Daily Times

In the complex and often tumultuous political landscape of Pakistan, few figures have stirred the pot as much as Imran Khan. The former prime minister and leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), who is presently entangled in legal issues and confronting various legal cases, has consistently upheld a standpoint that is both unconventional and stimulating.

Recent declarations made by him imply that the existing administration is intentionally fostering unrest between PTI and the armed forces, and he has expressed his plan to correspond with the Army Chief to promote national harmony. This philosophical approach – preferring dialogue with the military over political opponents-raises intriguing questions about the nature of political engagement and democratic principles in Pakistan.

Imran Khan’s preference for engaging with the military rather than his political adversaries is rooted in a belief that the real power lies within the establishment. This stance reflects a fundamental distrust of the conventional political system and its actors. For Khan, the military establishment represents a stabilizing force capable of influencing the nation’s trajectory more significantly than the political parties, which he views as compromised or ineffectual.

Philosophically speaking, Khan’s method sorts neatly into the Machiavellian canon of political theory.

Philosophically speaking, Khan’s method sorts neatly into the Machiavellian canon of political theory. Machiavelli contended in his influential piece The Prince that a successful leader should adeptly navigate through different sources of power and uphold stability, often resorting to unorthodox strategies. Khan’s inclination towards negotiating with the military rather than his political adversaries mirrors Machiavelli’s counsel to concentrate on asserting authority over the most influential factions within the government. In this framework, the military is perceived as the key player in Pakistan’s political stability, making dialogue with it a pragmatic choice.

Contrary to Khan’s approach, democratic principles traditionally emphasize the importance of dialogue and cooperation among political parties rather than with unelected institutions. Democracy, as elucidated by esteemed academics like John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville, finds its foundation in the concept of political pluralism and the conviction that vigorous discourse among political factions is indispensable for the maintenance of a secure political framework.

In a democratic society, political parties are perceived as the principal embodiments of the populace’s volition, and their function entails engaging in discussions and deliberations to mirror the varied perspectives of the electorate. Mill’s concept of “freedom of discussion” highlights the importance of open dialogue among political opponents as a mechanism for truth and progress. Similarly, Tocqueville’s thoughts on how American democracy functioned underscored the power of political parties over constructing public perception and governing.

In the Pakistani setting, the political sphere has frequently witnessed the predominant influence of the military apparatus, which has traditionally wielded considerable power in determining political results. Since its independence, Pakistan’s military has frequently intervened in politics, sometimes overtly through coups and sometimes more subtly through influence and pressure. This interventionist role has created a political environment where engagement with the establishment is often perceived as more critical than negotiating with political rivals.

The relationship between Imran Khan’s PTI and the military establishment has been fraught with tension. Khan assumed office in August 2018 but over time his relationship with the army deteriorated. By early 2021, the dissatisfaction with Khan’s governance became evident, culminating in the no-confidence vote that led to his ouster in April 2022.

Khan’s arrest on May 9, 2023, and the subsequent protests, including attacks on military installations, highlighted the deep-seated conflict between PTI and the military. This episode underscored a critical aspect of Pakistan’s political dynamics: the struggle for control between civilian political entities and the military.

Khan’s approach raises important questions about the nature of political engagement and democracy. On one hand, his preference for engaging with the military rather than political opponents reflects a strategic calculation aimed at stabilizing his position and seeking support from the most powerful institution in the country. It further undermines the traditional democratic model of cross-party negotiations and cooperation.

The philosophical implications of Khan’s approach suggest a pragmatic, if somewhat cynical, view of politics where power dynamics overshadow democratic norms. While it may work in the short term, this method risks compromising democratic governance and political parties as representatives of the will of the people.

Imran Khan’s preference for dialogue with the establishment over political opponents illustrates a unique philosophical approach to politics, driven by the realities of Pakistan’s power dynamics. Although this has been a successful way to manoeuvre through the current political climate, it raises one question – what does his win say about democracy and how do we perceive our parties in representing us? As Pakistan continues to grapple with these issues, the broader implications for democratic governance and political engagement remain a critical area of reflection and debate.

The writer is a freelance columnist.