The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) have agreed to a power-sharing deal for the Gilgit-Baltistan government [1].
This alliance signals a strategic consolidation of power between two major political forces to stabilize regional governance and challenge incumbent administrations in neighboring territories.
Shehbaz Sharif (PML-N) invited the PPP to form the government in Gilgit-Baltistan on June 18, 2026 [1, 3]. The agreement aims to establish a stable administration in the region. Khawaja Saad Rafique (PML-N) said the party backs the PPP to prevent horse-trading in Gilgit-Baltistan [2].
Beyond the Gilgit-Baltistan agreement, the two parties have coordinated a plan to target the administration of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). Reports indicate the PPP and PML-N decided to table a no-confidence motion against AJK Prime Minister Anwarul Haq [2]. This joint effort to topple the AJK government follows high-level contacts between the leadership of both parties [2].
Despite this regional cooperation, the alliance faces friction at the national level. A deadlock continues between the PPP and PML-N regarding the 27th Constitutional Amendment [4]. This disagreement suggests that while the parties can align on regional power-sharing and tactical removals of opponents, fundamental legislative disputes remain unresolved.
The cooperation in Gilgit-Baltistan is intended to ensure a cohesive government and reduce political volatility. By coordinating their efforts in AJK, the parties seek to reshape the leadership of the territory through a formal parliamentary challenge [2].
“"PML-N backs PPP to prevent horse-trading in Gilgit-Baltistan."”
The agreement demonstrates a tactical partnership where the PPP and PML-N prioritize regional stability and the removal of political rivals over national legislative consensus. While the deal secures a governance foothold in Gilgit-Baltistan and threatens the current AJK leadership, the ongoing deadlock over the 27th Amendment indicates that the alliance is one of convenience rather than a total ideological merger.
