By: Z.A. Khan
The June 7 Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly elections have entered an unusual and politically significant post-election phase. Eleven days after polling, the Election Commission of Gilgit-Baltistan has yet to officially notify the election results, citing legal provisions that allow up to 14 days for the completion and notification of results.
While polling remained largely peaceful across most constituencies, allegations of irregularities, violence and procedural violations emerged from several constituencies, particularly in Diamer and Astore. The most contentious case has been Diamer-II, where the result remains unconsolidated amid a series of developments, including an order for re-polling, subsequent revisions to that decision, counting of ballots and continuing protests by rival candidates and their supporters.
The delay has had consequences extending far beyond disputed constituencies.
The prolonged uncertainty surrounding the final notification of election results appears to have created a window for intense post-election political manoeuvring. With the composition of the next assembly remaining unclear and government formation effectively on hold, political actors were given additional time and space to pursue alliances, negotiations and realignments beyond the electoral contest itself. The most striking outcome of this fluid environment was the emergence of the Istehkam-e-Pakistan Party (IPP) as a significant player despite failing to secure a single directly elected seat.
The uncertainty surrounding the final outcome was also reflected at the national political level. In the days following the election, PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari openly expressed concerns regarding developments in Gilgit-Baltistan as the process of government formation remained stalled despite his party emerging as the single largest political force in the assembly. The issue gained additional significance amid tensions between the PPP and the federal government over the federal budget, with PPP lawmakers staging a walkout from National Assembly proceedings. Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly stated that, in accordance with democratic norms, the largest party in Gilgit-Baltistan should be given the opportunity to form the government and invited the PPP to do so. At the same time, both PPP and PML-N were actively engaging independent members-elect in an effort to strengthen their respective positions ahead of government formation. However, before those efforts could produce a clear outcome, the political equation took an unexpected turn.
Backed by Federal Minister Abdul Aleem Khan, IPP had fielded around 16 candidates in the June 7 elections, including former Chief Minister Haji Gulbar Khan and former Governor Raja Jalal Maqpoon. Despite its high-profile campaign and the presence of several influential political figures, the party failed to win a single constituency on polling day.
Yet within days, the political landscape changed dramatically.
On June 16, four independent members-elect from different regions of Gilgit-Baltistan announced their decision to join IPP. The lawmakers included Muhammad Dilpazeer from GBA-15 Diamer-I, Aman Ali Amir from GBA-21 Ghizer-III, Anwar Ali from GBA-23 Ghanche-II and Dr Asad Shafiq from GBA-24 Ghanche-III.
The move instantly transformed IPP from a party with zero seats into a four-member parliamentary bloc and placed it at the centre of discussions about government formation.
The development triggered a debate not only in Gilgit-Baltistan but also among political commentators and journalists at the national level. Many questioned how a party that had failed to win a single constituency could suddenly emerge as a potential kingmaker in a divided assembly.
Political observers note that the delay in final notifications may have inadvertently created the space for such realignments. Had all results been notified promptly and the process of government formation begun immediately, the political calculations of independent candidates might have been very different.
Senior Pakistani journalist Ajmal Jami described the development as politically significant, writing: “Gilgit-Baltistan mein azad umeedwaron ka achanak ‘Istehkam pazeer’ ho jana bhi maani khez hai. Hukumat saazi ta haal nahin ho pa rahi, wahan kheli ja rahi shatranj baare mehsoos hua ke yeh jeetne wali party ke liye ek paigham hai.”
This observation reflects a wider perception that the delay in government formation and the emergence of a new parliamentary bloc are interconnected developments that have altered the post-election landscape.
The numbers explain why the move has attracted so much attention.
Before the independents joined IPP, PPP appeared to be in the strongest position to form the next government, having secured around 10 to 11 general seats. PML-N followed with six seats, while MWM and PTI-backed independents held three but potentially decisive numbers.
Based on projected allocations of reserved seats, PPP was expected to reach approximately 14 to 15 seats in the 33-member house. PML-N was projected to secure between eight and nine seats. The entry of four independents into IPP, however, altered the political equation.
A fragmented assembly now appears increasingly likely. Depending on how reserved seats are allocated, PPP may remain the largest party but fall short of commanding a comfortable majority. PML-N retains enough numbers to influence coalition arrangements, while MWM and PTI-backed independents continue to hold strategic importance.
Meanwhile, reports suggest that efforts are underway to persuade additional independent lawmakers and PTI-backed members to join IPP, potentially expanding its parliamentary strength even further. If successful, the party could emerge as a much larger bloc than anyone anticipated on election night.
This has opened another important debate: Is IPP entitled to reserved seats for women and technocrats?
The answer could have major implications for government formation.
Many analysts are drawing parallels with the controversy surrounding the Sunni Ittehad Council (SIC) after Pakistan’s 2024 general elections. In that case, PTI-backed independent candidates joined SIC after winning election contests. SIC subsequently sought reserved seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies despite not winning any seat directly as a political party. The Election Commission rejected the claim, a position that was later upheld by judicial forums after extensive legal proceedings.
Although the constitutional and legal framework governing Gilgit-Baltistan differs from that of the National Assembly, the SIC precedent has inevitably entered the debate. The central question is whether a party that secures no directly elected seat but later gains representation through the accession of independent members can legitimately claim reserved seats.
Supporters of IPP argue that once independent members legally join a political party, it becomes a parliamentary party and should be entitled to all rights available under the law, including consideration for reserved seats. Critics, however, maintain that reserved seats should reflect the electoral mandate obtained through direct participation in elections and not post-election affiliations.
The Election Commission of Gilgit-Baltistan will ultimately have to determine how the law applies in the current circumstances. Its decision could significantly influence not only the composition of the assembly but also the prospects of various parties seeking to form the next government.
For now, Gilgit-Baltistan appears headed toward a divided assembly in which no single party enjoys an unquestionable majority.
What initially appeared to be a straightforward post-election transition has evolved into a complex contest involving legal interpretation, coalition building, strategic political positioning and competing claims over the mandate.
The story of IPP’s transformation from zero seats to four within days has become the defining political development of the post-election period. Whether that number remains four, grows further, or translates into reserved seats and a larger role in government formation will depend on decisions yet to be made by lawmakers, political parties and the Election Commission.
As Gilgit-Baltistan waits for the final notification of election results, one question increasingly dominates political discussion across the region: will the shape of the next government be determined primarily by the verdict delivered at the ballot box on June 7, or by the political manoeuvring that followed in the days thereafter?
