and the struggle for true democracy in Pakistan. Moving forward, a collective effort is required to dismantle the web of interventionism and empower the people to choose their leaders freely, ensuring a brighter future for the nation. Maulana Rehman, a prominent figure in Pakistan’s political landscape, has recently dropped a bombshell, alleging that the no-confidence motion against former Prime Minister Imran Khan was orchestrated by the military establishment, specifically former army chief General (r) Qamar Javed Bajwa and ex-spy master Faiz Hameed.

However, his claims have been met with skepticism and denials from various quarters, prompting a closer examination of the events leading to Khan’s ouster and the ever-present influence of the establishment in Pakistani politics. Though Maulana Rehman’s assertion that General Bajwa was the architect of the vote of no-confidence is intriguing,

it clashes with reports suggesting the opposite. The former army chief reportedly urged the opposition to withdraw the motion, with Khan himself supposedly offering to resign and call fresh elections through “establishment” channels. This conflicting narrative highlights the murkiness surrounding the no-confidence motion, where truth and speculation become intricately intertwined.

In addition another layer to the complexity is Maulana’s retraction of his claim regarding Faiz Hameed’s involvement, admitting it was an error.

This raises questions about the accuracy of his remaining allegations and whether they serve a specific purpose. Some speculate that Maulana is attempting to exert pressure on the incoming government or send a message to a perceived “weak” establishment, seeking personal gains in the upcoming political setup. Conversely, the bigger picture transcends individual motives.

It is undeniable that the opposition, particularly the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), had long desired to remove Khan through constitutional means. Whispers of an “in-house” change swirled since 2020, fueled by PPP’s confidence after Yousuf Raza Gilani’s Senate victory in 2021. While internal squabbles within the opposition temporarily stalled these plans, by late 2021, the intent to pursue a no-confidence motion was clear. This begs the crucial question: did the establishment play a role in Khan’s downfall?

The historical precedent suggests a pattern of interventionism. Imran Khan, perceived as being brought to power by the “powers that be,” enjoyed their support until it waned. This raises the possibility that a green light was given to the opposition, ensuring their success as long as they secured the necessary votes without external interference. Experts draw parallels to Benazir Bhutto’s successful navigation of an establishment-backed no-confidence motion.

Unlike Khan, who relied heavily on unelected forces, Bhutto’s political acumen and willingness to negotiate with other parties secured her survival. Khan’s lack of similar skills and his dependence on non-political actors ultimately proved detrimental. The events of April 2022 offer valuable lessons.

Pakistani politicians must prioritize the people’s mandate and eschew reliance on patronage from unelected entities. The country’s long history of establishment interventionism cannot be ignored, and dismantling this system is crucial to foster a truly democratic environment. While Imran Khan remains the only Pakistani premier ousted through constitutional means, the ideal scenario should not involve dharnas or undemocratic interventions.

The right to remove a prime minister should be exercised through established constitutional mechanisms. Still, achieving genuine democracy requires not only institutional reforms but also a significant shift in political behavior. Politicians must exhibit patience, self-restraint, and a genuine commitment to serving the people they represent. Only then can Pakistan break free from the cycle of power struggles and external manipulation, paving the way for a stable and democratic future.