ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — In the final hours before the midnight deadline for a vote of no confidence in the Pakistani parliament, the capital was on the brink.
Prime Minister Imran Khan’s allies in parliament had spent all day Saturday working for every reprieve they could, filibustering with angry speeches condemning the opposition as traitors. Military personnel were alerted and prison vans deployed around government buildings.
Reports of rising tensions between Mr Khan and top military leaders fueled fears of further unrest and sparked a wave of denials from both sides. As midnight approached, a pre-emptive petition was filed with Pakistan’s Supreme Court to try to block any attempt by Mr Khan to fire the country’s powerful army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, court files show.
In the end, Mr Khan was still pushed out by a majority of no confidence. On Sunday, many observers expressed relief that the crisis did not end in military intervention after a week that was remarkably tense, even by the standards of Pakistan’s tumultuous political history.
Mr Khan had fought bitterly for his political survival after key military leaders appeared to withdraw support for his government, and after a group of lawmakers, including some defectors from the prime minister’s coalition, sought to remove him from office.
Mr Khan, a populist leader and former cricketer, denounced his political opponents as traitors who conspired with US officials to remove him from power, a claim that was rejected within Pakistan and the United States. He gathered tens of thousands on the streets in a pointed reminder of his past as an opposition leader who was able to paralyze the capital with mass unrest. And he defied the constitution to dissolve parliament and block the vote of no confidence — a move the Pakistan Supreme Court later overturned.
But even at a time hailed by some as a triumph for Pakistan’s fragile democratic institutions, the crisis was a stark reminder that in the country’s deeply compromised political system, powerful military leaders still hold the reins.
Many politicians accuse the military of admitting Mr Khan to the post of prime minister in 2018, saying the security forces sifted through the opposition in a campaign of coercion and intimidation. Military officials have denied those allegations, as have Mr Khan and his aides.
But after Mr Khan diverged from military leaders’ foreign policy priorities and clashed with them over key military appointments, they helped orchestrate his fall, analysts say.
“This fits into the larger historical arc of a civilian government losing favor with the establishment, which is the Pakistani military, and leading to their resignation from office,” said Madiha Afzal, a fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Only the mechanisms by which things happen now are different because of the constitutional amendments made over the years to guard against the establishment.”
Now there is the prospect of more turmoil as Pakistan faces highly contentious elections in the coming months, with its parties even more bitterly polarized.
In Pakistan’s 75-year history as an independent nation, the military has seized power in three coups, often profoundly changing the country’s political norms. But Mr Khan’s bid to remain in office marked the first time a civilian leader had openly violated the constitution for his own political gain, analysts say. And during his tenure, he increasingly made use of the country’s institutions to harass his opponents and critics, especially journalists.
“Even those sympathetic to Imran have seen the constitutional vandalism and chaos caused last week,” said Cyril Almeida, a former editor and columnist at Dawn, a leading Pakistani newspaper. “Now, across the political spectrum, you understand that military interference in politics is undesirable.”
Some analysts saw Mr Khan’s maneuvering as further evidence that the country’s political institutions remain vulnerable to abuse by elites. But even after the no-confidence vote and his loss of public favor from the military, he is still in the picture.
Many noted that military officials on Sunday went to great lengths to deny reports that Mr Khan had attempted to fire the army chief or further discredit him. And the former prime minister is widely expected to try to rally his party loyalists — and there are many, still riled up by his declared platform for fighting corruption and helping the poor — in elections expected this fall.
But at a time when Pakistan’s dire crises require at least some consensus to deal with, the upcoming campaign season has taken on the contours of an existential ideological struggle between political blocs.
Pakistan is grappling with rising inflation that has put pressure on both the poor and the middle class. The immense government debt is a further brake on the sinking economy. Violent extremism is on the rise, with the return of militant attacks that have ravaged the country in recent decades and continued impunity for leaders of Islamist movements who seem to have a grip on both justice and public discourse.
But on Sunday night, in a move that apparently marked the start of Mr Khan’s next election campaign, thousands of his supporters poured into the streets of Islamabad, where the tone was more about nationalism and division than the problems.
Long lines of cars blocked the city’s main street. Supporters raised Mr Khan’s party flags and chanted, “Friends of America are traitors!” – an echo of Mr Khan’s claim that the United States had colluded with opposition political leaders to have him removed from office.
Major protests were also held in Lahore and Karachi as crowds supported their ousted leader.
While public support may not be enough to secure Mr Khan’s party a significant number of seats in the upcoming elections, he still enjoys significant support within its ranks – opening the door to his possible return to prime minister’s office in the future after the highest buyer with whom he is at odds, retires.
For now, his charged rhetoric has divided an already highly polarized audience even more.
“I am increasingly convinced that what we are seeing is not just a change of government, but a change of politics in Pakistan,” said Adil Najam, dean of Boston University’s Pardee School of Global Studies. “This rhetoric of extreme personal attacks, deep-seated hatred of the other and both parties calling each other traitors will shape the fabric of politics for many months and years to come.”
Ihsanullah Tipu Mehsudu reporting contributed.