Tactics of Pakistan in election backfire

It’s hard to win an election from prison, but that appears to have happened Thursday in Pakistan’s general election, which has produced equal doses of confusion and surprise in the troubled nation of 240 million. The army’s heavy-handed attempt to block from power Imran Khan, a populist (and popular) candidate, has backfired. The generals’ dominance is being challenged to an extent not seen in decades, if ever. Authoritarians often get away with heavy-handed tactics. This was not one of those times — offering a stark reminder of the limits of repression. Tensions had been mounting for months after Khan, the celebrity cricket player-turned-politician, was arrested in August. Just days before the polls opened, he was slapped with two additional prison sentences. Yet his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, or PTI, is leading with about 93 seats out of 266. The imprisoned Khan, or at least a semblance of him, even gave an AI-generated victory speech.

PTI’s share is not enough to form a governing majority. But it is enough to plunge Pakistan into extended coalition bargaining and, possibly, more of the chaos it has experienced since Khan was ousted as prime minister in 2022 after falling out with the country’s generals. For the entirety of Pakistan’s 76-year history, the army has ruled either directly or behind the scenes, propelling or undermining civilian governments as it saw fit. This time, it may have miscalculated. In Pakistan, no elected prime minister has ever completed a full term, and civilians have been careful not to confront the country’s ultimate authorities — at least not directly. Yet after Khan was pushed out, he grew more defiant, criticizing the military brass and calling his supporters to mass protests, some of which turned violent.

The army detained party leaders, raided their homes and harassed their relatives. Many, under apparent coercion, denounced the PTI and distanced themselves from Khan. Journalists came under censorship orders to avoid mentioning the party or its embattled leader. Moreover, PTI was barred from using its ubiquitous symbol, a cricket bat, on the ballot — a heavy blow in a country where more than a third are illiterate. Critics rightly called the election one of the least credible in Pakistan’s history. Yet despite these efforts (or perhaps because of them), it became one of the most competitive. For the first time, the army’s preferred candidate, in this case Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League, failed to win a plurality, coming a distant second with about 75 seats. In an ironic twist, Sharif was pushed out as prime minister in 2017 after he lost the army’s favor. Initially, the generals saw in Imran Khan a kindred spirit but soon found his persistent popularity, freewheeling foreign policy and lack of deference first irritating and then intolerable.

As prime minister, Khan had also increasingly tilted against the United States in global affairs, frustrating the Biden administration. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Khan, disgracefully, visited Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow. Meanwhile, it became hard to avoid the impression of American apathy toward Pakistani democracy, or what was left of it. In response to a question about human rights amid the pre-election crackdown, the State Department meekly noted that “there are areas for improvement that we would welcome in Pakistan.” On election day, mobile networks were shut down for long stretches, with poll results delayed, inviting suspicions of vote tampering. On Friday, the State Department condemned “attacks on media workers and restrictions on access to the internet and telecommunication services” and called for claims of election interference to be “fully investigated.” Statements are just that, however, and the Biden administration must in the critical days and weeks ahead — send a clear, consistent message to Pakistan’s military leaders that any attacks on the integrity of the democratic process will come with consequences for the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.

Whatever coalition government is cobbled together, most likely headed by Sharif with support from other anti-PTI parties, it will struggle for legitimacy. Against considerable odds, Pakistan’s voters registered growing distrust of the army and its proxies at the ballot box. With Pakistan’s economy in shambles and dependent on an International Monetary Fund emergency bailout, more instability is the most likely outcome. It is a lesson that the United States has often learned the hard way, and often too late: Strongmen in foreign nations promise both reliability and order. But long-term stability rarely comes through military interference in politics. In the case of Pakistan, the army’s unwillingness to cede control to civilians — or voters — has created a fundamentally broken politics. This election is a reminder.