The position of prime minister in Pakistan seems to be cursed.
To elaborate, no democratically elected prime minister in the country has ever served their entire five-year term in government. The most recent victim of this “curse” was Imran Khan, who was ousted from his seat April 10th as a result of an unprecedented vote of no-confidence, after serving only from 2018 to 2022. His predecessors have faced similar challenges, being inevitably removed from office through military opposition, dismissal by the president, or some other grounds for disqualification1.
The exact reason for this prompt turnover rate remains unclear, but it most likely stems from the powerful military presence in Pakistan. Since the nation’s constitution was established in 1956, three different military coups have occurred, and the military stays drastically involved in politics even in times of peace2. This involvement can span every aspect of civil administration, from road-building to census polling to even the managing of educational institutions2. Due to the lack of political autonomy within the government, most democratic leaders are inevitably overthrown once they show any signs of disagreeing with military policies or emphasizing civilian power over militant control. The military has been able to maintain their unshakeable grip on the administration due to border conflicts with India, which means many citizens may see the wide-spread interference of the military as unremarkable because they are viewed as necessary to national security.
But something about Imran Khan’s removal from office has changed things. For the first time in Pakistan’s long history of protests and civil rights movements, protestors have taken to the streets to speak out against the military and their actions. Khan himself has not been silent, either. Since the vote of no-confidence, he has organized wide-spread rallies to gather popular support and return him to office, and has also been calling for unrestricted democracy and a legitimate parliamentary system3. It helped that Khan was already popular among the people of Pakistan prior to his removal from the prime ministerial seat. His past as a former cricketer and movie star meant that disillusioned voters saw him more as a celebrity than a traditional politician, and believed he would lead Pakistan’s administration out of its long standing era of undemocratic corruption3. Khan’s immense charisma also meant that he was somewhat able to cultivate a personality cult, meaning that his followers were more likely to excuse his mistakes, overlook his shortcomings, and villainize his political enemies4. He’s used this unwavering belief to sell his own explanation for his removal: the foreign conspiracy theory4. Khan has stated that his opposition parties colluded with the United States in order to oust him, and has also mocked military leaders for turning on him when they claimed a stance of neutrality4.
The question now is whether Khan’s unconventional roots and the political unrest resulting from his expulsion could spark a new era of anti-militarism and popular revolution in Pakistan. This is highly improbable, due to two main reasons. Firstly, Khan is opposed by more than just the strong, deeply-rooted military; he also faces the loss of support from the political parties which once made up the coalition that allowed him to control a parliamentary majority. Smaller parties had begun to withdraw their backing of Khan’s party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI for short), long before the vote of no confidence5. However, his coalition’s hold over the government truly crumbled after losing the 8 parliament seats held by members of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement party, or MQM–one of PTI’s strongest allies which chose to join the opposition bloc6.
The second reason it’s unlikely that this era of democratic protesting will lead to the reinstatement of Khan and lasting civilian power is far more practical: as of October 21st, Pakistan’s elections commission banned him from public office for five years, on the grounds of accepting unlawful gifts and concealing assets7. This was the same reasoning they gave for the questioning of his legitimacy and subsequent vote of no-confidence in the first place, and one which Khan and his lawyers have denied and challenged, but to no avail.
A democratic revolution in Pakistan is not a likely outcome of the past few months of political unrest. While unprecedented anti-military protests have arisen, the current hold the military maintains over the government and prime minister position cannot be shaken. Even Khan himself came to power with behind-the-scenes support from the Pakistani armed forces8. His effective removal from the democratic system for such an extended period of time, the vehement efforts of the military to silence his actions, and the fact that his strong coalition support has crumbled, indicates that Khan is unlikely to ever return to his former glory. He was, perhaps, the people’s choice–but that is not what matters to the Pakistani government as it stands today.
