Imran Khan: How New Players Destabilize Pakistan

 

Lately, the news cycle has been dominated by Imran Khan’s three-year jail sentence, disqualification from elections and his subsequent arrest. Much has been said about it. Dawn recently posted an editorial stating that Nawaz Sharif and Benazir could not be kept out of politics after confronting a fate similar to Khan. And thus, Khan should fare no differently. But that completely depends on Khan.

Democracy is a political system that arose following objections against monarchy. After the renaissance, monarchy was seen in a bad light due to its autocratic nature, lack of representation but most importantly, inability to peacefully transfer power. This is ironic as Hobbes had believed that monarchy could enable peaceful transfer of power, hence prevent a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”.

But time after time, succession disputes turned violent under monarchic regimes. This provided impetus for a democratic system to come about as citizens demanded protection of life and eventually, liberty and property. Looking through this lens, one realizes that democracy in Pakistan has completely failed.

Not only have political leaders been brought to the helm illegally, but democracy has been unable to bring about a stable and peaceful transition of power.

Imran Khan was brought to power through undemocratic means as he was supposedly not corrupt and relatively easy to control for the establishment. Along with the judiciary, he was tasked with punishing the old political elite (PPP and PMLN) for their corrupt ways while correcting their economics errors and delivering growth.

Time and time again, former COAS Qamar Bajwa has emphasized the need for Pakistan to return to a path of economic growth. This is not out of goodwill but pure self-interest of the Pakistan Army. One would note that the army’s budget as a percentage of the total federal budget has fallen from high 20s percent to the current 13%.

Not only is the pie getting smaller but so is the army’s portion of it. That is what had spooked Bajwa. Meanwhile, a glance across the border would show that the Indian Army’s budget gets bigger even as its proportion of the budget remains same. Why? Because in India, the pie seems to be getting bigger.

With this mission, the judiciary, army and Khan were getting along well until they weren’t. And when the consensus broke, chaos spread. But this disorder only occurred when institutional infighting had begun.

There are five key institutions in Pakistan: the army, judiciary, political elite, maulvis and bureaucracy. Bureaucracy has been largely out of the limelight for decades now but so is the nature of the game – some powers rise, others fall.

Within this multi-polar system, disorder starts only when an institution begins fighting with another. Or when an institution fights among themselves. This has a ripple effect. Players in other institutions begin taking sides in either fight, thus causing internal disorder within every institution but one – the army.

The army is the only institution which is stable largely because it remains loyal to its own even in the most adverse scenarios. This loyalty is enhanced by their professional and ethnically diverse presence. Perhaps, this is the reason why army continues receiving favorable support and acceptance from the Pakistani people.

Just take the chaos of the past two years as an example. Constant mudslinging between PDM and PTI divided the judiciary and political elite along partisan lines. Maulvis took a partisan position as well but not with the same vigour or passion. Bureaucracy largely remained neutral as it has over the past few decades. Meanwhile, the army remained composed – it acted as the stabilizer.

The army brought about changes as per its will, much to the displeasure of many voters. However, in one way or another, it was forced to given the lack of consensus among the political elite. Therein lies the problem.

Before Khan, the political system was well-balanced due to its bipolar nature. Both PMLN and PPP would pass bills and amendments along bipartisan lines. Together they were able to pass the 18th amendment which curtailed the army’s influence by making the center smaller. Having been in the game for so long, they had an understanding.

Khan’s entry disrupted the system and divided the political elite again. This is not a critique of Imran Khan but rather a critique of the system. More competition in the political sphere is harmful rather than helpful as competition is usually thought to be. Lately, that is the source of instability.

The key to stability can either be a full embrace of democracy with civilians ruling the country and other institutions acting as subordinates but supreme in their own rights. That would be an optimist’s dream. A realist would argue that it would be better if each institution either became inherently neutral or became unified in their belief and loyalty like the army.

How do the dots connect back to Khan and Dawn’s editorial? Well, Khan can certainly make a comeback but only if he wishes to make one. That wish is dependent on his willingness to play the establishment’s game. Or coordinate with the political elite as PMLN and PPP have done for many years. The latter would be better given its remarkably positive impact on stability in Pakistan.