Pakistan’s shocking election result shows authoritarians don’t always win
It’s hard to win an election from prison, but that appears to have happened Thursday in Pakistan’s general election. 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 Mr. Khan, the celebrity cricketer turned politician, was arrested in August. Yet his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, or PTI, is leading with about 93 seats out of 266. The imprisoned Mr. Khan, or at least a semblance of him, even gave an AI-generated victory speech.
The PTI’s share is enough to plunge Pakistan into extended coalition bargaining and, possibly, more of the chaos it has experienced since Mr. 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.
After Mr. 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 Mr. 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, or PML-N, failed to win a plurality, coming a distant second with about 75 seats.
Whatever coalition government is cobbled together, most likely headed by Mr. 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.