In the parliamentary system of government, the no-confidence motion is an established method of removing the prime minister. The principle is incorporated in Article 95 of the Constitution. The implication is that there is no fixed term for the prime minister who can be removed any time. It is the National Assembly (directly elected lower house) whose term is fixed between four and five years. However, the prime minister can call general elections before the expiry of its regular term.

The use of no-confidence motion to remove the prime minister varies from country to country. Stable parliamentary systems with well-established democratic culture avoid using this option. If there is a serious political failure or stalemate, developed democracies allow the ruling party to change its leadership and the prime minister. Therefore, the first challenge to the prime minister comes from within the ruling party that is non-dynastic internally democratic. The alternative is that the prime minister in office or the new prime minister selected by the ruling party calls for new elections to assert his or the party’s leadership. If nothing works or the opposition is extremely upset with the disposition of the government, it can go for a vote of no-confidence. However, this is normally a quiet and orderly affair within and outside the elected house; although political leaders may issue tough statements against one another or severely criticise the prime minister within the parliamentary parameters.

The operationalisation of a no-confidence motion is an altogether different story in weak parliamentary systems where the political elite has not fully imbibed the democratic culture, politics is dominated by personalities and political parties lack internal democracy. Some of these parties have dynastic leadership or function as a fiefdom of the leader. In such political systems, the electoral process is invariably disputed, the ruling party and the opposition refuse to acknowledge each other’s legitimate role and work towards undermining it. Their political idiom is rude and unparliamentary. Parliamentary sessions are often noisy and laced with offensive remarks. On occasion, some members may physically assault one another. In September 1957, the deputy speaker of the East Pakistan Assembly was injured in an episode of violence during an assembly session and died two days later. A no-confidence motion in such a democracy is part of the unrestrained power struggle.

The current no-confidence motion in the National Assembly against Prime Minister Imran Khan can be viewed as the latest episode in the power struggle between the ruling party and the opposition parties that began in August 2018. Having failed to dislodge the government through public rallies and protest marches, the opposition is now seeking to use this method to get rid of the federal government which it says has harmed national interests in global affairs and utterly mismanaged governmental affairs that adversely affected the economy and increased economic strains on the common people.

The opposition’s decision to go for a vote of no-confidence at the fag-end of the term of the National Assembly does not make sense. If the vote of no-confidence succeeds, opposition parties do not have enough time to rectify what they describe as failed policies of the PTI government.

The opposition’s decision to go for a vote of no-confidence at the fag-end of the term of the National Assembly does not make sense. If the vote of no-confidence succeeds, opposition parties do not have enough time to rectify what they describe as failed policies of the PTI government. No matter what the outcome of the no-confidence motion is, the confrontation between the government and the opposition will continue. If Imran Khan is knocked out of power, he and his party will challenge the new government on every issue, accentuating political confrontation. If Imran Khan’s government survives, the on-going confrontation will persist and the government’s performance is not expected to improve.

The opposition parties have not offered any formula for dealing with Pakistan’s acute economic problems, especially rising price of essential commodities. Therefore, the change of government is not likely to improve Pakistan’s economy and the public will continue to face economic hardships. The new government, a coalition of diverse and traditionally rival parties will have problems in pulling together, not to speak of addressing the problems inherited from the current government.

The only advantage the opposition can gain after coming to power is to get an opportunity to neutralise the corruption charges against some of its leaders and initiate similar cases against some PTI leaders. This will also enable the opposition parties to use state patronage to build constituency support through development work.

If Imran Khan and the PTI lose power, they can project themselves as “political martyrs” claiming that their public-oriented welfare programmes were cut short when these were about to mature. The PTI will then be able to exploit the inability of the new government to resolve socio-economic problems, especially price hike and other issues raised by the opposition in the course of pursuing the no-confidence motion.

If the PTI government completes its five-year parliamentary term, the opposition will have enough facts available to show that the PTI policies did not help the common person. Such an argument will lose its weight if the opposition forms a new government that serves until the next general elections.

Pakistan’s socio-economic problems and global economic pressures are such that quick solutions are beyond the reach of any Pakistani government. These problems require a cooperative approach on part of the government and the opposition. As this is not going to happen, Pakistan’s problems will persist. Therefore, the opposition’s political agenda for the next general elections will not be served by removing the PTI government at this stage. If it is allowed to compete the five-year period, the opposition will be better placed at the time of the general elections to talk about the PTI failures. If the opposition forms the government after the success of the no-confidence motion, it will have to share the blame for policy failures over the remaining period of the National Assembly’s term.

The writer is a political analyst and tweets at @har132har