’s Admission Reveals

Governor Haider’s public acknowledgement that the alliance is one of “compulsion” serves multiple functions—and reveals multiple truths about the coalition environment:

1. Honesty about internal tensions
   By conceding that the partnership is not borne of affection, the governor is owning up to the fact that the PPP and PML-N bring distinct histories, organisational cultures, ideological leanings and voter bases—and that their workers do not necessarily feel natural affinity toward each other. At the press conference he acknowledged that party workers from both sides “are yet to fully accept each other”.This is significant, because it breaks from the usual polished narrative of “coalition partners standing together for national interest” and signals intra-coalition stress.

2. Positioning of the PPP’s identity
   The PPP has historically cast itself as the party of the marginalized, of progressive politics, of Sindh dominance and, more recently, of opposition strength. In Punjab, where the PML-N has long been dominant, the PPP’s decision to ally with the PML-N carries cost: it risks being seen as subordinate, compromising its brand, or losing distinctiveness. Governor Haider tacitly acknowledged this cost: “PPP’s participation in the government was out of necessity, and it has cost the party politically.”By framing the alliance as a necessity rather than an ideological merge, he may be attempting to safeguard the PPP’s identity: yes we are in government, but not because we surrendered our values.

3. A warning signal for governance risk
   The governor warned that even “a little irresponsibility could derail the system”. In this, he implicitly acknowledges that the alliance is fragile and susceptible to breakdown if one side fails to keep faith with promises or if power-sharing arrangements are not respected. It serves as a caution both to coalition partners and to the public that stability is not guaranteed simply because a government is formed.

4. Highlighting the power-sharing imbalance
   While the PPP is the junior partner in this alliance (especially in Punjab), Governor Haider’s remarks also underscore that the PML-N has not fully delivered on commitments made to the PPP within the coalition framework. He noted that several clauses of their “written power-sharing agreement” had been ignored by the PML-N and that future viability hinged on assurances from the federal leadership. This reflects the internal dynamic where smaller partners are striving to glean meaningful influence despite being the junior ally, and are increasingly vocal when they perceive failure to fulfil commitments.

5. Acknowledgement of strategic calculation
   By using the term “compulsion”, the governor is essentially telling the party’s rank and file and the public: we didn’t marry because we love—you may not like this tie—but we did it because the terrain required it. The strategic calculation is that without this alliance the provincial (and possibly federal) government might have fallen into instability, which could have worse consequences for governance, economic management and overall political environment. It’s a message intended to manage expectations: we understand the discomfort, but we believe the risk of instability was greater.

The Stakes for the PPP and the PML-N

Given the governor’s statement, what are the stakes for the two parties?

For the PPP

• Reviving party presence in Punjab: As Governor Haider has said elsewhere, the PPP is actively trying to revive its organisation in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Joining the coalition gives it positions and an opportunity to build organisational muscle in a province where it has traditionally been weaker.

• Protecting identity and worker morale: Because the alliance is uneasy, PPP’s leadership must ensure that its workers feel included and valued, not merely sidelined. The admission of “cost” to the party suggests leadership is aware of morale damage and is likely seeking to preserve its brand.

• Delivering governance outcomes: The governor’s warnings reflect the PPP leadership’s view that unless governance and deliverables improve, the political cost of the alliance will outweigh the benefits. Their credibility depends on showing that the alliance was not simply opportunistic but effective in delivering for people.

For the PML-N

• Maintaining dominance in Punjab: For the PML-N, partnering with the PPP may have provided numerical support and legitimacy, but also brings the burden of sharing power and accommodating demands. The governor’s remarks make clear the PPP expects more than token representation.

• Managing junior partner expectations: The PML-N must navigate how to integrate the PPP without giving up too much of its control in Punjab—and how to ensure that promises made in the written agreement are honoured enough to keep the partner onboard without undermining its own authority.

• Avoiding coalition fatigue: Given the alliance is described as uneasy, the PML-N must ensure that public perception of the coalition remains positive—i.e., stable governance, fewer public spats, reduced internal friction—so that the alliance does not unravel prematurely.

The Broader Implications for Pakistani Politics

Governor Haider’s statement and the underlying alliance dynamics have broader significance for the state of coalition politics and governance in Pakistan:

• Normalization of pragmatic alliances over ideological ones: The phrasing “compulsion not affection” underlines a shift in Pakistani politics: alliances increasingly appear transactional and strategic rather than rooted in shared ideology or vision. This pragmatism can enable governance but also undermine deeper cohesion and ideological clarity.

• Fragility of coalitions in Pakistan’s parliamentary system: Pakistan’s political system—with multiple parties, strong personalities, provincial-federal overlaps—makes coalition-governments almost inevitable. Governor Haider’s warning that “even a little irresponsibility could derail the system” highlights how delicate such governments are; trust and fulfilment of commitments become critical.

• Public expectations of governance: With the public increasingly frustrated by inflation, economic slowdown and perceived ineffectiveness, the cost of unsuccessful coalitions is rising. If the PPP-PML-N alliance fails to deliver, both parties risk electoral backlash and loss of credibility. The governor’s framing emphasises that the alliance exists for governance, not for convenience.

• Evolution of intra-party worker dynamics: The admission that workers of both parties have yet to fully accept the alliance suggests that party bases remain rooted in historical rivalry and identity. The management of these internal dynamics will shape future party organisation and effectiveness.

• Precedents for power-sharing transparency: The reference to a “written power-sharing agreement” is itself significant—indicating that intra-party negotiations are being translated into formal documents. If such agreements are honoured and visible, they may lay the groundwork for more accountable coalition politics. If ignored, they will become sources of tension and credibility loss.

Risks and Potential Flash-points

Despite the raison d’être of the alliance, several risks loom:

• Unmet commitments and frustration: Governor Haider has already remarked that many promises remain unfulfilled and that PPP’s “reservations” must be addressed, else the alliance risks collapse. If key ministries, appointments, policy influence or resource allocations promised to the PPP don’t materialise, the alliance could splinter.

• Political cost for the PPP: As the governor acknowledged, the PPP is bearing political cost for this alliance—in terms of workers’ sentiment, brand dilution, and potential voter alienation. If Punjab voters perceive it as a junior partner offering little distinct value, the PPP may face electoral losses in the province.

• External shocks and governance stress: The alliance’s structural fragility means that external shocks (economic downturns, security crises, policy mis-steps) could tip the balance. In such an event, blame may be apportioned along coalition lines and bring down the government or at least provoke a re-alignment.

• Junior partner marginalisation: If the PML-N dominates decision-making and excludes the PPP from meaningful influence, the alliance may become a hollow partnership—just a formality rather than a functioning coalition. This would erode PPP’s motivation to stay in the alliance.

• Perception of opportunism: If the alliance is seen by the public as purely transactional—with parties sacrificing principles for power—it may reduce broader public faith in politics, and reinforce cynicism about elite deals. This could fuel anti-establishment sentiment, benefit smaller parties or populist actors.

What Would a Stable Alliance Require?

Given the stated rationale for the alliance—to maintain stability, govern effectively, deliver for people—what does the PPP-PML-N coalition need to do to make it work?

• Transparent and credible fulfilment of power-sharing commitments: If a written agreement exists, as the governor indicated, it must be implemented visibly and the junior partner must feel empowered. Transparent allocation of ministries, appointments, policy roles helps build trust.

• Focus on governance outcomes, not just political positioning: The alliance must move beyond self-preservation and deliver tangible benefits—economic relief, service delivery, infrastructure, jobs—in Punjab and at the federal level. Demonstrable progress will legitimise the coalition in the eyes of voters.

• Managing party bases and intra-coalition culture: Efforts to integrate coalition partners at worker-level—joint programmes, coordinated messaging, shared events—will help overcome mutual suspicion. The governor’s admission that workers were not fully ready indicates this remains a task.

• Conflict-management mechanisms: In any coalition there will be disputes. Establishing mechanisms—joint committees, dispute-resolution channels, regular coordination meetings—can help prevent fractures. The governor’s warning about “irresponsibility” derailing the system underlines the need for proactive management.

• Communicating to the public: The coalition needs to explain to the public why the partnership exists, what it aims to achieve, and how it will benefit them. Governor Haider’s language of compulsion rather than affection is honest, but the public also need positive messaging about what results this alliance will bring.

• Safeguarding party identity while in coalition: The PPP must maintain its distinct identity and message—especially in Punjab where it is rebuilding. The PML-N must also recognise the importance of treating the PPP as an equal partner, not just a junior appendage. Balancing coalition unity with distinctiveness is essential for future electoral viability.

From Governor’s Office to Ground Realities

Putting aside high-level optics, the alliance is playing out in everyday politics in Punjab with concrete implications. Governor Haider has repeatedly stressed the PPP’s ambition to revive its organisational presence in the province and to contest by-elections and local contests. For example, he said the PPP will fully participate in the Sialkot PP-52 by-election and pressed for the revival of the PPP’s network among rural voters. 

But at the same time, he has expressed frustration. He has publicly described the alliance as “a disappointing experience” and warned that if it fails to yield results the PPP would reconsider its future associationThese remarks suggest that while the coalition remains intact, its internal cohesion is being tested by unmet expectations.

On the ground, the PPP’s role in the Punjab government means it has access to resources, influence, and visibility—but it also means it must deliver. The balance between being a “junior partner” and retaining political credibility is delicate. If the PPP is seen merely as an appendage of the PML-N, it risks alienating its base; if it becomes too vocal in opposition, it risks coalition breakdown.

The Significance of Stability

Why does Governor Haider place so much emphasis on stability rather than political romance? Because in Pakistan’s political-economic context, stability is arguably more valuable than ideological purity—at least in the current moment. Consider:

• Pakistan is facing high inflation, economic fragility, balance-of-payments pressures and external debt obligations. A government that collapses or becomes gridlocked risks exacerbating these challenges.

• Punjab is the heart of Pakistan’s politics and economy. Instability here reverberates nationally. A fractured government in Punjab has implications for federal politics, resource flows, institutional performance and public confidence.

• Coalition politics in Pakistan have often been short-lived, producing frequent changes, caretaker governments, and election uncertainty. This undermines policy-continuity and deters investment. By advocating for stability, the governor is emphasising the need to break that pattern.

• The alliance with PML-N gives the PPP access to power and policy levers it lacks in Punjab; for the PML-N it offers legitimacy and broader coalition support. If managed well, this could yield governance dividends.

Thus the governor’s language reflects a recognition that the coalition is less about party prestige and more about state-management, governance and survival in a volatile environment.

Implications for Future Elections

Looking ahead, the implications of this alliance and the governor’s framing of it as a “compulsion” will play out in the electoral arena. Some of the key dynamics include:

• Electoral rewards or punishment: If the coalition delivers, both parties may reap electoral benefits—a strengthened PPP in Punjab, sustained PML-N dominance, and perhaps an enhanced perception of cooperative politics. If it fails, the junior partner (PPP) may take the bulk of the blame for “selling out” and the major partner (PML-N) may be seen as dominant yet ineffective.

• Identity politics and voter perception: PPP workers and supporters may resent the alliance if it dilutes the party’s distinct identity or appears opportunistic. The governor’s candid framing attempts to manage this risk—but voter sentiment is often harder to influence than elite messaging.

• Coalition fatigue and realignment: If the coalition begins to unravel—if key promises remain unfulfilled, or if inter-party friction escalates—the risk of realignment increases. The PPP might withdraw or seek other partners; PML-N might govern alone or form new alliances. The governor’s warning about possible collapse within “six months” if issues are not fixed is significant. 

• By-election battlegrounds: The next by-elections and local polls will test the strength of the PPP in Punjab under coalition terms—whether it can mobilize voters and rebuild organisational strength or remain overshadowed by its larger partner.

• National implications: Given Punjab’s weight in national politics, the health of the alliance there will influence federal politics, future governments and the ability of these parties to shape national policy and elections.

Conclusion

Governor Sardar Saleem Haider Khan’s statement—that the PPP-PML-N alliance is a compulsion rather than an act of affection—is more than a blunt political remark. It is a window into the mechanics of coalition politics in Pakistan, the strategic choices facing parties, the internal stresses of alliance governance, and the challenges of delivering for voters in a volatile environment.

For the PPP, this alliance is a strategic gamble: the chance to gain influence in Punjab, rebuild organisational strength, and shape governance—balanced against the risk of losing identity, alienating workers, and becoming electorally collateral damage if things go wrong. For the PML-N, the partnership offers broader base and coalition legitimacy—but also demands inclusivity, honoring commitments and managing a junior partner whose motivations and expectations are firm.

For Pakistani democracy, the episode underscores the growing pragmatism of parties: alliances are increasingly driven by arithmetic, survival and governance imperatives rather than shared ideology or partisan affection. This may be realistic, but the cost is the potential erosion of clarity, trust, coherence—and the risk of governance breakdown if promises are not honoured.