Islamabad, Oct 15 — The imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan's Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which was long governed by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf — , has raised questions over the relationship between Pakistan's civilian government and its military establishment, a report has detailed.
"There is an old saying in Pakistan that most countries have an army, but in Pakistan the army has a country. It is a cynical observation, certainly, but one that has survived successive governments, constitutional crisis and military interventions with remarkable durability. The latest developments in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the northwestern province governed by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party of imprisoned former Prime Minister Imran Khan, suggest that the observation may be as relevant today as ever," a report in EU Today mentioned.
Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari's decision to impose emergency rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, citing deteriorating security conditions, has sparked a question of whether Pakistan is witnessing another military coup, without rolling tanks near the parliament or Generals appearing on television to announce the suspension of democracy. The response depends largely on how one defines a coup.
Under Pakistan's constitutional framework, federal authorities have the power to impose emergency rule under specified circumstances. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has witnessed rise in violence involving the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the federal government has a responsibility to protect people against terrorist attacks. However, the timing of the Pakistan government's decision demands scrutiny.
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province is one of the most significant remaining political strongholds of former Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, whose imprisonment and confrontation with Pakistan's political establishment has caused unrest in the country. Removing an elected provincial government in these conditions inevitably sparks suspicions that national security has become a convenient tool for achieving political objectives.
"The crucial distinction is between responding to a genuine emergency and exploiting that emergency to neutralise an inconvenient opposition. Pakistan’s authorities must demonstrate not merely that a security threat exists, but that the removal of elected provincial leadership is necessary and proportionate," the report in EU Today stated.
PTI spokesperson Zulfikar Bukhari condemned the Pakistan government's decision to impose Governor's rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, terming it as a "coup disguised as emergency."
"Strongly condemn the arrest of the only mandated Chief Minister Sohail Afridi and of Junaid Akbar. This coup disguised as emergency or Governor rule has squashed the only little bit of democracy left in Pakistan. Further instability and collateral damage to follow. The regime must be feeling very proud," Bukhari wrote on X.
"Yet evidence that the military directly ordered the takeover remains absent from the public record. Accusations of military involvement should be investigated rather than treated as established fact. Nevertheless, a coup need not always involve soldiers removing a Prime Minister. Democratic institutions can also be progressively hollowed out through ostensibly lawful decisions that concentrate authority and deprive opposition parties of meaningful power," the EU Today report mentioned.