Earlier during the PTI government, the PMLN had refused an offer from powerful quarters, reportedly delivered through the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) to remove Buzdar. Similarly, when the idea of a no-confidence motion was floated by PPP, it was rejected by the PML-N, with their leaders publicly claiming that such a motion could never succeed without the help of the people, who hold true power in Pakistan. PML-N’s strategy was clear: They wanted early elections because they did not want to be part of a weak coalition government left at the mercy of the bureaucracy. And their strategy appeared to be working. With less than two years left until the next elections, PMLN had weathered the storm and were well positioned for 2023, especially given the growing inflation.
However, in a sudden change of strategy, the PMLN decided to throw their weight behind the PTI government’s immediate removal and rule for 12-15 months, going into the 2023 elections as the incumbent party, despite being in opposition for four years. They did not want a weak coalition government, but that is exactly what they have accepted now.
They did not want to be burdened by the current economic crisis, yet they now own it. And the worst part is that PTI will now be going into the next election as the opposition party, in an economic environment that will be quite stressful for the public. Ironically, the political man in charge of Pakistan at the moment, Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, was recommended by an Institution to replace Nawaz Sharif, after the revelations of the Panama Papers and the Dawn leaks saga.
In a sudden change of strategy, the PMLN decided to throw their weight behind the PTI government’s immediate removal and rule for 12-15 months, going into the 2023 elections as the incumbent party, despite being in opposition for four years.
The above events raise serious questions about PMLN’s current strategy and the motivation behind it. One possible explanation suggests that Imran Khan could not have been allowed to appoint the next Army Chief, as it would have ensured his position in power for the foreseeable future. But can this explanation be justified, in light of Pakistan’s history? Both Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif appointed Army Chiefs that they thought would do their bidding, but Pakistan witnessed the result of those choices. For a seasoned political party like PMLN, to believe that such appointments solidify a particular political party’s position is naive at best. Furthermore it is clear that the Institution prefers “all not one, weak not strong”. PPP has Sindh, PTI has Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Punjab must be contested to avoid any party from getting a two-third majority and Balochistan - it is best not to talk about Balochistan.
Another reason for taking power for such a short period of time, could be to set a favourable stage for the next elections but at what cost? Is the benefit of gerrymandering greater than providing PTI the role of the opposition party, during troubled economic times. In addition, Khan has successfully tapped into a sense of nationalism which would not have been possible, had he completed his term. If it was not clear a month ago, it is now abundantly clear to many, some within PMLN, that the party has been given a poisoned chalice. Had the PML-N gone into elections without the burden of incumbency, they would have been far stronger electorally.
As far as PTI is concerned, as long as Imran Khan is at the helm of affairs, the party will perform much better at the polls in the current situation. Alternatively, had the PTI been allowed to complete its five year term and gone into elections with a narrative based around corruption and needing more time to fix Pakistan, they would have found it extremely difficult to muster the strength to challenge the PMLN. And while it is the PTI that is demanding early elections, the polls may actually be in PMLN’s favour given the economic storm the country is going to witness over the coming months.