IT is unbecoming of a caretaker government with a limited mandate to resort to ad hominem criticism of an elected president over something that seems evident enough even to the most detached observer.

President Arif Alvi’s recent letter to the caretaker prime minister — in which he highlighted the PTI’s concerns over the caretaker government’s unfair treatment of the party, its leaders and workers, while seeking constitutional protections equally for all citizens — clearly does not sit well with the incumbent regime.

Information Minister Murtaza Solangi duly took to social media platform X on Friday to gaslight the president by highlighting his party affiliation, deny that the playing field was uneven, and state that the president’s actions seemed to be increasingly “conflicting with his constitutional role” as elections draw nearer. It was another disturbing example — after the ugly rift over who had the authority to announce election dates — of the caretaker set-up operating as if the presidency is somehow beneath consideration.

President Alvi may be rightly criticised for seemingly prioritising his own party’s concerns over others’, but it is inappropriate for a handpicked caretaker set-up to take a publicly adversarial position against him. It must be pointed out that the complaint regarding the inequality of opportunities for political parties ahead of the upcoming general election is not the PTI’s alone, nor does it seem fanciful or exaggerated. It is a reality that the party’s political workers have continued to be harassed and detained, that a large number of its leaders are being held without trial, and that even the women associated with it have not been spared the state’s excesses.

Meanwhile, the PPP has been complaining consistently about being denied a level playing field; that party’s leadership is seemingly convinced that the engineered ‘selection’ of another government is under way. Yet, despite the PPP’s complaints and the piling evidence of PTI’s political victimisation with the help of state machinery, the ECP remains unable to demonstrate that it is sufficiently committed to fostering the conditions necessary to hold a free, fair and inclusive election.

Why, then, should anyone pretend all is well? The onus remains on the caretaker set-up and the ECP to demonstrate their commitment to their respective mandates: perhaps they ought to start focusing on delivery rather than waste time deflecting valid criticism.

Published in Dawn, November 12th, 2023