Two regime changes happened in Pakistan within a span of a few months. Both were caused by the United States and Imran Khan. The first regime change saw Imran Khan removed from power through a vote of no confidence by the very goons and crooks that the people heavily rejected in the second regime change. Will get to that one later. It is a rather stark reminder about the weird nature and practice of democracy that the politicians who initiated and perfected the vote of no confidence are the ones that the people of the country have no confidence in.
The reason why Imran Khan and the USA were responsible for the first regime change is that, as is well known, Khan’s rhetoric and plan of action were incompatible with the demands and plans of the USA. Western powers have been in the habit of making demands from Pakistan, which compel the country to bend backward in order to fulfill those demands. Khan said, “Absolutely Not.” Then the western powers demanded that Khan condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In response, Khan gave a strong rebuttal reminding them of how India violated the international norms in Kashmir and how no nation in the western society had the audacity to do so much as to even criticize India. Going further in his vehement disapproval and rebuttal of the western arrogance, he said, “are we your slaves?”
Read more: A brief history of regime changes in Pakistan
Understanding the matter better
While his speaking truth to power was music to the ears of the Pakistani masses, it left a bad taste in the western mouths, especially the Americans. And that is when the Cypher controversy started. Local shock troops, who happened to be elected politicians, were hired with massive greenbacks, in order to orchestrate the ouster of Imran Khan. The regime change was done.
But just last week, another regime change happened, which I personally call the mother of all regime changes. Because as they say in order to run the state of Pakistan, three As are usually needed the most: America, Army, and Allah. By Allah, they actually mean the Jihadist or Islamic forces, which are used by both the first As to further their interests and achieve political and regional goals. Pay attention because this is important as well as slightly complicated. Usually, America and the Army are not on the same page regarding various politicians.
Read more: Regime changes: An instrument of US Foreign Policy
In 2007, America wanted Benazir but the military top brass did not
In 2013, the United States wanted a seemingly pro-India Nawaz Sharif but the Army was a bit reluctant, but at the time Imran Khan was viewed as a bit naive and a chronic idealist. In 2018, the Army liked Imran Khan but the United States did not. This time around, however, the Army and America both favored PMLN. A single man single-handedly won against the hardest odds. And that is why this regime change is the mother of all regime changes. It is also arguably the most organic regime change Pakistan has witnessed in its entire history.
And here is how both the US and Khan are responsible for the second regime change as well: When the people started seeing the US as playing a destabilizing role in their country, the mentality became Khan versus the foreign villains and their local goons. Once that was deeply internalized through Khan’s relentless rhetoric and campaign to that effect, those local goons did not stand a chance. Imran Khan drove the change in regime by inculcating among his fellow countrymen that they ought to think about and fight for their rights. That they were no children of a lesser God.
Read more: Consequences of Regime change and Imran Khan’s ouster
People today may have less awareness and intellectual curiosity than their fathers and grandfathers but they have much more tendency to know a wrong when they see it and put up a fight against it. That is what Khan did. And this virus wouldn’t leave this generation’s minds.
The writer is a political analyst. He can be reached at imran.jan@gmail.com and on Twitter @Imran_Jan. The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Global Village Space.