AS the dust settles after a surprise result in the Lodhran by-election and the Sharif family’s legal woes continue, both the PTI and PML-N appear to be returning to full-attack mode.

A vigorously fought, hyper-competitive general election seems inevitable at this point, but perhaps the leadership of both parties ought to realise the possible repercussions of a take-no-prisoners style election campaign. To be sure, both sides have some legitimate grievances.

The ouster of Nawaz Sharif from prime ministership was controversial and poorly reasoned by the court. To expect a three-term prime minister who heads the largest vote-getting party in the country to simply walk away from politics after a controversial disqualification verdict was unreasonable. But the PTI is also right in demanding that the PML-N stop attacking institutions, particularly the judiciary. An electoral contest that is turned into a referendum of trust in national institutions is unlikely to yield any kind of stability.

Part of the problem is that neither the PTI nor the PML-N seems interested in a positive message for voters.

While election manifestos have mostly been regarded as a procedural necessity by political parties, manifestoes have the potential to set out realistic and positive governance agendas. Yet, the parties themselves quickly dispense with their manifestos after a general election, and few in the public or the media bring attention to promises contained in them.

What, for example, were the principal pledges that the PTI and PML-N made in their 2013 general election manifestos? The PTI’s relentless focus on the political shortcomings and alleged misdeeds of the PML-N clearly appeals to a section of the electorate, but it does not necessarily have a wider appeal. Simplistic slogans such as the PTI’s claim that it will end all corruption if elected do not translate into a plan of action, even as the anti-corruption message remains necessary and laudable.

For the PML-N, the challenge remains to move on from a narrative of victimhood.

Mr Sharif and his family may feel aggrieved at his ouster from the prime minister’s office and upset that the Sharifs’ legal woes are endless, but the democratic process is larger than the fate of a few individuals, no matter how important the latter consider themselves to be to the democratic process. For all the controversy that surrounded Mr Sharif’s ouster from public office, the fact remains that in over a year of political and judicial scrutiny after the Panama Papers were revealed to the world, the Sharif family was unable or unwilling to provide a full account of the family’s wealth and assets.

An election ought to be about the people’s needs and aspirations, not the victimhood of the political candidate.

Published in Dawn, February 19th, 2018