Q&A: Pakistan protests

Why the trouble now after last year's successful election?

The real origins of the two big demonstrations that began in mid-August in Lahore, moved to the capital Islamabad and then erupted in violence - causing three deaths in an attempt to storm the official residence of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif - are a little obscure. But the street supporters of Imran Khan, the former cricket star turned politician, complain about corruption and say the general election of May last year won by Mr Sharif was rigged. Those loyal to Tahirul Qadri, an Islamic scholar with a fiery turn of phrase, talk of the need for "revolution" and are angered by the police killings of up to 14 of their number in previous demonstrations in Lahore in June. The two protests have coalesced in an encampment in the so-called secure "red zone" in the heart of the capital, in front of Parliament and other official buildings.

What's in it for Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri?

This is perhaps the most puzzling aspect of the crisis. Although the 2013 election was marred by violence and doubtless by incidents of cheating, most observers say Mr Sharif - supported by the majority of voters in the populous Punjab - was the clear overall winner. The election was also hailed as an important step towards a sustainable democracy, because it marked the first time that one democratically elected government had taken over from another in Pakistan's history. Mr Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (Pakistan Justice Movement) came third, but won control of the restive Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province. His enemies accuse him of ambition and vanity because he failed to win the post of prime minister for himself, and some members of his party have rebelled against what they see as his undemocratic tactics. Mr Qadri, meanwhile, is normally based in Canada. He is a religious moderate by the standards of Islamic Pakistan, but politically radical - inveighing against corruption and nepotism among politicians.

Is the army behind all this?

Yes, at least that is what many Pakistanis believe, including those with a military background. The army overthrew Mr Sharif once before, when General Pervez Musharraf staged a military coup d'etat in 1999. This time around, Mr Sharif is seen to have offended the generals in three ways. First, he is determined to pursue the case for treason against Mr Musharraf, instead of letting him fly back quietly into exile in the Gulf or in London. Second, Mr Sharif is eager to make peace with India, and the armed forces need India to remain the bogeyman so that they can justify their large numbers and hefty slice of the annual budget. Third, Mr Sharif has been trying to negotiate peace with Islamic extremists of the Pakistan Taliban, but the army has come round to the view that the militants must be crushed. The generals struggled for months before winning Mr Sharif's authorisation of their current offensive in North Waziristan along the Afghan border.

Why is Nawaz Sharif unable to cope?

He has always been rather unfocused, but at the time of last year's election he seemed to have learnt from past mistakes (this is his third go as prime minister). Since taking office, he has launched various projects - including power stations - that should eventually help alleviate the country's electricity shortage and other problems. Yet political commentators say he now appears to have lost interest in governing. As the crisis brewed, he baffled his supporters by spending 10 days on a spiritual journey in Saudi Arabia.

Is there an economic impact on Pakistan?

Yes, but it is hard to calculate. Transport and the functioning of the central government have been badly disrupted by more than two weeks of troubles, and the US might be forced to withhold some of its aid for Pakistan if the armed forces overtly took power. The real problem is the loss of what little international confidence there was in Pakistan's investment climate.

What next?

Among the possible outcomes is the resignation of Mr Sharif and the installation of a technocratic government tacitly backed by the army, followed by fresh elections. Other options include an outright military takeover (the army has run the country for half of its existence since 1947). Or Pakistanis could endure a long period of instability as a weakened Mr Sharif hangs on to power.

© The Financial Times Limited 2014. All rights reserved.
FT and Financial Times are trademarks of the Financial Times Ltd.
Not to be redistributed, copied or modified in any way.
Euro2day.gr is solely responsible for providing this translation and the Financial Times Limited does not accept any liability for the accuracy or quality of the translation