On Imran Khan, Anarchy, and Pakistan’s Political Fickleness

The entire country is taken aback by what transpired yesterday. The PM had intimated that he had a ‘trump card’ up his sleeve in the run-up to the vote of no-confidence. A surprise! Even while political commentators and the media expected Mr Imran Khan’s demise in the no-confidence vote, he appeared unfazed. No one could have predicted that his final ruse would entail a democratically empowered party setting fire to the democratic order.

There is no question in the fact that what has been done was done to create anarchy. Pakistan has been thrust into the dark abyss of a constitutional crisis, with the parliamentary process pulverised on the orders of a leader who continues to hold it in such low regard. In retrospect, it appears that the captain had intended to play this nefarious card all along.
It was a painful awakening, for a self-proclaimed ‘warrior’ to engage in such unsportsmanlike behaviour is quite a fall.

Mr Khan has struck a fatal blow to constitutionalism by tearing up the rules of the game rather than ‘playing till the last ball’, raising the most serious worries yet that he is unfit to hold public office in a democratic society.

Whatever occurred in the National Assembly on Sunday violated all House rules, including those regulating the motion of no-confidence. As soon as the Assembly assembled, the opposition had the numbers to topple the Prime Minister. However, before the motion could be put to a vote, the newly appointed law minister rose to file an ‘objection’ under Article 5 of the Constitution, which declares that “loyalty to the State is the basic obligation of every citizen.” What the government did was clearly planned and staged.

The deputy speaker, who was forced to preside over the meeting since the opposition had also tabled a resolution of no-confidence for the speaker, accommodated the objection with unseemly haste. The deputy speaker dismissed the proposal on the grounds that it contradicted Article 5 without a shred of evidence that the motion had anything to do with any of its movers’ loyalty to the state. He followed a prepared script so closely that when he issued the order to prorogue the session; he did not even bother to replace the speaker’s name with his own.

The PM, who had been conveniently absent from the session, appeared on national television before the public could digest the shock.

He ‘congratulated’ the country on the ‘failure’ of the no-confidence motion and revealed that he had previously written to the president to dissolve the Assembly so that new elections could be held in a pre-planned broadcast.

He had been prevented from playing this hand earlier because he could not dismiss the Assembly while a vote of no-confidence against him was pending. His request was granted by the president, who immediately dismissed the National Assembly with indecent haste.

Mr Khan’s surprising choice to appoint Pervaiz Elahi as Punjab’s chief minister over his own supporters appeared to be a betrayal of principles, but his actions yesterday showed that he also lacked the courage and patience to be the leader he desires to be.

Given the obvious narrative he had created leading up to the vote, he might have played the political game like a genuine sports person. He might have also come out stronger from the setback. Instead, he opted to throw the country into disarray by causing a constitutional crisis.

The president, too, failed to act wisely. Instead of investigating the legitimacy of the process, he acted as an Imran Khan supporter and sullied his office with his politicised judgement.

The Supreme Court will now decide on the case. Meanwhile, other elements appear eager to promote the idea that because a new election has already been called, everything should be left alone.

As long as the administration is deposed and new leadership in parliament is sought by all political parties, so be it, they say.

This line of thinking must be fought at all levels since it aims to legitimise any unconstitutional action used to impose this outcome. The Supreme Court will, hopefully, give a proper solution for the wrongdoing and remind all parties involved that there is only one path to legitimate authority, and that path is always through the Constitution. Anything less would be insufficient and unacceptable.