Reasons for the ban

Article 17(2) of Pakistan’s Constitution outlines that the federal government may proclaim such a ban if any party has been formed or is operating in a manner “prejudicial to the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan”. Within 15 days of this declaration, the government is mandated to refer the matter to the SC, whose decision shall be considered final. The information minister’s rationale for the ban was the PTI’s involvement in the foreign funding case, the May 9 riots, the cypher episode, and the resolution passed in the US. What then are these grounds on which the government is seeking to ban PTI?

The foreign funding case involves PTI receiving illegal money from foreign countries and nationals, with the most notorious source being Pakistani businessman Arif Naqvi, whose UAE-based company organised cricket matches to bankroll the PTI. The May 9 riots refer to the protests triggered by Imran Khan’s arrest in 2023, during which his supporters vandalised public property and military installations, including the Jinnah House (Lahore Corps Commander House) and ISI office in Faisalabad.

The cypher case pertains to a classified cypher or diplomatic cable sent to Islamabad by Pakistan’s ambassador to the US, which was made public by Khan, alleging that it contained evidence of US involvement in his ouster. In the run-up to the February 2024 elections, Khan and his aide Shah Mahmood Qureshi were slapped with a 10-year prison term in the cypher case. Although the Islamabad high court acquitted both of them of these charges in June this year, Khan remains behind bars due to a slew of cases against him. This is even as a court recently acquitted Khan and his wife Bushra Bibi of another major case, the Iddat case or the ‘un-Islamic’ marriage case, for which they had been sentenced to seven years in jail.

The United States’ Resolution HR 901, on the other hand, is a bipartisan, non-binding resolution passed by the US Congress in June 2024, that calls for an investigation into claims of interference or irregularities in Pakistan’s 2024 elections. This was in large part advanced by strong lobbying from the PTI-supportive Pakistani diaspora in the US.

Reactions to the move

The proposal to ban the PTI drew criticism from all quarters, including the Awami National Party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (Fazl), Jamaat-e-Islami, and even several leaders from the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which is in coalition with the ruling PML-N. The latter’s initial disapproval, however, was tempered by PPP’s secretary general, who clarified that any opposition from individual leaders were “personal opinions” and not reflective of the party’s policy, as the PPP will stand by the federal government’s decisions.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan urged the decision’s withdrawal, calling it “politically motivated” and “a blow to democratic norms”, and warned that it could deepen polarisation and lead to political chaos. The US State Department spokesperson, characterising this as the beginning of a “complex political process”, noted that it is of “great concern” to the US. Amidst a barrage of criticism, the government noticeably backtracked (not yet abandoned) on its decision, as evidenced by the statements from foreign minister Ishaq Dar and defence minister Khwaja Asif, both of whom said that no decision has been made yet, and only be done so after consulting the government’s allies.

It should be noted that Pakistan has a history of banning political parties, practised by both military dictators and civilian governments. The last two bans implemented were during Imran Khan’s tenure: Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz-Aresar was banned in 2020 for its alleged links with Sindh militant outfits, and the far-right Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP) in 2021 for initiating anti-France protests. The government’s decision to lift the ban on TLP after only a few months, following a wave of protests unleashed by its supporters, highlights the ineffectiveness of a ‘ban’, given it almost invariably fails to achieve the intended results, often proving counterproductive.

Now, a ban on arguably the country’s most popular party, which faced an intense crackdown before the elections — including its electoral symbol (cricket bat) being stripped away, forcing PTI candidates to run as independents — will only make the masses more sympathetic to the party’s cause, even among those who may not fully agree with its modus operandi. Moreover, its founder wields immense street power, which was translated into remarkable electoral success, with PTI-backed candidates securing the largest share of votes (93) compared to PML-N (75) and PPP (54).

Again in a quagmire

At a time when the government should prioritise economic stability, especially after securing a new $7 billion, 37-month International Monetary Fund (IMF) deal that is still subject to IMF board approval, this move, which risks inciting political violence, reflects short-sighted policymaking. Fitch Ratings’ latest report has highlighted how urban protests have already hampered Pakistan’s economic activities. Furthermore, picking a fresh battle with PTI, when the government needs its active cooperation in the recently launched counterterror operation, considering the PTI governs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — the province most affected by terrorist activities — shows a callous disregard for the pressing ground realities.

So, as the PTI continues to get relief from the same institution (read judiciary) that facilitated its dismantling prior to the February elections, it is unlikely the ban will fructify, considering the final say rests with the SC, which seemingly has had a change of heart. What appears likely, though, is the incumbent government (s) elected to power sans a popular mandate, is poised to lose the little credibility it had in light of this announcement. With civil-military relations already tense, military-judicial relations may now emerge as the new battleground shaping Pakistan’s near-future trajectory, as the judiciary attempts to restore public faith by righting its past wrongs.

Bantirani Patro is a research associate at the Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal