There was no reason for the PML-N government to overreact on the shutterdown call of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) in Faisalabad considering the party has no parliamentary representation in the city. This has hugely affected government’s reputation and has signalled government’s failure to mobilise Faisalabad’s police and administrative machinery to handle the agitation. It has even revealed government’s ineptness in handling the chaos on which it has been tested severely over the last few months. It was not a sudden burst of anger. The temperature has been allowed to boil over by running an unnecessary negative media campaign against the PTI (which has in fact added to the popularity of the party) and by conducting back-to-back press conferences only to humiliate the PTI senior leadership. The Faisalabad debacle was merely a manifestation of the hostility instilled in the PML-N’s workers, who were then allowed to show their political muscle unhindered. Government’s memory lapse is visible here. PTI’s former president Javed Hashmi had warned on PTI-Pakistan Awami Tehreek’s (PAT) intention of getting 15-20 dead bodies to oust Nawaz. The government had been careful not to let such a situation to come to pass so long as the alleged alliance between the PTI and PAT was intact. The moment the PAT wrapped up its sit-in there was a visible shift in the attitude of the government not only towards the PTI but in its style of governance as well. The government has no choice but to accept PTI as a reality. And if the party is playing in the hands of any third force, then the logic of it being used to unseat the prime minister or destabilise the system should be enough reason for the government to extend the hand of reconciliation towards it. When the PTI had shown flexibility in its stance to continue talks with the government without seeking the PM’s resignation, the opportunity should have been siezed immediately. Instead, the government launched a point-scoring venture and conditioned talks with the PTI while denouncing the sit-in. But after Faisalabad the government is once again on a weak wicket. The PTI has agreed to talk to the government but has refused to call off its protest and nor is it willing to give in on its demand on the formation of a judicial commission that should complete its investigation in six weeks. Why is the government flinching from forming a judicial commission? If it fears the judiciary will be reluctant to participate given Imran’s behaviour, let the judiciary express its reservations. There is no harm in writing another letter to the Supreme Court for the formation of the judicial commission and seeking a reply from it on the delay. The peace jirga headed by the Jamaat-e-Islami chief Sirajul Haq to mediate between the government and the PTI has already decided to explore the option of going to the SC to get the ball rolling in this direction. The sooner this is done the better and better still if the government takes the initiative. What we are seeing here is a crisis of confidence between the government and the PTI. The resolution lies in understanding the grievances and not in denying them as both the parties have been doing. After converging on a decision that the present system will not be disturbed, the government and the PTI should investigate the anomalies of the 2013 general elections through the judicial commission with the aim of making the next election as free and fair as possible. When the parties in parliament say that the 2013 elections were rigged, they are not suggesting that the sitting government had swindled them completely of their mandate. Their contention is that the electoral process had not been up to the mark or foolproof. Imran Khan should learn how to interpret and confront complex information. The ball is as much in Imran’s court as in the government’s. Does Imran want each constituency it failed to win opened up (by which time the tenure of this government will probably be over) or does he want to use the present opportunity to reform the electoral process and leave a mark for posterity? The same applies to the government. Does it want to spend the rest of its tenure in political bickering or will it make a serious effort to reconcile on issues that matter in national development, such as the electoral reforms? *