The Pakistan Democracy Act—Misplaced Priorities and Selective Accountability

In a move laden with diplomatic repercussions, Reps. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.) have introduced the Pakistan Democracy Act, seeking to sanction Pakistan’s Army Chief General Asim Munir under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. Their justification? Alleged “persecution of political opponents,” specifically former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

Wilson had been preparing this legislation for months, signaling in February that he was finalizing a bill aimed at swiftly determining sanctions on General Munir, along with a broader assessment of Pakistan’s military and government officials. His social media activity has consistently pushed for Khan’s release, and upon introducing the bill, he celebrated it as a firm stance against democracy’s alleged erosion in Pakistan.

The bill, however, raises serious concerns about selective accountability, external interference in sovereign affairs, and the broader implications for U.S.-Pakistan relations. While Washington often stresses the importance of non-interference in the domestic politics of sovereign states, this move directly contradicts that principle.

Notably, The Hill has reported that the bill mandates a timeline of 180 days to impose sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act. The implications would extend beyond Munir, potentially affecting individuals deemed complicit in political repression, and restricting their access to the U.S.

A One-Sided Political Narrative

Representative Wilson asserts that “Mr. Khan is clearly a political prisoner”. However, his portrayal ignores key facts:

• Khan’s removal from office was constitutional. The no-confidence motion of April 2022 was executed through Pakistan’s parliamentary process, a democratic mechanism enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan (Article 95). It was not a military coup.
  
• Khan faces serious legal charges. These include cases related to corruption (Toshakhana case), leaking state secrets (cypher case), and financial misconduct. Declaring these proceedings as mere “persecution” dismisses Pakistan’s independent judiciary, which has convicted figures across political lines, including former Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Yousaf Raza Gillani.
  
• No mention of post-election realities. The bill fails to acknowledge that Pakistan held general elections on February 8, 2024, resulting in a coalition government formed by multiple political parties, including independent candidates aligned with PTI. If the country were under “military rule,” as the bill insinuates, such an electoral process would not have occurred.

Even Michael Kugelman, an analyst at the Wilson Center, as cited by The Hill, questions the narrative, stating: “For many observers in DC, there is something deeply ironic about Khan supporters blaming the U.S. for Khan’s ouster and then calling on it to rescue him”.

The proposed sanctions are built on the premise that Pakistan is under military rule—yet, the bill itself provides a pathway for their removal if “civilian democracy” is restored. This contradictory framing ignores Pakistan’s existing democratic structures and recent elections.

Selective U.S. Concerns on Democracy

While the bill cites human rights concerns, it appears to cherry-pick its targets. If genuine concerns about political repression are the basis for legislative action, then consistency demands:

• Sanctions on other nations with severe human rights violations. According to Freedom House (2024), multiple U.S. allies rank significantly lower than Pakistan on democracy indicators, yet face no such punitive measures.
  
• Accountability for global autocracies. If the principle of punishing non-democratic behavior were universal, it would extend to authoritarian regimes that systematically suppress dissent—yet, strategic interests often override such concerns.
  
• Acknowledging the role of opposition forces. The bill ignores that PTI leaders and supporters engaged in violence on May 9, 2023, attacking government buildings and military installations, an act that would be treated as domestic terrorism in any Western democracy.
  

Even former Pakistani envoy Husain Haqqani, known for his critical stance on Pakistan’s establishment, as featured in The Hill, admits: “It is unlikely that sanctions would be imposed on Pakistan just to secure the release of a populist but anti-American politician”. His comment underscores that the bill is more about political maneuvering than human rights.

Ignoring Pakistan’s Counterterrorism Contributions

Rep. Wilson acknowledges Pakistan’s role in helping apprehend an ISIS terrorist, but still insists that the country must be “encouraged” to uphold democratic values. The contradiction is glaring:

• Pakistan has sacrificed over 80,000 lives in counterterrorism operations. It remains one of the most active partners in global anti-terrorism efforts, dismantling networks like Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which has targeted both Pakistani and American interests.
  
• Pakistan is crucial to regional stability. The Doha Agreement (2020) between the U.S. and the Afghan Taliban was only possible through Pakistan’s facilitation. If Pakistan’s military leadership were truly anti-democratic, it would not have been a trusted security partner for the U.S. over two decades.
  

Moreover, the U.S. State Department itself refrains from taking a stance on Khan’s imprisonment, with spokesperson Tammy Bruce stating that the administration does “not involve itself in the internal matters of other countries” as cited by The Hill. If this is Washington’s official position, why is Congress pushing for an exception in Pakistan’s case?

Diplomatic Fallout: Engagement vs. Sanctions

Pakistan values its partnership with the U.S. and remains committed to constructive engagement. However, this bill could have adverse consequences for bilateral ties:

1. Weakening Counterterrorism Cooperation: Sanctions on military leadership would undermine Pakistan’s ability to collaborate with U.S. intelligence agencies, benefiting terrorist groups.
   
2. Pushing Pakistan Closer to China and Russia: Diplomatic coercion has historically driven countries toward alternative alliances. A sanctions-driven approach will only increase Pakistan’s strategic reliance on Beijing and Moscow.
   
3. Eroding Trust Between Islamabad and Washington: Constructive diplomacy requires mutual respect, not punitive measures. A sanctions-first approach contradicts America’s professed commitment to strengthening democratic partners.

Also See: Beyond March 23, 1940, Pakistan, Identity, and the New Age of Colonialism

A Precedent of Interference?

The Pakistan Democracy Act, rather than strengthening democracy, risks eroding trust between two strategic allies and setting a dangerous precedent for interference in sovereign nations. If concerns exist, dialogue, not coercion, is the appropriate course of action.

The U.S. must decide: Does it want a strong, engaged Pakistan as a regional stabilizer, or does it prefer to alienate a key partner through selective pressure and misplaced priorities?

SAT Commentary is an independent analysis and commentary on developments, trends, and happenings published by South Asia Times (SAT). It provides insights into regional trends, geopolitical developments, and emerging narratives. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the institution’s official stance.