Forming government was easy
| The nail-biting climax to the political drama ended when a five-member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, sup motu, ordered the Speaker of the National Assembly to conduct the vote of no confidence on 9 April. The Speaker and the Deputy Speaker both owed allegiance to the beleaguered Imran Khan’s party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). |
Staring at a humiliating defeat on the floor of the house, the Speaker delayed the proceedings by allowing a prolonged debate on the controversial diplomatic communication that was at the heart of allegations of the US interest in seeing Khan’s ouster. Just before midnight, the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker left the National Assembly, leaving it to Ayaz Sadiq of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party, who was on the Panel of Chairs that acted as substitutes, to take over as Chair and conduct the trust vote.
The results were hardly surprising. The no-trust motion garnered 174 votes, two more than the magical number of 172 required to oust Khan. In a house of 342 members elected in 2018, the numbers stacked up as follows: Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had 155, and the two largest opposition parties, Shehbaz Sharif’s PML-N and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari’s Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) had 84 and 56 seats respectively.
A host of smaller parties also mattered — Muttahida Mali's-e-Amal (MMA)-15, Muttahida Quami Mahaz Pakistan (MQM-P)-7, PML (Quaid)-3, Baluchistan Awami Party (BAP)-5, Baluchistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M)-4, Grand Democratic Alliance (GDA)-3, Jumhoori Watan Party (JWP)-1 and a clutch of Independents.
The key players such as the PML-N and the PPP, as well as the MMA, representing the centrist, leftist and rightist nodes of the political spectrum, had already come together under the umbrella of the Peoples’ Democratic Movement (PDM), a grand alliance of convenience among erstwhile political adversaries united by the common goal of seeing off Khan from the Prime Minister’s Office. A day ahead of the no-confidence vote, a rattled Khan gave vent to his frustrations by publicly calling Shehbaz Sharif a dacoit, Nawaz Sharif a traitor and Asif Ali Zardari a corrupt individual.
Not only did Khan’s PTI members of the National Assembly stage a walk-out during the no-confidence vote on the night of 9 April, but they also staged a similar walk-out when Shehbaz Sharif was elected as Prime Minister on 11 April. Rumors are rife in the Pakistani media that the Army Chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, had to himself show up at Imran Khan’s residence to read him the riot act. Rumour also had it that when the chips were down, Imran Khan had even contemplated sacking General Bajwa and DG ISI General Nadeem Anjum! In Pakistan, such unconventional behavior by a politician in challenging the men in khaki is tantamount to committing hara-kiri as past precedents have amply shown.
The election of Shehbaz Sharif as prime minister on the floor of the house was a foregone conclusion, but that did not prevent Khan’s PTI from propping up former foreign minister Shah Mahmoud Qureshi in the fray as a prime ministerial candidate. It was hardly a surprise that he polled no vote in his favour. Not only was he himself absent during the voting, but the entire PTI lot also boycotted the proceedings. The sole objective of the farcical candidature of Qureshi may have been to symbolically drive home the point that Shehbaz Sharif’s candidature was not uncontested, and, at the same time, avoid through the boycott the ignominy of a defeat on the floor of the house.
With coalition partners having earlier abandoned Khan, there was no telling how many more of his erstwhile supporters might have crossed over during the vote. Once again, in the absence of the PTI’s Speaker and Deputy Speaker at this crucial vote, it was Ayaz Sadiq who chaired the proceedings. Such was the drama that Sadiq could be forgiven for his slip of tongue when he referred to Shehbaz Sharif as Nawaz Sharif. The two brothers are politically aligned, and the elder Sharif can justifiably draw vicarious satisfaction at the outcome.
On being elected as the 23rd Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif made it clear that he would not engage in political vendetta. The law would take its own course, he averred, while emphatically denying any malfeasance on his part and pointing an accusatory finger at the external funding that Khan’s PTI is reported to have received in violation of the law.
Shehbaz also laid out the contours of his foreign and security policy by reaffirming Pakistan’s close and long-standing ties to China which remain unaffected by any changes in regime. He also took a dig at Khan for his mishandling of relations with another key friend, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). There was a brief mention of good relations with India being contingent upon a resolution of the Kashmir issue, after which, he quickly fell into the familiar grove that characterizes the position of any Prime Minister in Pakistan. He raised the matter of the rescinding of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, and in doing so, confirmed that his rhetoric is fundamentally no different from that of Khan. Shehbaz even went to the extent of berating Khan for not doing enough and promised diplomatic and moral support to Kashmiris in the so-called struggle for self-determination.
Now that the hurly-burly is done, and the dust has settled for the moment, the question is what is likely to be Khan’s next move? He can be expected to live up to his reputation of being the product of a mass movement. Khan has promised to rouse the masses against those responsible for his ouster. That he is a popular leader is not in doubt, nor is his ability to muster up support on the streets of Pakistan, as already seen in some demonstrations in Karachi, Lahore and even some foreign capitals. So far, there has been no violence but that cannot be ruled out if he pushes the envelope too far and the political differences spill over onto the streets.
0 Comments