Daily Times

Political pundits long poked fun at him and told him to stay out of politics because he was too ‘naïve’, ‘Im the Dim’, too ‘simple’, a ‘dunce’ or a ‘fool’, but they were unable to break his spirit. He was called an actor and a pretender by people who themselves are nothing more. His one time friend and later foe, Pakistan’s last tin pot dictator Pervez Musharraf referred to him as an unbalanced character who would never amount to much and who he had been wrong to suffer. Just as he began as a cricketer, dismissed as without talent who would never bowl fast, in politics too Imran Khan was dismissed with nothing but prejudice and contempt. He took each humiliation, insult and used it as a stepping stone to that ultimate triumph that now is only a matter of time. History, dear readers, is replete with such examples of persistence and courage; Jinnah being the last example from our recent history.

The reason I support him however is not because of his great moment of personal triumph, which even on its own is inspirational enough, but because, in my view, Imran Khan represents by far the most progressive option in Pakistan, all things considered. Consider.

The established definition of modernity rests on the following pillars: social justice, political democracy, secularism, responsible government and most importantly the rule of law. Imran Khan openly espouses four out of five of these conditions. He stands for social justice between economic groups and for the uplift of marginalised sections of society. He is committed to the electoral process and believes in a responsible and accountable government. Finally, he speaks of a society where the rule of law reigns supreme and therefore everyone — without exception — is equal in the eyes of the law.

As for secularism, I am not of the opinion that one should refrain from using terms that aptly describe an idea or a person just because that person refrains from using these terms. As Marx said so aptly that the politics of politicians of the day ought to be analysed not per the draperies that adorn it but that the veil should be pierced to get to the substance of such politics. Khan may denounce secularism and pledge allegiance to the Islamic faith, but his politics, centring on commonsense temporal issues like the creation of a social welfare state, is by definition secular politics and a secular agenda. Distinguishing Islamic ideology from secularism, Imran Khan says in no uncertain terms that an Islamic state would provide all the freedoms of a secular state but would preserve the family system, which is the essence of Islam in his view. This view by no means is unique. Great Britain, which in theory is a protestant monarchy, is in fact a secular democracy without a complete separation of church and state. It seems then that Imran Khan is pleading for a cultural ethos rooted in Islam and not necessarily a state policy that seeks to implement one interpretation of Islam over the other. By espousing a pluralistic, democratic and egalitarian state, albeit Islamic, Imran Khan is following in the footsteps of established Islam-based democrats like the great Reccip Erdogan of Turkey and more precisely Ennahda Party of Tunisia. This trend has been described by many scholars as post-Islamism, which loosely defines politics that might deploy Islamic symbols and be culturally at home with this rhetoric but which follows an agenda of reform and pluralism. Imran Khan is Pakistan’s and possibly, with the exception of the Turkish prime minister, the Islamic world’s most credible post-Islamist leader. He has the potential to be Pakistan’s Erdogan.

The socialist left should in particular recognise the potential Khan’s politics present to it. At the very least it is certain that the urban middle class — or to use Hamza Alavi’s innovative term, the ‘salariat’ — who supports Imran Khan represents the strengthening of capitalism and the rapid breakdown of traditional feudalism that has its hold over Pakistan. His challenge to the patwari (land record officer) system for example is significant for it promises to break down existing feudal structures and thereby disrupt in a significant way the control over the means of production in the agricultural rural areas. Another plank of his political design is to levy agricultural income tax, which will serve to strengthen the aforesaid salariat, which today bears the burden of heavy taxation because of the perpetual tax holiday unfairly and unjustly given to the landed class by the forces of the status quo. All these are steps in the right direction. Indeed it is the responsibility of every progressive patriot to lend a hand to Khan in doing away with these last vestiges of a medieval feudal society that have long held back our country.

Another idea that was mocked by some was Khan’s suggestion that police chiefs ought to be elected by the people. This is central to the idea of direct democracy though it is not without its cons. Still, elected officials are always better than unelected appointees. In this one finds the germs of a viable local government that can play an important intermediary role between the state and the individual. One needs to only attend a meeting of a city council in the US to see how important this idea is for the formation of an informed citizenry that is interacting with the state at the most basic level.

It is also important to note, for those who level the scurrilous charge that he is an establishment stooge, that Imran Khan has strongly condemned the brutalisation of Balochistan by the deep state. If Imran Khan opposes the bombardment of the tribes in Waziristan, he is consistent in applying the principle across the board by opposing any military solution to Balochistan. Here is the great merging of right and left on a single point agenda: dignity of the people of Pakistan, including all its oppressed groups and ethnic nationalities. Today if there is any one politician who can find a way out of the quagmire of Balochistan by restoring the constitutional rights of the Baloch people, it is Imran Khan and he is not someone who can be ignored easily by anyone who wants to see a fair and just solution to the issue. On the issue of the war on terror, Khan for long has advocated a peaceful political solution to the dismay of many, including myself. Today, even the most fervent advocate of the war on terror recognises the futility of armed conflict in Afghanistan.

The massive mobilisation of the de-politicised sections in Pakistan makes Imran Khan’s movement unique. There is a tendency to dismiss it as an urban middle class ghairat (honour) phenomenon but that flies in the face of reality. It is therefore for Pakistan’s marginalised left in disarray to seize this moment or remain forever irrelevant. Only through engagement with this new national movement can the ideas espoused by the dozen odd communist and socialist parties be mainstreamed. Time is of the essence.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He is also a regular contributor to the Indian law website http://mylaw.net and blogs on http//globallegalforum.blogspot.com and http://pakteahouse.net. He can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com