In an interview with Jonathan Swan of HBO Axios in 2021, Imran Khan emphatically stated, “Absolutely not.” It was a statement that won the hearts of most of the Pakistanis. This response might have been perceived as a strong and decisive stance, which can be appealing to those who support Imran Khan or his policies. It could have been interpreted as a rejection or denial of a particular proposal, accusation, or perspective that many Pakistanis agreed with. In 2022, Imran Khan was removed from his premiership through the Vote of No Confidence. Imran Khan’s premiership came to an end in 2022 following a Vote of No Confidence that resulted in his removal from office. He blamed the USA for his removal. After his removal, his party consulted with a lobbying firm in the US to reconcile the relationship with the USA. This shows the double standards of a leader. After the general elections in 2024, Imran Khan, the dilemma arises from Imran Khan’s intention to write to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to prevent the issuance of loans to the current government of Pakistan. The reason cited is that Imran Khan is not a part of the government himself. This situation presents a complex issue for Pakistan because, on one hand, Imran Khan’s popularity and influence could sway public opinion against the government’s actions. It is important to know that Pakistan needs at least $6 billion to avoid bankruptcy. On the other hand, his anti-state motives and actions, particularly attempting to hinder government efforts to secure financial assistance, pose challenges to the country’s stability and economic well-being. By exploiting national issues such as debt and economic stability for political purposes, Imran Khan is depicted as disregarding the well-being of the country and its citizens. The statement highlights the delicate balance between addressing economic hardships and the potential consequences of accumulating debt for a country like Pakistan. While it acknowledges that taking on debt is generally unfavourable for an economy, it emphasizes the dire circumstances currently facing Pakistan. The country is described as being in a state of misery, indicating severe economic challenges that require immediate attention. In such a situation, seeking assistance from the IMF is deemed necessary, despite the associated risks of accruing additional debt. This underscores the pressing need for pragmatic solutions to address Pakistan’s economic woes, even if they involve unpopular measures like seeking external financial aid. However, his motives are primarily driven by a desire for power rather than a genuine concern for the country’s well-being. Imran Khan’s alleged anti-state motives are portrayed as obstructing efforts to address Pakistan’s economic crisis effectively. By opposing the government’s decision to seek assistance from the IMF, he is portrayed as prioritizing his political ambitions over the country’s interests. This viewpoint implies a scepticism towards Imran Khan’s leadership and raises questions about his commitment to serving the nation’s best interests. Moreover, this narrative reflects the perception among Imran Khan’s followers, who hold a belief in his leadership capabilities. Despite criticism of Imran Khan’s motives, there is a segment of the population that remains loyal to him, viewing him as the sole capable leader to steer the country forward. However, this blind faith is juxtaposed with the reality that Pakistan’s economy has worsened under Imran Khan’s government. This contradiction highlights the complexity of political allegiance and public perception, where loyalty to a leader may persist even in the face of evidence suggesting their shortcomings in governance. Pakistan’s current economic situation is dire. Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves currently amount to approximately $8 billion, a figure that barely covers two months of essential imports. However, this represents an improvement from the $3.1 billion level they had plummeted to just over a year ago. Despite this, a forthcoming $1 billion bond payment in two months will further deplete these reserves, although the country is slated to receive a $700 million injection of already-approved IMF funds. The urgency to enter another IMF program is underscored by Pakistan’s critically low foreign exchange reserves, especially in light of its substantial impending external debt repayment obligations, as emphasized by former deputy central bank governor Murtaza Syed, who noted, “There is no alternative.” Pakistan’s debt-to-GDP ratio has already surpassed 70%, and both the IMF and credit rating agencies estimate that the interest payments on its debt will absorb between 50% and 60% of the government’s revenues this year, representing the highest ratio among major economies globally. According to analyst firm Tellimer, the crux of Pakistan’s debt issue lies in its domestic debt, which accounts for approximately 60% of its total debt stock and a staggering 85% of its interest burden. Moreover, Pakistan’s external debt, primarily denominated in dollars, is heavily concentrated among bilateral and multilateral creditors, comprising roughly 85% of the total. Conversely, bonded debt constitutes a mere 8% of the external debt stock and 3.4% of its overall public debt. This pales in comparison to the nearly 13% of total debt owed to China, which has extended significant loans to Pakistan for various infrastructure projects and other expenditures over the What does Imran Khan desire? Simply put, it appears that his sole ambition is to wield power in Pakistan. His focus seems to lie not in the betterment of the country but in maintaining his position as prime minister, driven by a belief in his superiority and entitlement to lead without a genuine commitment to serving the nation’s interests. The recent decision to write a letter to the IMF, urging them not to issue a loan, raises significant doubts and concerns. This act portrays Imran as a former political figure who is eager to regain power, despite no longer holding a position of authority. By attempting to obstruct the government’s efforts to secure financial assistance, Imran Khan is depicted as prioritizing his political ambitions over the nation’s interests. This action is described as manipulative and deceitful, with Imran Khan being accused of misleading and taking advantage of the Pakistani people. Furthermore, it is suggested that Imran Khan’s behaviour is indicative of a lack of genuine concern for the welfare of the nation. Instead of acting in the best interests of Pakistan, he is portrayed as engaging in actions aimed at deceiving and manipulating the populace for his gain. By exploiting national issues such as debt and economic stability for political purposes, Imran Khan is depicted as disregarding the well-being of the country and its citizens. Regardless of their political disagreements, both Imran and other political leaders should prioritize the improvement of Pakistan over destabilizing democracy or the system for personal gain. Currently, there is a prime chance to focus efforts on addressing Pakistan’s economic challenges and revitalizing its institutions. The prevailing conditions offer a conducive environment for effectively tackling these tasks and making substantial advancements. There is a clear sense of urgency and significance in promptly addressing these issues to safeguard the country’s economic stability and ensure the efficient functioning of its institutions. Emphasizing the timeliness of this endeavour underscores the necessity for coordinated action and strategic planning to proactively and meaningfully address Pakistan’s economic and institutional requirements. If this does not occur, Pakistan will face collapse. The writer is a PhD scholar and author of various books on international relations, criminology and gender studies. He can be reached at fastian.mentor@gmail.com