Master of U-turns

Whatever other foibles Imran Khan may be accused of, consistency is not amongst them. Ever since his ouster through a no-confidence motion in April 2022, he has attempted to craft a narrative of a foreign conspiracy, backed if not initiated by the US, to bring about regime change.

As proof of his allegations, he brandished a piece of paper at a rally, purportedly a cipher (coded) message sent by our ambassador in Washington reporting on a conversation with a senior US official. Veteran Pakistani diplomats when asked have weighed in with the view that such conversations and ciphers do not necessarily mean much and are better ignored.

Imran Khan, however, in his bullheaded approach to all matters, constructed his conspiracy theory around the cipher. Despite resort to the typical Goebbelsian tactic of repeating a lie enough times to make it appear true, Imran Khan has failed to convince anyone other than his fanatical following of the verity of the charge of a foreign regime change conspiracy against him. In the process, the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) coalition government has been attempting to redress some of the damage Imran Khan’s government inflicted on our relationship with the US (and other countries).

Now, in one more of his by now familiar U-turns, he has disavowed the foreign conspiracy theory to the extent of wanting to leave it in the past and move on to repairing his relationship with Washington. This he has stated in an interview to the Financial Times.

He now claims in the next breath that the US-Pakistan relationship is a master-servant or even master-slave relationship, and that he ‘only’ sought a dignified one in Pakistan’s best interests. It is amazing how Imran Khan selectively picks points to argue his case without a nod even to the facts of life that are no secret from anyone.

Who does not know that Pakistan is dependent on US goodwill, not only for bilateral advantage, but also to clear the decks for the IMF and other international lenders to provide Pakistan’s sick economy with the ‘drip’ of loans and finance to stay afloat (in addition, it may be added, to other multilateral and bilateral borrowing without which Pakistan’s economy would likely collapse). Of course, economics is not all there is to the US-Pakistan relationship, which encompasses strategic, and therefore military ties. To arrive at the destination of an honourable relationship with the US (and all other lenders) would require a complete departure from the model of dependent development pursued by Pakistan almost from its inception.

Addicted to stirring up the political pot every day, Imran Khan then goes on to assert that Nawaz Sharif is ‘not allowing’ his younger brother Prime Minister (PM) Shehbaz Sharif to hold early elections, the demand around which Imran Khan’s politics has now converged after many detours since his fall from power. Is there any evidence that the PM disagrees with Nawaz Sharif’s (presumed) opinion that early elections are not in the interests of the ruling PDM coalition? None that one can see.

The PDM coalition government, despite, or even because of, having lost political capital because it inherited an economy devastated by the Imran Khan government’s incompetence and faulty policies, sees no alternative to sticking to the course of serving out its term till August 2023, in the hope that by then economic indicators may improve and bolster its political position going into the next general elections.

Meanwhile, Imran Khan’s dual policy of at the same time attacking the establishment and wooing it to restore him to power has produced contradictory effects. On the one hand, speculation revolves around the ‘division’ in the establishment (pro- and anti-Imran) that seems to be at work in the relatively kid glove treatment being handed out to Imran Khan.

On the other, division or no division, the establishment, as is its wont, has closed ranks in the face of Imran Khan’s unremitting attacks to safeguard the internal unity and discipline of the state institution at the heart of the establishment, i.e. the military. Much hullaballoo has also been created by Imran Khan around the question of the next army chief. Institutional and government views may or may not be coinciding so far in this regard. If so, the decision will probably also reflect the desire of the military establishment to control the damage to its reputation at the hands of the wild accusations of Imran Khan.

The attack on him in Wazirabad is condemnable, but to fling wild accusations without a shred of evidence or proof against the PM, Interior Minister and a serving General does no service to even Imran’s own cause. His ally, Punjab Chief Minister Parvez Elahi, has tried to persuade Khan of the error of such tactics, but it seems to no avail.

The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has now approached the Supreme Court (SC) in all its principal seats to have an FIR of the attack registered along the lines Khan wants. This is yet another example of the burgeoning trend of the judicialisation of politics that has been in play for years now.

If Imran Khan and the PTI continue on their present aggressive course, civil strife and possible bloodshed looms. That would bring extra-political forces into play, who may, even reluctantly, have to reverse outgoing COAS General Bajwa’s pledge that the military intends to retreat from interfering in politics.

If, as is familiar from the past, the perception grows that the impasse between the two sides of the political divide is an impassable obstacle, the establishment may feel compelled to intervene in some form or the other. If that unfortunately transpires, the damage to democracy and civilian rule can and will be placed squarely at the right wing, populist, proto-fascist PTI and its leader Imran Khan.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2022