On March 3, the Pakistani Opposition submitted a Vote of No Confidence against Prime Minister Imran Khan over allegations of poor performance. However, as the National Assembly met, the speaker of the House,dismissed the vote as illegitimate and as a “foreign conspiracy.” The government was dominated by Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, a populist party that prides itself on its anti-corruption efforts. Supporters of PTI (Imran Khan’s party) argue that this was the defeat of a foreign conspiracy, while opponents argue that this is the making of a dire constitutional crisis. This article will not focus on the legal or constitutional aspect of this issue but rather on whether a foreign conspiracy is even possible or probable, given the lack of evidence presented by the now formerFederal Government.

For context, the vote of No Confidence was initially put forward by the Opposition, which consists of major parties across the political spectrum — from the Religious Right to the leftist Pakistan People’s Party to the Centrist Pakistan Muslim League (N)). As accusations of economic mismanagement were thrown around, the Opposition sought to oust the PM in the midst of a financial crisis with a depreciating rupee and rising inflation.

After the vote of No Confidence was proposed in the National Assembly, Khan’s government argued that the vote should be nullified because it was not the result of domestic grievances and opposition but due to foreign (namely American) interference in Pakistani affairs. However, that begs the question as to why Imran Khan would be targeted, and why now?

This narrative can be traced back to the recent invasion of Ukraine. The Pakistani establishment, i.e, the different factions in the military as well as the Pakistani Intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, has been split over whom to support in the Ukraine war. After his visit to Russia, Imran Khan fired back at accusations of supporting Russia’s war efforts by declaring that Pakistan was not a “slave” of the west. This has led to views among the establishment that Imran Khan has gone rogue in terms of foreign policy, hence the break in support from the military. Here, it is important to note that the Pakistani military has a far more “hands-on” role in politics, especially given past instances of martial law and military dictatorships being imposed, such as the military rule of Pervez Musharraf from 1999 to 2008. Even when not directly in power through martial law, the military has been continuously accused of meddling in civilian government by helping certain leaders (like Imran Khan) get elected.

Among both domestic and international political spheres, this Vote of No Confidence has now been characterized as Imran Khan vs the Western Bloc. Even among many leftist circles, the former PM is now seen as a figure of “anti-imperalism”, due to his fiery rhetoric against the U.S.. Given his recent statements on Russia as well as his willingness to “cozy” up to the Chinese government by praising it’s One Party State and defending its treatment of the Uyghur minority group, the conspiracy theory of foreign interference seemed reasonable, especially given the historical precedents America has set of supporting regime changes all around the globe. However, given the lack of concrete evidence presented by the Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry in the National Assembly, we must ourselves assess whether there is a strong enough case for western intervention in Pakistan’s political affairs.

Imran Khan’s foreign policy is not black or white. He is not vehemently anti-West nor is the opposition vehemently pro-West, and therein lies the issue. In order for there to be plausible concern for regime change efforts in Pakistan, Imran Khan’s foreign policy must be largely pro Russia/China enough to threaten American interests in the region. But that is not the case. Given Pakistan’s proximity to Afghanistan, the U.S. has long seen it as an ally in the War on Terror, and with the new Taliban government in power in Afghanistan, it is more important than ever to maintain friendly relations with Pakistan in the region. As the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan has lessened the ties between the two countries, the U.S. is now less willing than ever to overlook Pakistan’s growing friendliness with Russia and China. This comes as a result of the U.S. no longer strongly requiring Pakistan’s alliance in Afghanistan that it is willing to overlook possible “transgressions” by Pakistan. Thus, on the surface, the U.S. does seem to have an incentive to make sure that no truly anti-Western government comes into power.

While Imran Khan tends to rely on anti-imperialist rhetoric, his government has made little progress in furthering ties with America’s largest rival: China. During his tenure, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor has largely remained in stasis, and very little progress has been made in the expansion of new projects.

In addition, Pakistan still finds itself turning to the IMF for loans in order to sustain its struggling economy, despite having the option of loans from China, which have lesser conditionalities than IMF loans. With the IMF being the poster child for the Washington consensus (which entails the pushing of American-esque neoliberal market reforms) and an arm for Western influence, it seems odd that the seemingly anti-West Khan would not actually do much to threaten the hold western markets and institutions have over the country. His government agreed to respect the conditionalities by the IMF, such as cutting public expenditure and increasing income and sales taxes that squeeze out the working and middle classes.

On the other hand, despite recent pro-west statements made by opposition leaders like Shehbaz Sharif including his infamous “beggars can’t be choosers”, meaning that Pakistan should not pick “fights” with the West given its current dependence on Western aid agencies, the previous PML(N) government was closer to China in the sense that it actively promoted and worked on CPEC and its associated projects. Even other opposition members like MNA Shahid Khaqan Abbasi have remarked on the lack of time invested in CPEC under the PTI government. Given that the Opposition has now formed a government, it would not make sense for America to back regime change that would likely result in a longstanding geostrategic ally becoming closer to China. Keeping all this in mind, unless concrete evidence is shown proving otherwise, there is very little incentive to believe that America is behind the No Confidence vote.

However, what this narrative has served to do is allow the PTI and Imran Khan to make a common enemy out of the West (the United States in particular) that can be used to rally support for the next elections. The PTI organized multiple rallies against the vote, despite the fact that ordinary voters could not participate in it, indicating that Imran Khan is playing the long game and rallying support for the next election, which he hopes to pressure the government into calling. This narrative is ultimately dangerous as it allows Imran Khan to form a cult of personality, where he is the anti-imperialist leader rallying the Pakistani people against western supremacy. This allows him to use his charisma and rhetoric to justify violating the constitution and trying to undermine democratic principles. Given Pakistan’s already fragile democratic track record, with no Prime Minister ever completing their term, we must not allow strongmen like Imran Khan to take us even further back.