LAHORE: Nadeem Afzal Chan, Central Secretary Information of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), on Thursday said the country’s political system cannot function without the PPP, warning against attempts to sideline the party.
Speaking to ARY News, Chan said the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had already been pushed out of the system and questioned how authorities could exclude the country’s second-largest political party as well.
“You have already thrown PTI out of the system. How will you remove PPP too?” he asked.
Responding to a question about alleged pressure on the PPP, Chan said rumours were circulating regarding a possible 28th Constitutional Amendment, changes to the NFC Award, and the creation of new provinces.
He stressed that the prevailing political system could not continue without the PPP, especially in view of the worsening law and order situation in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan.
“PPP has maintained stability in Sindh. If you exclude PPP from the system, how will you control the situation in Sindh? How will you deal with Sindhi nationalists?” he warned.
Chan said the PPP had already endured pressure from institutions including NAB, anti-corruption departments, and parts of the judiciary over the years.
Commenting on the situation in Punjab, he claimed that several government officials in almost every district had allegedly been “picked up” and later released after giving statements, adding that many subsequently avoided legal proceedings.
He also criticised the governance structure, saying the government was being run in a bureaucratic rather than democratic manner.
Discussing the country’s broader situation, Chan said inflation and unemployment were rising while the agriculture sector was nearing collapse.
He further stated that although the Crime Control Department (CCD) had helped improve security conditions, it was not a permanent solution to underlying issues.
Chan also predicted that PTI founder Imran Khan could be released this year.
“The PTI founder is likely to be released during this year,” he said, adding that any resolution would require dialogue with political parties and should not be viewed as a “deal.”
“When political parties engage in dialogue, it is not called a deal. The Charter of Democracy was also the result of political dialogue,” he added.