As a nation, we are often preoccupied with the wrong questions. The question for this month is whether Prime Minister Imran Khan will survive the no-confidence motion in the National Assembly. This leads to a set of supplementary questions: do the movers command the numbers needed to overturn the majority that has represented the coalition led by the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf? Are some members of the PTI about to defect; and can they do so without losing their membership of the National Assembly? And, who is the latest person to call upon Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain to inquire about his health?

In the immediate term, these might sound like reasonable questions to ask politicians. One can hardly imagine leaders of the incumbent government to act differently if roles were reversed – they had not when they had a chance, and (spoiler alert) they will not when they get another chance.

But asking whether the government can be dislodged or not is the wrong question – even for politicians involved. Therefore, it is wise to not engage with the question, not only because this is for statisticians and perhaps, fortune tellers but also because it is not, in our unending democratic transition, the question to which we should currently be seeking an answer.

What then is the question we ought to be asking? We should be asking whether the government should be removed, prematurely, through a vote of no-confidence. My answer is in the negative.

This year, Pakistan turns 75. During the past 74 years, 18 men and a woman have served as prime ministers of the country. There have been all manners of appointments. The best way to become a prime minister is being a key leader of the party that has or can put together a majority in the National Assembly – or being seen as a pliant comrade by such a leader. There have also been other ways of getting to the position; although the subject is endlessly interesting, it is not the focus here.

The focus is how these prime ministers have been removed from office – an equally interesting subject. The credit for the dismissal in most of these cases goes to the heads of the state – first, the governor generals and later, the presidents. But there has also been assassination, removal through military takeover, and voluntary or involuntary resignations. Owing to all that and more, not a single prime minister in the three quarters of a century has completed his tenure. One could make an argument about completion of the term in office by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto or Shaukat Aziz, but that would just be pedantic.

For all its faults, an early dismissal will allow the incumbent government and the people at the helm to stand up to cheering crowds and tell them that they were about to turn the corner, had it not been for the scheming lot.

Prime Minister Imran Khan and his cabinet should be allowed to complete their term for more than one reason. Foremost, for our political system to grow, we need good precedents. For almost a century and a half, no American president was elected for a third term despite there being no constitutional provision preventing it. In the grand scheme of Pakistan’s democratic experience, the prime ministerial term has become a psychological and political milestone. Before completion of term in office becomes the norm, there must be a precedent. And we do not know when will be the next time we get this close to creating the precedent.

Equally importantly, the removal of Imran Khan’s government will further diminish public confidence in the democratic process. Now, one can easily argue the reverse: you could say that the process of removal that the opposition has adopted is within the constitutional and democratic norms. However, the manner in which proceedings have happened to this point make a case for why the general public is disenchanted with our democratic politics in the first place. Defections, shifting coalitions, a fiery and discourteous rhetoric, and bargaining for political spoils are all arguments we have heard against democracy in Pakistan. This could lead the voters to believe that in the end it does not matter who or what they vote for. I, for one, cannot imagine how people voted for the Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) in the hope that this will make someone from the Sharif family the prime minister.

Lastly, if a vote of no confidence appears like a palace intrigue, it will undermine the principle of electoral accountability. For all its faults, an early dismissal will allow the incumbent government and the people at the helm to stand up to cheering crowds and tell them that they were about to turn the corner, had it not been for the scheming lot.

Oscar Wilde had famously said, “There are only two tragedies: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it”. I think the opposition, and those who might side with them in the coming days, will find out that the latter tragedy is, in fact, worse.

The writer is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Peshawar. He can be reached at aameraza@gmail.com