On 7 June 2026, the residents of Gilgit-Baltistan went to the polls with a lot of hopes to elect a stable and efficient government which could solve the constitutional, political and economic problems of the region. But the post-election process has been besmirched by re-polling, delayed notification and litigation, which raises doubts on the viability of the democratic process. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) did not secure the majority in Parliament that it had hoped for, and the anticipated victory has been split.
Political commentators and PPP supporters were hopeful of winning between 14 and 15 seats in the legislative assembly before the elections. It would have enabled the PPP to establish a stable single-party government without the compromises that go with a coalition government. The party’s grassroots mobilization, its federal power over regional grievances, and a broad platform of infrastructure, education, health, and tourism promises contributed to this level of optimism. The PPP’s ability to manage the tribal and sectarian complex situation in Gilgit-Baltistan further added to its strength.
However, as the results began to come in, the expected landslide came and went. Enrollment was much lower than anticipated, and party supporters and observers were looking for answers. The post-electoral interventions that ensued compounded the picture further, making it appear a simple win but actually a long political crisis.
After-Election Interventions
The critics say that the mandate of the PPP was unnecessarily limited by a series of administrative and judicial decisions which had a negative effect on the outcome of the election. There are three key developments to highlight.
First, re-polling was ordered in five constituencies over irregularities that had been reported. Re-polling is a constitutional value to be used in the event of electoral malpractices, but the time and extent of re-polling affected the momentum of the PPP. The party had been on top of the polls where it was ahead, so opponents were given a second chance to get ready and change their tactics. The delay in the electoral process in arranging fresh elections also added to the uncertainty about the final outcome.
Second, the notification of three successful candidates (Fida Muhammad Nashad (PPP, Skardu-III, GBA-9), Muhammad Naseem (GBA-17 Darel) and Muhammad Dilpazir (GBA-15 Diamer-I)) was suspended after they received the notification while a petition was filed before the Supreme Appellate Court. The result of these suspensions is that at present, the assembly is deprived of certain members elected in accordance with the election rules, which in turn reduces the representativeness of the assembly.
Third, through judicial review and election petitions, the post-election period has been extended indefinitely. Judicial oversight is fundamental to democratic governance, but the long time it takes to settle disputes means that the legitimacy of the judiciary is eroding. The assembly’s size is below the required number, leading some to question the legitimacy of the decisions made in this period. Critics argue that these are not lawful and that they have effectively deprived the PPP of the parliamentary majority it achieved at the polls.
Coalition Governance
The government has been forced to form a coalition government, which brings with it the challenges of coalition politics, including compromise, compromising of priorities, and longer deliberations. Political fragmentation in a place where there is an immediate demand for urgent development in the fields of infrastructure, education, health, tourism, and constitutional clarity, can be a severe constraint on development in this region. If short-term coalition management is taking precedence over long-term planning, the party’s grand policy is likely to be diluted or postponed, limiting its capacity to deliver on its promises.
Economic Uncertainty
Political instability is one of the largest factors hindering investments. The continuing election-related conflicts have been dampening investor confidence in the need to invest in key industries like tourism, mining, and infrastructure. Government formation is slow, and budgets are not approved in time to implement development projects or new initiatives. Such uncertainty can also affect federal and international aid funding since donors are waiting to see if there is political clarity.
Administrative Inefficiency
If a government is not complete, it must be inefficient in decision-making and in administration. Significant meetings, policy decisions and resource allocations are delayed, with repercussions on essential services like healthcare, education and law enforcement. For ordinary people, the impact is a growing lack of access to electricity, water and schools, something that is often neglected in the face of political crises. As the divide between pledges and reality becomes more significant, confidence in the electoral system is eroded as well.
Democratic Legitimacy
The worst is that it undermines citizens’ trust in democratic institutions. Lack of elections or contested elections and/or perceived manipulation of elections reduce people’s willingness to accept the outcome. If they don’t feel their votes were counted as cast, public confidence goes down. The impression that the electoral authorities or the judiciary have become involved with the PPP beyond the electoral sphere or that the mandate of the PPP was limited may create cynicism and political disenfranchisement. The lack of citizens’ trust in the importance of their votes makes them less likely to vote in future elections and thereby diminishes the strength of democracy in the long run. On the other hand, if contestations of the law are seen as legitimate responses to ensure electoral integrity, they can boost institutional credibility even when they cause some immediate disruptions.
The Counterargument
An impartial assessment should also recognize the constitutional argument supporting post-election interventions. Those who advocate for election petitions, judicial review, and re-polling say these are essential safeguards against rigging and violations of the rules. If they were absent, elections could not be trusted and democratic legitimacy would be diluted. The Supreme Appellate Court’s role offers a responsible and orderly avenue of conflict resolution, avoiding vigilantism. Legal remedies also are a disincentive to electoral malfeasance, since defects are exposable to the public and subject to possible sanctions.
Defenders also argue that there is no excuse for not being thorough to compromise speed. Complex electoral disputes need time to look into evidence, witness statements and procedures. Hastening these processes may lead to poor judgments, which could exacerbate injustice. Natural justice requires that everyone receive a complete hearing, which cannot be expedited and will take time. Judicial settlements in the long run help build institutional credibility and public trust in electoral and judicial institutions. From this point of view, the current problems can be interpreted as the maturation pains of Gilgit-Baltistan’s democracy.
Path Forward
The government’s formation time should not be compromised by the clean elections. Electoral authorities should strive to increase transparency and efficiency in the electoral process, such as through improving voter education, training of polling staff, and robust monitoring, to minimize post-election controversy. Election petitions should be rushed through by setting up special benches and observing strict timelines to avoid disruption. Constructive dialogue should take place between political parties to reach consensus and mitigate polarization around electoral reform and governance priorities, with a view to facilitating smoother transitions. Last but not least, election officials and judges should keep the public informed about the delays in the electoral process and legal proceedings, and build trust and understanding.
This is a political saga going on in Gilgit-Baltistan which gives rise to a number of basic issues concerning democracy and governance in the region. Election decisions, not their outcome, will determine the credibility of democracy, so far as clarity, legality, and timeliness are concerned. The people deserve a short and well-defined process so that the government can attend to the urgent regional issues that need to be dealt with. Citizens want political stability, economic development, clarity of the constitution, and consistent public services. This means that these goals need to be executed by a competent government and respected institutions. To secure a democratic future for the region, it is crucial to ensure free and fair elections and good governance. Any administration’s legitimacy rests on electoral credibility. There is still a chance to realize the vision of 7 June 2026 if leaders take advantage of this experience and enhance electoral integrity. Gilgit-Baltistan’s people expect a credible, accountable, and responsive democracy.
