What was the reason for the downfall of President Imran Khan in Pakistan? | Imran Khan News

The tumultuous tenure of Imran Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan, has come to an end with weeks of days of political drama and constitutional turmoil.

The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling late Thursday revived the parliament that Khan had sought to dissolve and forced a no – confidence vote he sought to avoid.

Khan effectively left a choice: whether to resign or vote from office.

The political demise of the former prime minister is rooted in double new realities. Within parliament, Khan lost the support of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) coalition parties, denying him the majority needed to defeat the no-confidence vote.

Outside parliament, Khan lost the support of Pakistan’s powerful military, which opposition parties have accused him of helping him win the 2018 general election, and have recently fallen out with the prime minister over senior military appointments and policy decisions.

The PTI and the military have denied the allegations.

In recent weeks, the main opposition parties, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), have intensified their efforts to oust Khan, and coalition allies have voiced their displeasure with him.

“As far as the regime is concerned, the government has completely failed,” said Anwar ul Haq, a senator from the Balochistan Awami Party (BAP), a coalition ally who withdrew his support for Khan at the end of March.

“There has been dissatisfaction for the last two years,” Cocker added. “Ceremony [BAP] Not happy about its role in the federal government and the ministerial portfolio assigned to it.

The bitter mood among Khan’s former allies was echoed by Nadeem Afzal Chan, the prime minister’s special aide, who resigned and rejoined the opposition PPP in early March.

“I was impressed by Khan’s anti-corruption platform and was tired of the current situation,” Chan said. “But when Khan spoke publicly about the poor, I personally saw him surround himself with rich investors.”

The economic crisis

The deepening economic crisis has left Khan dissatisfied, with double-digit inflation crippling much of his tenure.

In February, to build momentum in the opposition to Khan, the prime minister announced a reduction in domestic fuel and electricity prices despite global price rises, promising to freeze prices until the end of the fiscal year in June.

The move has added to the pressure on Pakistan’s chronic fiscal deficit and balance-of-payment problems. This week, the rupee fell to an all-time low against the US dollar and State Bank of Pakistan raised interest rates sharply at an emergency meeting.

“Part of it is the situation they got from the previous government and part of it is definitely Govt,” said Shahrukh Wani, an economist at the Flavdnik School of Governors at Oxford University. “But the government fell quickly on firefighting and reforms were never taken.”


For former Khan allies like Chan, there was discontent among constituency voters. “Inflation, fertilizer shortages, the local government in Punjab, the police, all these have gone up,” Chan said.

Within parliament, the loss of allied support changed Khan’s numbers. The BAP, the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) hold less than five percent of the seats in the 342-member National Assembly.

But by promising to support a no-confidence vote against Khan, the coalition parties effectively ended Khan’s three-and-a-half-year term as prime minister. Opposition parties have stated they will not run in the by-elections.

Meanwhile, the economy is in a slump. Former PML-N Finance Minister Mifta Ismail has sought to resume his tenure in 2018: “The two major economic challenges facing Pakistan at the moment are high inflation and rapidly declining foreign exchange reserves.

“The difficulty is that as reserves dwindle and the currency depreciates, it leads to even more inflation.”

The role of the military

With Khan’s ouster confirmed, former allies are increasingly honest about the third train of Pakistani politics: civil-military relations.

Parliamentary support for the prime minister began to dissipate when the military signaled that it would not side with Khan against a policy opposition called the Neutral.

“When the establishment was neutral, the allies saw that the government would not survive,” said Buck’s Senator Gucker. “Once the vision that he can not stay is rooted, it’s only a matter of time.”

Khan is the latest in a long line of Pakistani prime ministers who have clashed with the military over key appointments and foreign policy.

In October, civil-military tensions erupted in the public eye when Khan rejected the candidacy of Army chief General Qamar Bajwa and sought to retain Lieutenant-General Faiz Hamid as military intelligence chief.

Nominated by General Bajwa, Lieutenant-General Nadeem Anjum was eventually appointed as the new Director General of Inter-Services Intelligence, but this position, which lasted for several weeks, was abrasive and threatening.

The second term of General Bajwa’s army commander ends in November, and he is replaced by one of the senior generals, General Hamid. The Prime Minister of Pakistan appoints the Commander-in-Chief of the Army.

Khan’s attempt to restore ties with the United States, Pakistan’s largest trading partner and a divisive ally that the military seeks to maintain as a key partner, is extraordinary.

In February, Khan traveled to Russia in search of trade deals ahead of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, following what he described as a neutral foreign policy. Hours after the attack began on February 24, he only shook hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and left.

Although the Pakistani military supported Khan’s visit to Moscow, differences escalated after Khan made a high-level domestic precedent. Faced with a defeat in a no-confidence vote in parliament, Khan accused the United States of plotting to oust him as punishment for his trip to Russia and neutral foreign policy.

As evidence of the plot, Khan waved a letter at a public rally in Islamabad on March 27, saying the United States had issued a diplomatic warning to Pakistan to remove itself from the post of prime minister.

Khan’s declaration of diplomacy, the so-called US threat, and Khan’s claim that the operation was part of a US – led conspiracy shook Pakistani politics and civilian – military relations.

Retired Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, a former military spokesman and Pakistan’s ambassador to Ukraine from 2015 to 2018, said: “The letter called for a strong response and corrective action. Answer [in the military] It has been mixed up whether it should have been used to interfere with the no-confidence vote.

General Abbas described the many differences that had accumulated between Khan and the military leadership during his tenure, including Khan’s poor political and economic administration, which served to undermine the general image of the military.

Commenting on Khan’s opposition to US-led wars internationally in the wake of military operations in Pakistan and the September 11 attacks, General Abbas said: “The prime minister’s position on the war on terror is that we lost US troops and personnel in the war.

“If America’s war, the pressure on the military leadership, the sacrifices of young officers and soldiers are all in vain,” Abbas said.

Another retired army officer, Air Vice-Marshal Shahzad Chaudhry, suggested that tensions with the military were about Khan’s style of governing.

“In policy matters, Khan can be mercury. There is no prediction or stability. Imran Khan is a populist, and so is his impact.

Despite being defeated in parliament and paralyzed on the outside, Khan is unlikely to be a politically expended force. The cyclical nature of Pakistani politics has seen former prime ministers recover before.

Khan also has the advantage of taking the path to return to power from a prosperous political base.

Chan, a former special aide to the prime minister, said: “One month ago, people abused me [Khan and the PTI government] For inflation.

“Now, they say, he stood for a proud and independent Pakistan.”

Leave a Comment