‘House of Cards’: How Imran Khan’s ‘final call’ deepens uncertainty in Pakistan

“For those of us climbing to the top of the food chain, there can be no mercy. There is but one rule: hunt or be hunted.” With stone-cold eyes, Frank Underwood, the main protagonist from the famous Netflix series “House of Cards” that left millions of viewers worldwide glued to their screens, delivers this chilling message to his audience.

In the entertainment world, “House of Cards” was one of the most gripping political series with ruthless political lexicons; in reality, this series has been emulated by Imran Khan, an ex-PM (Prime Minister) of Pakistan and chief of Pakistan-Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).

Khan’s final call for protests in Islamabad on November 24 stems from his political ambition to “hunt” and force the current largely unpopular political regime into submission and surrender. His slew of demands includes the release of all political prisoners, including himself; holding fresh elections in the country; and rolling back the 26th constitutional amendment, which the current government recently passed.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

PTI under Imran has been playing a dominant role as a disruptive opposition in Pakistan’s political landscape. Imran, while currently behind bars, has been constantly challenging the decisions of the current government and periodically calling out for nationwide protests. Each time his protest calls have thrown the country out of gear, the subsequent enforced lockdowns by Pakistan’s establishment in response to his protest calls have disrupted the normal life of Pakistan.

The political landscape of Pakistan has been undergoing dramatic shifts in recent years, with the rise of PTI’s populist movements, intense political polarisation, and societal rifts. The recent protests in Islamabad, which were headed by his wife, Bushra Bibi, and the Chief Minister of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Ali Amin Gundapur, have had far-reaching consequences on the political, societal, and institutional fabric of Pakistan.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

As hundreds of thousands of people marched through different cities of Pakistan towards Islamabad, the Pakistan establishment responded with a complete lockdown of Islamabad and its adjoining areas. They shut down all the major highways and roads and schools and colleges, creating multiple roadblocks by placing huge containers and suspending mobile and internet services.

Despite the government’s imposition of severe restrictions and use of violent means to stop the march, the protestors, who were largely peaceful throughout the march, were successful in reaching Islamabad almost 24 hours later. This compelled the government to impose Article 245 A of the constitution and call in the army to deal with law and order in Islamabad.

Pakistan’s government response was far more brutal to quell this protest. At around midnight the government forces were ordered to open direct fire on the protesters, which left dozens killed and around two hundred people injured. As the casualties rose, the protesters tethered away. Those who stayed behind were dealt with ruthlessly, with over two thousand of them being arrested.

The government banned the hospitals from issuing the lists of the dead and the injured; mainstream media was also banned from reporting the happenings and were instead forced to publish and broadcast official handouts. Many journalists were also arrested and jailed on frivolous charges, thereby scuttling freedom of the press completely. Despite such a dictatorial approach and denial of brutal high-handedness perpetrated on the protesters by the government, news through social media highlighted the extent of protests and their aftermath.

The brutality could be measured from one of the viral videos on social media platform X capturing an incident wherein one person who was offering his prayers (namaz) on top of a container was brutally pushed down by the forces, severely injuring him. It drew widespread criticism both at home and abroad for the Pakistan establishment.

A man who was praying during protests was pushed down from a container by #Pakistan security forces. pic.twitter.com/dfXvG4b6vf

— Ajay Jandyal (@ajayjandyal) November 27, 2024

These protests have not only deepened political divides but have also intensified ethnic and societal rifts, particularly between the Pashtuns and Punjabis. One of the most significant consequences of the PTI protests has been the exacerbation of ethnic and societal tensions within Pakistan. In particular, the divide between Pashtuns and Punjabis has become more pronounced, with the political and social discourse being heavily influenced by regional and ethnic factors.

Imran Khan, being a Pashtun by ethnicity, had garnered substantial support from Pashtun-majority regions, particularly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), where PTI had a strong political base. His rise to prominence and his leadership of PTI initially represented a sense of empowerment for the Pashtun population, who felt historically marginalised by the dominant political elite, largely composed of Punjabis and Sindhis. However, as the protests escalated, the PTI’s rhetoric began to amplify ethnic divides, with Pashtun supporters rallying behind Khan’s anti-establishment stance.

On the other hand, the military establishment, traditionally dominated by Punjabis, felt the threat of Khan’s growing influence. The Punjabi-dominated military, which has historically held significant power in Pakistan’s politics, perceived Khan’s attempts to undermine their authority as a direct challenge. This created a toxic environment where ethnic lines were drawn sharply between the Pashtun supporters of PTI and the Punjabi-dominated military establishment, further fuelling societal rifts.

The aftermath of the protests has further triggered a sense of victimhood among Pashtun protesters. These actions are now being framed as efforts by the Punjabi-led military and political elite to suppress the Pashtun voice. As a result, the Pashtun community has become more vocal in its demands for greater political representation and autonomy while also accusing the military and the current government of perpetuating their marginalisation.

Imran Khan’s actions in the aftermath of his ouster have profoundly impacted Pakistan’s political establishment. His protests, accusations, and calls for early elections have posed a direct challenge to the entrenched political powers in the country, especially the military establishment. Khan’s ability to mobilise mass protests and garner significant support, despite his ouster, has weakened the Pakistani establishment in several ways.

First, Khan’s public accusations against the military, the very institution that has long been central to Pakistan’s political order, have eroded the once sacred image of the army in the eyes of many Pakistanis. The military, which has played a decisive role in Pakistan’s political history, found itself embroiled in a public relations crisis as Khan painted it as an undemocratic force conspiring to undermine civilian rule. This has, to a large extent, diminished the military’s stature and legitimacy as a sacred institution in Pakistan’s social system.

Second, Khan’s leadership and his ability to rally mass support have exposed the fragility of the political system in Pakistan. His supporters have adopted a confrontational stance towards the ruling coalition, accusing them of being puppets of the military and foreign powers. This has created a political gridlock, with the country’s institutions, including the military, judiciary, and civilian government, being caught in a battle for power and legitimacy. The protracted nature of the protests and the growing instability have left the Pakistani political system weakened and divided.

Third, Khan’s strategy of using populist rhetoric, tapping into the frustrations of the common man, and calling for “true democracy” has undermined the authority of the traditional political elite. His criticism of the establishment’s corruption and inefficiency resonated with large segments of the population who were disillusioned with Pakistan’s political parties. This has left the political establishment in disarray, struggling to counter Khan’s influence.

The political journey of Imran Khan has drawn several comparisons to Frank Underwood, the ambitious and calculating protagonist of the Netflix series “House of Cards”. Both Khan and Underwood are figures who rise to power through a combination of charisma, strategic manoeuvring, and a willingness to exploit any available opportunities. Both men have also shown an uncanny ability to manipulate their environment, using their understanding of power dynamics to advance their personal and political agendas.

Like Frank Underwood, Khan has displayed ruthlessness in his political strategies. His rise to power, initially aided by the military’s backing, mirrors Underwood’s manipulation of political systems for personal gain. However, Khan, like Underwood, also faced the inevitable betrayal, in Khan’s case, from the military, which had initially helped him rise to power. This betrayal, in Khan’s eyes, became the catalyst for his shift from an ally of the military to its fiercest critic, just as Underwood’s character shifted from being a loyal vice president to seeking ultimate power at any cost.

Khan’s political narrative, especially following his ouster, is steeped in a sense of moral superiority, much like Underwood’s constant narrative of being a man of destiny. Khan frames his movement as one to restore “true democracy” and “justice” in Pakistan, despite his own contradictions and political alliances. This makes him a polarising figure, much like Underwood, who believed in the necessity of doing anything to stay in power, even if it meant using underhanded tactics.

The recent PTI protests have significantly altered the political landscape of Pakistan, exacerbating ethnic and societal rifts, particularly between Pashtuns and Punjabis, and challenging the traditional power structures within the country. Imran Khan’s ability to challenge the Pakistani establishment, both politically and institutionally, has weakened the image of the military, once the central figure of Pakistan’s political order. As Khan’s political journey continues to unfold, drawing comparisons to Frank Underwood’s Machiavellian pursuit of power, Pakistan faces an uncertain future, with deepened political polarisation and unresolved ethnic tensions.

Raja Muneeb is an independent journalist and a columnist. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.