A simmering political crisis has continued in Pakistan even after the February 8 national and provincial elections. Although the country’s electorate, against all odds, put their faith in the country’s weak democratic system and went out to vote, the system seems to have failed the common Pakistani. Of the total electorate of 128.6 million, 60.6 million exercised their voting rights. Not a small number, given the increasing political disenchantment due to a festering political crisis and security threats faced by voters. But the political leadership seems to remain indifferent to people’s concerns and issues like political instability, security, inflation, and unemployment.
The mandate was a fragmented one. No single party reached the halfway mark in the National Assembly to form the government. Of the 266 National Assembly seats, results for 264 were declared. The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), former Prime Minister Imran Khan’s party-backed independent candidates won 93 seats, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) won 74 seats, and the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) claimed 54. Mandates for two provincial Assemblies, Punjab and Balochistan, were also fragmented. Efforts to cobble together a coalition government were difficult. Finally, a coalition government has been formed with Shehbaz Sharif leading it as the Prime Minister second time. Tougher, however, it will be the job to hold such a fragile alliance together.
Also Read | Deep state pulls strings in Pakistan’s February elections. Will 2018 repeat?
It is the nature of the politics adopted, not by the politicians or the Army, but by the voters who still believed in the power of the vote that threw a surprise this time. In the reactionary culture of Pakistani politics, this silent exercise of the vote in the 2024 elections may set a new trend. It was not the first time, though. Pakistanis have a history, despite several dictatorial rulers, of breaking the chains of dictatorships via the ballot.
The only difference in this national election was that the “dictator” changed tactics. Apart from holding the reins of the hybrid government, the country’s powerful military, known as the establishment, operated via apparent elected representatives to portray itself as a victim. Thus, the nature of the latest “hybrid” regime, with the government functioning as the stooge of the establishment, was different from previous regimes in that it helped the narrative of the establishment being a victim of the politics of hatred of the PTI.
Elected representatives have hardly operated freely in Pakistan. In the 2018 election, Imran Khan’s PTI emerged as the largest party with 116 National Assembly seats with backing from the establishment. Supporting Imran was aimed at clipping the wings of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who had tried to assert his civilian authority over non-defence matters, including foreign policy. Imran Khan was allowed at the helm despite facing severe criticism for his unproductive policies, especially on the economic front. Imran fell out with the establishment over the appointment of the chief of Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), the country’s powerful secret agency, in late 2020. To assert his authority, Imran delayed approving the name sent by the Army, which was anathema to the latter.
No sooner did Imran fall out of grace than the opposition swiftly united to remove him from the chair. The Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), an alliance of over a dozen parties formed in 2020, brought in a no-confidence motion against Imran Khan in March 2022. Imran called the motion a foreign conspiracy against him and his government because he said he had wanted Pakistan to have an independent foreign policy. Imran even approached the establishment but it did not come to his rescue.
On 10 April, Imran Khan became the first Prime Minister of Pakistan to be removed by a no-confidence motion. But Imran did not give up; in fact, it gave him a new lease of life and his support base got charged up. All failures of his government were cleansed. Apart from gaining the “goodwill” of the establishment, the PDM ally parties achieved nothing by overthrowing the Imran government. They did form the government and rule for 16 months, but these were tough times, both politically and economically. It further took the wind out of their sail and made Imran look better.
In Imran, Pakistan has a more populist authoritarian than a hope for true democracy. But his confrontational politics against the establishment and his criticism of the government’s failing economic policies may have widened his support. Meanwhile, the PDM regime resorted to vendetta politics, filing case after case against Imran and his colleagues. The former was arrested dramatically on May 9, 2023, which started protests across the country. Some of these turned violent, even targeting some military installations. The Army took the opportunity to swiftly clamp down. With the support of the PDM government, it went after Imran to crush him and his party. Many PTI leaders were arrested; many more went into hiding.
Meanwhile, by seconding the establishment the PDM facilitated the legitimisation of the establishment’s narrative of victimisation. The state’s institutions, instead of standing with the civilians, rallied behind this narrative. Judgment after judgement by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and the courts went against Imran Khan and his party. Imran was barred from fighting elections; his party symbol, the cricket bat, was taken away.
The classic nexus between the Army and one or other political party once again played out. These moments serve the Army’s interests and weaken the possibility of civilian supremacy in Pakistan.
Need for a national charter of democracy
The Army in Pakistan thrives on crises. It has grown artful in manoeuvring various political parties to keep itself relevant in politics and the politicians subservient to it. Whenever democracy has tried to return, even in a weak form, the establishment has used one party against another to undermine the move. Imran Khan’s rise and fall too were the product of such Army manoeuvres.
At the same time, it is also true that whenever political parties and leaders have come together to reassert civilian authority, it has helped bear some fruit. When the PML-N and PPP came together and agreed upon the Charter of Democracy in 2006, the Army’s hold seemed to weaken. The 18th Amendment brought by the PPP-led government in 2010 gave more powers to provinces. It undermined the powers of the military by strengthening Article 6 of the 1973 Constitution which prohibited any person from abrogating, suspending, or holding the Constitution in abeyance, including the higher courts.
The Army has consistently undermined political parties by using them against each other. It used the so-called “Memogate” to undermine the PPP-led government, from 2008 to 2013. Soon a corruption case was launched against Prime Minister Yousuf Reza Gilani; Nawaz Sharif demanded his resignation and the judiciary banned Gilani from politics.
To undermine Nawaz Sharif after his victory in 2013, it used Imran Khan and PTI. The Dawn leaks of 2016 in which the Nawaz Sharif-led government asked some tough questions to the Army on its role in the country’s isolation at the international level, angered the establishment so much that it desperately sought some opportunity to send Nawaz packing. The Panama leaks, as Imran had said, were “god sent” for that purpose. The Army removed Nawaz Sharif as Prime Minister for not being “honest and righteous” (Sadiq aur Ameen) according to Article 62 of the Constitution in 2017.
Supporters of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) carry posters and placards as they chant slogans against what they call, ‘blatant rigging in national election’, during a protest in Karachi on March 2, 2024. | Photo Credit: AKHTAR SOOMRO
By now Imran had become an Army supporter and launched a crusade against corruption. Once he formed government in 2018, the opposition parties led a campaign alleging he was “selected” by the Army, not elected and targeted him for his failures to address economic woes. But it is also true that no political party or military dictator has ever been able to address the structural economic issues, reflected in Pakistan’s continuous reliance on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from the 1950s.
All this has facilitated the Army’s stance and reinforced its persecution of the civilian leadership. The biggest casualty of these tactics by both the Army and the political parties has been the loss of the legitimacy of democratic principles in the country.
The main source of power of the Pakistan Army is its capability to manoeuvre various forces in the country during crisis. Political stability or a vibrant democracy does not serve its interests. If anything, its presence in the country threatens establishment’s supremacy. It has proven time and again that it will bring down any political threat to itself. Even leaders who have come to power with the Army’s backing, such as General Zia-ul Haq’s handpicked Muhammad Junejo, have ended up falling afoul of the Army when they have demanded restoration of some democratic system.
What Pakistan needs is a national charter of democracy. If the 2008 election was a mandate for the PPP, 2013 for the PML-N, and 2018 for the PTI, the 2024 election defied one of the harshest attacks of the establishment on the country’s politics. It is the leaders of these parties who need to stand up to prove their democratic credentials.
Also Read | Pakistan on the boil as former PM Imran Khan takes on the ‘deep state’
The fragmented mandate of this national election has again given major parties a chance to let democracy take root. They need to come together and respect the mandate. That is the basic principle of democracy: respecting the voice or vote in dissent. That is what the national charter of democracy should entail.
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue in How Democracies Die that in a democracy “constitutions must be defended by political parties and organised citizens, but also by democratic norms”. It seems the citizens of Pakistan have carried out their duty by practising the “democratic norm” of exercising their voting rights against all the odds, entailing political instability, security threats, and economic crises. Now, the responsibility lies with the political parties and their leaders to shun confrontational and exclusionary politics and come up with a national charter of democracy to have, at least for the next five years, a reconciliatory government to get Pakistan out of its myriad crises. This can help mitigate confrontational politics and pave the way for democratic politics, which is the only way to stop the Army’s meddling. That seems the only way ahead to save the country from further damage.
Nazir Ahmad Mir is a researcher with the South Asia Center, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), New Delhi.
Muneeb Yousuf is a doctoral candidate at the Academy of International Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia, a central University in New Delhi. He is also a researcher at MP-IDSA.
COMMents
COMMents
SHARE