Leader of the Opposition Syed Khursheed Shah’s suggestion to the government that a fresh election might be the only way to end the political crisis, took some people by surprise. The PPP has been criticised by the agitating parties of being wedded to the government and not playing its role as an opposition party during the stand off. Khursheed Shah has particularly been the focus of defamatory and insulting attacks by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan. The PPP’s principled stance in opposition has however been consistent. They have criticised the government for its handling of the situation but also said they cannot support a movement that seeks to depose the prime minister outside of parliament. This earned them Imran Khan’s ire but is a reflection of the fact that the party understands how the political system works and has shown maturity in its approach. The precedent that removing an elected prime minister through street agitation sets is dangerous and so the PPP has tried to reconcile the PTI and convince it to achieve its demands through parliament. This has begun looking increasingly unlikely with the PTI ramping up the pressure on the government by staging protests around the country and with no end to the sit-ins in sight. The government is finding itself hectored and needled while appearing increasingly besieged. Despite its large election mandate, it has lost credibility simply because the campaign against it has gained so much traction in the media and urban areas. Incapacitated by the protests and its mistakes, it is finding it increasingly difficult to act on policy stances, particularly where they conflict with the conceptual and doctrinal underpinnings of the establishment. On these issues the government needs to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it has the support of the people. Three areas appear to be causing friction between the civilian government and the military. The first is Afghanistan, where the military is unsure of the sincerity of the elected Afghan government while the civilian government is keen to pursue friendly relations and is publicly committed to an ‘Afghan-owned and Afghan-led’ peace process. The second is normalisation of relations with India, which again the military does not trust but the civilian government is keen to work on. The military’s entire raison d’être is of course predicated on India as the permanent enemy. The government’s decision to work towards normalisation may have been moving too fast too soon, given this historical animosity. The last area is the treatment meted out to former President Pervez Musharraf, who despite not being a universally loved figure even within the military, nonetheless represents an institutional prerogative that the military loathe surrendering. The reported friction between the military and the civilian government raised the stakes of the political stand off since the military’s declaration of ‘neutrality’ gave the protests impetus to continue, though constitutionally the army should have either held its piece or, if it could not resist speaking out loud, come out in support of an elected government.The crisis is becoming increasingly untenable. This is Imran Khan’s strategy as evidenced from his own speeches, of bringing the country to a halt. Pakistan’s people, tired of unending problems, are willing to believe him when he heaps blame on the government and the political class. The golden egg he aims to steal is public opinion and so fresh elections might be the only way to demonstrate the government’s legitimacy. However, this raises its own problems. The first is that the government cannot be seen giving in to violent agitation. Second, even though the PTI may sign on for elections today, given its track record there is no guarantee that tomorrow it will not denounce a new election if it loses seats, which in a free and fair election is likely. The PTI however will likely contend that any election it loses is not free and fair unless there is foolproof oversight. The Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) says it will take until 2016 for electronic voting machines to be installed, but the way things are going the government may not have that kind of time. It must move ahead with electoral reforms post haste because if a fresh appeal to the electorate becomes necessary, the government’s preparations must not be found wanting, in its own interest. *