Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), the main opposition party in the country demanded, on Monday, October 29, the whereabouts of several of its leaders, including the Chief Minister of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), Sohail Afridi, kept in “preventive detention” by the state.

The PTI has claimed that Afridi, Speaker of the Provincial Assembly Babar Saleem Swati, and at least six other members of the KP provincial assembly were “missing” since the dismissal of the elected government in the province on October 11.

Afridi and other PTI legislatures were arrested on October 11, hours after Pakistan’s federal government imposed a state of emergency and governor’s rule in the province.

Though the Pakistan government has maintained that the concerned leaders are all in preventive detention, it has neither produced them in court, disclosed their location, or allowed anyone to meet them.

The police has, meanwhile, filed fresh cases of violence and arson against Afridi and other PTI leaders, accusing them of being involved in May 2023 protests against the attempted arrest of the party’s leader and former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

Calling the arrest of its leaders an unprecedented and unconstitutional crisis, the PTI has filed several petitions in the courts for their release. On Monday it also demanded an urgent discussion on the matter in the National Assembly.

“The reported detention of elected representatives holding constitutional and parliamentary offices raises serious concerns regarding the functioning of democratic institutions, the representation of the people, and the protection of the rights and privileges of the elected representatives,” the PTI notice for the discussion in the NA says.

Act of political vendetta

The Afridi government in the state was dismissed by the federal government, led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sherif, on October 11, over allegations of failing to maintain law and order and prevent terrorism.

However, the dismissal is linked to Afridi leading a “long march” of PTI supporters to the capital, Islamabad. The protesters were demanding the release of Khan, who has been incarcerated since August 2023 on various charges, including the misuse of power, corruption, and violence.

The PTI claims all the charges against Khan are fabricated and politically motivated and were part of the plan of the ruling parties and the armed forces to keep him out of national politics.

Afridi’s dismissal and arrest led to popular protests in different parts of KP in the last week and security forces fortifying the provincial capital Peshawar. The PTI has also alleged that its workers and offices have been attacked since the imposition of Governor’s rule.

At least five people were injured when security forces clashed with the protesters in Bara last week. Hundreds of others were arrested from different parts of the province for attempting to protest the dismissal of the only government led by the opposition party.

The PTI has also filed a petition in the Peshawar High Court against the federal government’s move to dismiss the state government in KP, calling it a violation of the popular right to choose their government and other constitutional provisions.

Its leaders reiterated their allegations about the Sharif government, calling it illegitimate and a stooge of the armed forces. They claimed that the KP government was the “only elected” government in the country and its dismissal was part of a political vendetta.

The PTI, along with other groups in the country have repeatedly alleged that the 2024 national elections were rigged to prevent Imran Khan from coming back to power.

The imposition of emergency rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, an opposition-controlled province, raises disturbing questions about the relationship between Pakistan’s civilian government and its powerful military establishment. Is this a legitimate response to terrorism, or another calculated assault on democracy?

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 crises 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.

President Asif Ali Zardari’s decision to impose emergency rule in the province, ostensibly in response to deteriorating security conditions, has prompted an obvious and deeply uncomfortable question: is Pakistan witnessing another military coup, albeit one conducted without tanks surrounding parliament or generals appearing on television to announce the suspension of democracy?

The answer depends largely upon how one defines a coup.

A constitutional manoeuvre with political consequences

Under Pakistan’s constitutional framework, federal authorities possess emergency powers that can, under specified circumstances, override provincial administrations.

Such powers are not inherently illegitimate. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has experienced serious violence involving the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and the federal government has a responsibility to protect citizens against terrorist attacks.

Nevertheless, the timing of the intervention demands scrutiny.

The province represents one of the most significant remaining political strongholds of Imran Khan, whose imprisonment and continuing confrontation with Pakistan’s political establishment have generated considerable unrest.

Suspending an elected provincial administration in these circumstances inevitably raises suspicions that national security has become a convenient instrument 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 army that never really left politics

Pakistan’s military has exercised an extraordinary degree of influence over the country’s political development since independence in 1947.

General Ayub Khan seized power in 1958. General Zia-ul-Haq overthrew Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government in 1977. General Pervez Musharraf removed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999.

These were unmistakable military coups, involving direct intervention against civilian authority.

Yet Pakistan’s experience also demonstrates that generals need not formally assume the presidency to dominate political affairs. The military establishment has long maintained substantial influence over national security, relations with India, Afghanistan policy and, at various moments, the composition and survival of civilian governments.

Under Field Marshal Asim Munir, the relationship between the armed forces and civilian political authority has again attracted intense scrutiny. The central question is therefore not simply whether Pakistan’s generals have seized power. It is whether elected politicians retain sufficient independence to exercise it.

Imran Khan and the price of political defiance

Imran Khan’s political trajectory illustrates the extraordinary volatility of Pakistan’s relationship between civilian leadership and military power.

Once widely regarded as enjoying the establishment’s favour, Khan subsequently became one of its most prominent critics. His removal through a parliamentary no-confidence vote in April 2022 marked the beginning of an increasingly bitter confrontation.

His subsequent imprisonment, the prosecution of PTI figures and restrictions affecting the party’s political activities have fuelled allegations that Pakistan’s democratic institutions are being manipulated to exclude a popular opposition movement.

The authorities reject accusations of politically motivated persecution, while Khan’s supporters insist that his treatment demonstrates the extent to which democratic competition has been compromised.

Against this background, emergency intervention in a PTI-governed province cannot reasonably be viewed in isolation. It forms part of a wider struggle over who ultimately controls Pakistan’s political future.

A coup without the traditional trappings?

The latest emergency is particularly significant because Pakistan’s civilian government and military leadership appear aligned in their criticism of PTI.

According to Reuters reporting on 11 October, the province will be administered by a governor for an initial six months, with troops deployed to support security operations.

Hundreds of activists and three of Khan’s sisters have reportedly been detained ahead of opposition demonstrations.

PTI spokesperson Zulfikar Bukhari has characterised the emergency as a disguised coup. Even Maulana Fazlur Rehman, whose party has been involved in mediation efforts, condemned the intervention as an attack on democracy.

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.

A dangerous precedent for Pakistan

For Pakistan’s international partners, including the European Union, the implications extend beyond an internal constitutional dispute.

Pakistan benefits from preferential access to European markets under the EU’s GSP+ trading arrangement, which is linked to commitments concerning human rights, democratic governance and international conventions. Brussels should therefore be watching developments closely.

If emergency powers become a mechanism for suppressing political opposition rather than protecting public security, the European Commission will face legitimate questions about Pakistan’s adherence to its international obligations.

The immediate crisis may not constitute a conventional military coup. But the more troubling possibility is that Pakistan’s political system is evolving towards a form of government in which elections continue, civilian politicians remain in office, and the military’s influence is sufficiently powerful to determine the boundaries of democracy.

For Imran Khan‘s supporters, that distinction may offer little consolation.

Pakistan’s generals have seized power openly before. The question now is whether they need to do so again.

Geneva side event sharpens focus on Pakistan’s GSP+ status and rights record

This content is for members only. Visit the site and log in/register to read.

Two suspected militants are killed in a Washuk operation as violence remains concentrated in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

The post Security forces kill two terrorists in Washuk, Balochistan appeared first on BOL News.