“Imran Khan is the only clean politician,” says Farhan Ghulam (28) in the busy Qissa Khwani Bazaar of Peshawar, a conservative and mostly Pashtun city near Pakistan’s western frontier with Afghanistan.
The city is a stronghold for Khan and his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Tens of thousands of people attended a rally for Khan after his ousting as prime minister in April and posters in PTI’s green and red appear frequently along the city’s roads.
No elected prime minister has completed a full term in independent Pakistan, though Khan was the first to be removed by a no-confidence vote.
The military, which has ruled the country for much of the time since it won independence in 1947, viewed Khan and his conservative agenda favourably when he won the election in 2018. That support waned in part due to a falling-out over the appointment of a military intelligence chief and economic troubles.
Khan was quickly replaced as prime minister by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz’s (PML-N) Shehbaz Sharif, who has been the subject of several corruption investigations and is the brother of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. The appointment of Sharif was seen as an effort to dampen Khan’s fiery anti-corruption rhetoric by the same military-dominated establishment that facilitated the rise of the cricketer-turned-politician.
Khan has exploited his support among judges to wage a legal campaign through the courts
Khan’s anti-corruption populism has had a wide appeal in the world’s fifth most populous country, where young and middle-class voters have tired of the dynasties that have rotated power for decades.
“At least he tried to fight corruption and the economy was better when he was in power,” says Hussnain Yousaf, a 20-year-old law student from Lahore, the progressive capital of Punjab where Khan’s PTI won a majority of seats last week in provincial byelections.
Since orchestrating Khan’s removal, divisions have become apparent within the military and an increasingly activist judiciary, where factions continue to support the former prime minister who remains so alluring to voters.
Khan has exploited his support among judges to wage a legal campaign through the courts. So far, he has secured a ruling on members of parliament that vote against party lines that will allow him to quell future opposition within his party. The several high-profile cases in which he is embroiled have energised his supporters and kept his comeback an open question.
Khan secured an initial win in the supreme court in Islamabad over the constitution’s “floor-crossing” provisions which dictates the penalties members of parliamentary assemblies (MPAs) face for voting against their party in the national and provincial assemblies. The provision means that MPAs are expelled from office for voting against their party including in instances of a no-confidence vote.
Last week’s Punjab assembly vote underscores the impact of the floor-crossing provisions. The byelections were triggered when PTI members were expelled from the assembly for voting with PML-N during the move against Khan in April.
While still in office Khan had sought to reduce the power of defections from his party. His PTI government asked the supreme court to review the floor-crossing provision. It argued that in addition to a lifetime expulsion from office, any MPA who votes against their party, including in a no-confidence vote, should not have their vote counted in parliament.
Khan has repeatedly alleged that America was behind his ousting in April and used the defectors’ case as an opportunity to legitimise this conspiracy. He described floor crossing as a way for foreign enemies to use parliamentarians to dislodge a democratically elected government.
Due to the size of the opposition against Khan in April, the PTI votes were not required for the no-confidence vote against him. The supreme court, however, continued with their review and in a three-to-two verdict said that votes of defecting MPAs should not be counted.
“The verdict will further embolden the dictatorial hold of the party leader over members,” wrote constitutional law expert Dr Faqir Hussain in an opinion piece for Pakistan Today.
The verdict would make it effectively impossible to win a no-confidence vote against future prime ministers
The Pakistani bar has challenged the judiciary over their decision and the supreme court bar association has requested a review of the opinion.
“I believe the court’s interpretation is not correct,” says Shah Khawar in his law office in Islamabad. The senior barrister and former deputy attorney general for Pakistan says that the verdict would make it effectively impossible to win a no-confidence vote against future prime ministers.
Earlier this month, the supreme court allowed Khan to bring a petition challenging new legislation which would dilute the powers of the national accountability bureau (NAB), a body that investigates corruption among politicians. The military and judiciary are excluded from the bureau’s remit.
“NAB investigations are mostly conducted for political reasons,” says Tahir Naseer, a court reporter in Islamabad who covers the agency’s investigations. With the backing of the military establishment, the agency secured the removal of Khan’s predecessors Yousuf Gilani and Nawaz Sharif over corruption charges.
In the lead-up to his election in 2018, Khan’s PTI party regularly demanded that the bureau investigate members of the PML-N and the Pakistan People’s Party, which allowed him to craft his image as an anti-corruption activist challenging the traditional parties. According to Transparency International, corruption worsened under Khan’s tenure due to “deteriorating rule of law” and “the loss of independence among state institutions”.
In an effort to reinforce his anti-corruption platform, Khan has opportunistically argued to the supreme court that the amendments to the national accountability bureau will “virtually eliminate any white-collar crime committed by a public office holder”, despite the fact that the amendments are “almost a replica” of two amendments previously proposed by the PTI leader’s own government, notes Khawar.
The fact that Khan is in Pakistan taking these cases suggests that the establishment is not in agreement on whether they’re finished with him
Khan’s predecessors have also been removed by the military-dominated establishment, yet none have been granted the same degree of freedom as him after leaving office. Nawaz Sharif, for example, was exiled to London after his removal from office over corruption charges in 2017.
“The mere fact that Khan is in Pakistan taking these cases suggests that the establishment is not in agreement on whether they’re finished with him,” says Dr Ayesha Siddiqa, a fellow of King’s College, London.
Khan’s brand of populism also allowed him to create a win-win situation with his legal campaigning. If the court decides in Khan’s favour it confirms support for him among the judiciary. “On the other hand,” says Siddiqa, “if the decision goes against him, he can still argue that the establishment is engaging in a conspiracy against him”.
After PTI’s win in Punjab last week, Khan repeated claims that the PML-N government was “brought in by the American conspiracy” and had engaged in election rigging. Calling for early general elections, the former prime minister set the scene for a future vote that could yet enable him to return to power.
