Political Capture of Public Spaces and the Erosion of Sports Governance in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

 

Musarrat Ullah Jan – KikxNow , digital creator

The decision to use Hayatabad Sports Complex for a political rally highlights a familiar pattern in the governance of sports infrastructure. Despite prior administrative notification prohibiting political use of the facility, the sudden reversal reflects a deeper structural issue. Public sports spaces in Pakistan are not treated as developmental assets but as adjustable venues shaped by political urgency and influence.

This incident is not isolated. It points to how institutions become subordinate to political needs rather than long term public benefit. A sports ground exists to build athletes, not audiences for speeches. Temporarily blocking athletes for three days may appear harmless, yet for professional sports cycles those interruptions can impact training consistency, coaching schedules, and tournament preparation. The damage is not only physical to the turf but also psychological as it signals priority misalignment.

The frequent rotation of high level officers within the sports department exposes a governance vacuum. Five secretaries in one year is more than administrative reshuffling. It is institutional disruption. No strategic roadmap can be designed, implemented, monitored, and evaluated when leadership changes on a five week cycle.

This volatility produces three direct outcomes:

Short term decision making

No institutional memory

Lack of accountability

When every new official receives a briefing and leaves before execution begins, reforms become ceremonial. Governance becomes reactionary. Long term plans remain presentations rather than programs.

The message absorbed by lower departments is clear: continuity is not expected. Responsibility is diluted. Failure is non-traceable.

Sports complexes represent public investment funded through taxpayers. When they are repurposed as event venues, it raises a question of entitlement. Who owns public infrastructure? Citizens or political stakeholders.

The conversion of green fields into chair-laden platforms signals a reclassification of sports grounds from development assets to political capital. The decision is not about logistics. It is about precedence. Allowing political use once sets the template for future use. Systems normalize through repetition.

When elected representatives use sports facilities for political mobilization, they create a hierarchy where governance takes precedence over grassroots development. The paradox is that the same officials often advocate youth engagement, social development, and talent promotion. Yet the policy conduct does not match the rhetoric.

For athletes, interruption is not symbolic. It is measurable.

 

Professional development depends on consistent access to training grounds. A lost week affects conditioning. A damaged field changes risk exposure. In competitive sports, form is built gradually and lost rapidly.

Athletes already struggle with limited infrastructure, underfunded coaching, and uncertain career pathways. Blocking access amplifies exit rates as youth shift to other pursuits. The sports pipeline, already narrow, becomes fragile.

Development models in countries with strong sports culture prioritize uninterrupted access to facilities. They protect athletic spaces legally and administratively. In contrast, temporary political needs in local contexts outweigh seasonal athlete needs.

The sports department appears caught between governance and compliance. Officers accept policy but not power. Policy without enforcement is opinion, not framework. When administrative orders are reversable by political instruction, institutions lose autonomy.

If departments cannot defend their own notifications, the question arises: are they managing sports or merely managing paperwork.

Sports is not entertainment alone. It is social capital. Countries leverage it for identity, economy, diplomacy, and unity. Neglecting it is not just a governance issue. It is a developmental handicap.

Political governments often operate with short term optics. Sports development demands long term planning. The two rarely align unless institutions are strong enough to withstand shifts.

Protecting sports infrastructure is not a favor to athletes. It is state responsibility toward the next generation. When sports become a costume for political performance, the ones paying the cost are not the leaders on stage but the youth in the stands.

If governance looks at grounds as space and not purpose, then sports policy becomes ceremonial and vision becomes a slogan.

The question is not whether a single rally matters. The real question is whether the system understands what it means to interrupt a development ecosystem for a political event. That insight differentiates mature governance from operational improvisation.

The situation demands debate about legislative protection of sports facilities, clarity of administrative boundaries, and recognition that talent development cannot be paused and resumed on political timelines.

#kikxnow #sports #policy #hayatabadsports #complex #groundforpolitical #jalsa