From an impartial election researcher's point of view, ‎NA-122‬ was always going to be a close contest between the PML-N and the PTI – pretty much a dead heat – however, PML-N did not win it as much as PTI lost it.

Yes, they put up a great fight but closing the gap with PML-N today means nothing in the long-term as public opinion changes over a matter of weeks. For those of you willing to consider something other than election rigging as the reason for this loss, one will be so bold as to suggest all roads lead to campaign failure.

It's been a really long time since May 2013 and the incumbency factor, plus any residual gains of the dharnas, should have been working against the PML-N (remember the 1990's? This population is pretty much done with the incumbent at the two-year mark).

Also read: Should the PTI continue to grieve over ‘stolen’ seats?

The PTI has been building up momentum to change their baseline from “not winning” in urban Lahore to “winning” urban Lahore. Let’s face it, if the PTI is to be a formidable third force they have to be able to win in places where the demography (urban educated voters and high youth numbers) of their key constituents plays in their favour.

Simply put, if the PTI aren't winning urban Punjab yet, they're not winning any national elections in the next two and half years. 


Five ways PTI's campaign strategy failed:

1. Attack campaigns don't work if you don't have your ducks in a row

The PTI vilified Ayaz Sadiq (who remained rather dignified) to the extent that they made a martyr of him.

There is such a thing as taking your campaign to a point where it starts working against you, the effects of which you can see when your opponent’s voters show up in force.

2. Candidate selection is the holy grail of electioneering

The PTI clearly hasn't gotten the memo in the last 2.5 years.

Running attack campaigns will result in people hating your opponent, but at the same time, they also create higher expectations. Your voters are expecting a candidate who embodies the values YOU told them your opponent doesn't have.

Thus if that is the chosen nature of your campaign pick a benign gentleman/lady of known character (even if they are relatively unknown to the public) instead of a controversial electable.


3. Run a real campaign centered around WHO your candidate is

It's not enough to just be anti status-quo.

The undecided lazy voter just didn’t know enough about Aleem Khan outside of the PTI’s anti-PMLN campaign to come out and vote. Campaigns must give people something to vote for and not just something to vote against.

4. Put your house in order

The most deadly mismatch is that between a party's candidate selection vis-a-vis the values they claim to hold as a party. If your candidate is not (or at least, is not presented as) the epitome of your loudest values, the voter will question your ethos.

Answer me this, does the PTI, as a genuine harbinger of change, have as much traction today with voters as it did three years ago? I worry they don’t, and internal party politics are largely to blame for it.

5. Don't blame the media

If you didn't use them well, that's on you.

Those are just some basic criteria to a successful campaign that weren’t met here.

While one has your attention, let’s just call a spade a spade – this was NOT a contest between Ayaz Sadiq and Aleem Khan – this was a referendum on the righteousness of the PTI versus the evil of election rigging.

It's an absolutely terrible idea to link victory in one constituency to vindication of your party’s broader message. It’s simply too much pressure on one campaign and the problem with that paradigm is that elections have less to do with right or wrong and more to do with mathematics.

That kind of messaging raises the stakes for victory and increases the impact of defeat, where one constituency can sink your entire cause.

Little victories sustain causes, not losses! Little victories are the fuel for your supporters and the incentive for those undecided voters.

"Rigged elections of 2013" consequently doesn’t resonate the same way it did back in August 2014.

Furthermore, using that rhetoric will again alienate the critics and distance the swing voters. With each loss you failed to walk on water, you didn't emerge from the fire unscathed, and the children are crying because you just showed them Santa isn't real.

And finally, let’s address the expectation that somehow changing the process (election reform) will yield a different electoral outcome. That simply is not going to happen, not when political parties are choosing candidates that the public has a hard time getting behind. 


Processes and rules don’t change anything. They are just necessary to prevent deviations in behavior that might influence the outcome.

Campaigns, on the other hand, actually influence the outcome.

Campaigns have the power to change preferences. But the power to give the voter really good reasons to choose you lies with ... well ... you.