ISLAMABAD: Many foreign media outlets have highlighted implications for Pakistan’s security after former prime minister Imran Khan’s arrest and subsequent violence in the country.
Imran Khan and his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), have been facing terrorism charges. This comes after the current coalition government, led by Shehbaz Sharif, launched a crackdown on PTI in March.
At that time, PTI supporters were set to hold a rally in Lahore to kick off the election campaign in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa provinces. Pakistani authorities ultimately arrested Khan at the Islamabad High Court on May 8 as part of a corruption case, for which he was attending a hearing. His arrest sparked countrywide protests and brought normal life and business activities in Pakistan to a halt.
Dozens of court cases have been filed against Khan and his party leaders. Many PTI leaders and activists have been detained for various charges, to include terrorism. However, the question remains as to whether the strategy of cracking down on Khan and PTI will backfire and, if so, if the move might lead to violence. The countrywide protests that followed Khan’s arrest suggest that the former may be the case, as his arrest has only increased Khan’s popularity among his supporters.
During his time in office, Khan always preferred talks with the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan or “Pakistani Taliban,” and opposed military operations in the tribal areas where the TTP and allied militants enjoyed safe havens. The Khan administration’s focus on reconciling with the TTP by dialogue has the former PM’s critics to deride him as “Taliban Khan”. As a result of these views and talks with TTP, Khan became an easy target for his political rivals, who pillory his party as a “clique of militants.”
The security challenges have become more severe for the cash-strapped and politically volatile Pakistan. The current government, ironically, seems to be using the mantra of terrorism charges against Khan at a time when it must invest its energies to eradicate more specific threats of terrorism.
Moreover, the crackdown on Khan and PTI ahead of elections seems to have backfired so far, as it has only created more public sympathy around Khan. With Khan’s arrest, his political opponents in the government seemingly have made him into more of a heroic, potentially martyr-like, figure among his followers.
Imran Khan arrived at his Lahore residence Saturday after being freed on bail following days of legal drama and nationwide riots over his arrest on corruption charges. Early Saturday, the former cricket superstar reached his Lahore residence, where videos posted by his PTI party showed more than 100 supporters celebrating his release and throwing rose petals over his car. “They keep trying to silence Khan and keep trying to put him behind bars. But Khan has proven that the one who stands with the truth always wins,” 21-year-old supporter Waqar Ahsan told AFP after Khan was granted bail.
The former prime minister’s arrest has escalated the country’s political crisis at a delicate moment. Khan’s arrest contributes to several crises currently threatening Pakistan’s stability. The country is currently seeing record-high inflation and teetering on the edge of default. And there has been a recent spike in terrorist activity. But the political crisis has so far overshadowed those issues, and could lead to mass protests, experts said.
“Khan has a large, growing, and impassioned support base that has long identified his arrest as a red line. His supporters are already out in the streets and likely will stay there for some time,” said Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Center. “The longer Khan is detained, the greater the chance for prolonged unrest in urban centers.” “Instead of paying attention to those things, the country is really focused on this political crisis and the political instability,” said Tamanna Salikuddin, South Asia director for the US Institute of Peace. “Now, you are further paralyzed in terms of dealing with both the economic and terrorism crises. No one’s going to have any space to deal with them.”
“I don’t want to in any way say that there may not be something there to hold him accountable for corruption,” Salikuddin said. “But that being said, you could make a case for corruption against almost every politician in Pakistan. And usually, you don’t see these cases come out until there’s a politically motivated reason.”
In Khan’s case, the motivation may be to silence one of the current government’s vocal critics. “While the proximate cause for the arrest is a corruption case, the real reason is likely the vendetta that has embroiled Khan and the civilian and military leadership for more than a year, since his ouster,” Kugelman said. “Today’s events strengthen his victimization narrative, and in Pakistan victimization narratives can be very powerful political tools.”
Khan’s arrest represents a major escalation in Pakistan’s political crisis, and there might be no turning back. Some observers are calling it the country’s biggest crisis since 1971 when East Pakistan became Bangladesh. Democracy in Pakistan is potentially at stake. After decades of military rule in Pakistan, there was a democratic consolidation starting in 2008. But there are now fears that political unrest could lead to a dramatic, anti-democratic intervention, such as a military coup. “It’s hard to see how the political situation deescalates now; this is a very dangerous development and dashes any hopes for Pakistan’s political stability,” said Madiha Afzal, a foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Kugelman said that the government could use extended unrest as a potential pretext to delay national elections currently scheduled for October. But that could also “backfire because the unrest would likely intensify in reaction to a decision to postpone polls,” he said.
And there’s a question as to whether Khan’s supporters will accept the results of the elections if he loses or is disqualified from running. “Would his supporters actually accept the legitimacy of the elections? Would they come out to the streets to protest? I think that’s a very likely scenario,” Salikuddin said.
While demonstrators have been seen setting fire to military facilities, police vehicles, and even attempting to breach the army headquarters in Rawalpindi, the military appears to have made a conscious decision to lightly protect these installations and not respond violently in Islamabad or Lahore.
There are potentially three factors contributing to this approach. First, the military might be speculating that the protests will naturally lose steam over time. Secondly, the leadership could be aiming to avoid violent confrontations that could further endear the protesters to the general public or alienate their own officers and rank and file, many of whom may support Khan. Instead, they may assume that allowing the protesters to inflict damage on government property and residences will eventually turn the masses and PTI supporters within the military against them.
Furthermore, the demonstrations could be used as a justification to limit Khan’s participation in politics and place restrictions on PTI.
Lastly, taking no action might be perceived as a more powerful short-term response. Nevertheless, protesters in some areas have been met with tear gas and the internet is down in parts of the country.
Imran Khan’s arrest intensifies an already escalating political crisis and adds fuel to the fire as the nation teeters on the edge of an economic precipice. The impact of this situation extends beyond Imran Khan himself, potentially dealing a severe blow to Pakistan’s efforts to overcome its economic crisis and secure regional assistance, including an IMF bailout. It also has potential ramifications for US-Pakistan relations.
This crisis presents a dilemma for Washington as it strives to publicly support a healthy democratic process in Pakistan, while also maintaining cordial relations with all major political parties and relying on Pakistan’s military establishment as a partner in counterterrorism efforts.
Any public or private comments from Washington could potentially do more harm than good, and involving itself in what essentially amounts to a domestic political struggle would be unwise.
