The crucial event in the defeat of the Khan government was the defection of some of Khan's own backbench supporters. Once they committed to supporting a non-confidence motion, he looked like toast.
In recent days there has been a flurry of activity - and what some argue were tactics straight out of Machiavelli's playbook - which resulted in several Khan allies deserting his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party, tilting the scales firmly in the opposition's favour.
Khan, however did not go quietly, or even accept that he might have to. Both in Parliament and in the courts, he argued that he could not be removed from office even by a majority vote in Parliament, telling huge crowds of supporters the looming vote against him was all a matter of foreign conspiracy and corrupt thieves. Khan actually declared that his backbenchers were not allowed to vote against him.
The government is seeking a Supreme Court ruling that would not only bar dissident PTI members from voting under an anti-defection law, but also disqualify them from parliament for life.
But the court said no, the confidence vote went ahead despite Khan's edict cancelling it, and now he's out of power.
I do not know the internal politics of Pakistan that eroded Khan's support. But I can't help wondering if Canadian politicians would borrow from Khan in similar circumstances.
Parliamentary democracies all over the world operate on the principle of responsible government: "Responsible government means majority government, but of a particular sort -- majority rule, not by the electorate, but by a majority of the electorate's elected representatives."
Evidently Imran Khan doesn't think this applies to him: he's the people's prime minister. And that's an idea that has a lot of currency in Canada now. There's actually a guy who says he's running for prime minister when he's really in the midst of trying to sell enough party memberships to secure his party's leadership. How likely would he be to accept that the hacks on the backbenchers (his caucus support is more or less zero) should have any influence upon him?
Prime Minister Harper frequently said during election campaigns that whichever party leader won the most seats got to be prime minister. And on election nights the media has regularly followed his lead, anointing as prime minister someone who will only command minority support until the House meets and votes. If the NDP removed its support of Justin Trudeau and a few Liberal backbenchers chose to go with them, would Trudeau accept he could be legitimately be replaced in office by whomever the majority of the House preferred over him? Would Jagmeet Singh accept defeat if their positions were reversed and he were about to lose a confidence vote? Would Doug Ford or Francois Legault?
Yeah, probably, I guess. We still have a way to go in overriding those norms. But not such a long ways. Populist, majoritarian, "let the people speak" attitudes are widespread and confident in Canada as elsewhere.
On the other hand, the Pakistani parliament did speak, and Prime Minister Khan is out of office, at least until he can reassemble a majority coalition. Two cheers for parliamentary democracy
