Daily Times

Contemporary populism is what modern literature refers to as an engine of “illiberal democracy”-a system of governance derived from a political campaign translating “popular preferences into public policy without caring about the impediments that prevent liberal democracies from responding effectively to urgent problems.” The South Asian polity is highly vulnerable to such experiments due to its dominating superficial and idealist component.

The emergence of Imran Khan on the political canvas of Pakistan was a “geared political romanticism.” It was the second time in the history of Pakistan after Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto that PTI managed to stimulate the ‘Anywheres’ (Individuals whose identities are professional and who can use their skills in many places, at home and abroad) of Pakistan’s polity. A large number of change enthusiasts and professionals from all walks of life including military and civil services, academia, students, and women sided with Imran Khan in pursuit of his lofty ideals.

Imran Khan challenged the traditions by framing his party as an institution based on merit and consultation. Initially, he introduced intra-party elections but did not continue the process in spirit. Soon after realizing the length of the democratic path, he relied upon the tactical glorification of his celebrity stardom, his honest posture, a crusade against corruption, philanthropic background, and well-organized social media management which magnetized in his favour those sections of society who otherwise used to consider politics a misfit affair—- mainly due to its excessive reliance on money, dynastic suffocation and manipulation.

After encroaching upon a large section of ‘Anywheres’ and ensuring an unassailable personality cult, Imran Khan turned towards mastering the traditional political tactics-a drastic contradiction at the very outset. He appreciated undue interventions from the judiciary and establishment coming in his favour, welcomed rich electables and used their resource, undermined the freedom of expression, blatantly victimized his opponents, and above all, he drove the politics of chaos to the last limit.

The emergence of Imran Khan on the political canvas of Pakistan was a “geared political romanticism.”

His heroic dispensation worked well for him during his agitational politics from 2014 to 2018. But after when he ascended to power on August 18, 2018, he exposed a lack of tolerance essentially required to govern a federal system like Pakistan–a mosaic of colourful streaks of ideologies, cultures and aspirations with 222 million people. Governing such a country is something really more serious than interplaying with unreal targets, religiosity and infectious polarization.

Despite putting up a good show in the health sector, social relief programs like the Ahsas program and house loans, civil service laws, Covid response, environment, IMF-driven fiscal discipline, e-governance and entrepreneurship, the partisan accountability and abrupt changes in the cabinet during his regime shattered the investors’ trust on the larger economic machine of the country. Imran Khan’s rhetorical handling of the economic realities (e.g., CPEC) damaged the predictability of financial commitments, slowed down the capital influx and contracted the overall GDP cake.

Mr, Shaukat Tareen, Imran Khan’s last Finance Minister asserted “PTI had no economic plan in the beginning. Economic Planning took time and it caused retardation.” He also accepted the failure to “develop a trading floor that government could use to hedge against the upswing in the global prices of commodities.”

Pakistan slides16 dots in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) for 2021 compared to the previous year, ranking 140 out of 180 countries-a major blow to Imran Khan’s goal of eradicating corruption.

Instead of sticking to the agenda of progression to tackle his performance setbacks, he took refuge in divisive politics. Born in an affluent family, the only son, graduated from Aitchison and Oxford, with skyrocketing celebrations during his cricketing career, glitches like his mother’s death and divorce of his first wife, and finally, hundreds of thousands of devotees enchanting his slogans, live telecasted to the millions of others, all these factors turned him into a Kratos of politics with strange practical contradictions.

He accorded to his persona as an epitome of ‘all good’ and declared his opponents as an embodiment of ‘all evil’. His narcissist architecture of governance was antithetical to the spirit of the parliamentary system and hence, it collapsed. A narcissist personality disorder is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of righteousness and a need for excessive admiration.

Resultantly, in fear of alienation, PTI rationalists could not assert their disagreements on strategic choices; leaving behind political opportunists, cult-followers and spin masters buttering their idealogue on critical situations when they really needed introspective and informative consultations. The nexus has transformed the participative nature of his party into an authoritarian style.

Imran Khan’s ‘undiplomatic’ discourse in foreign policy due to his impulsive orientation, mostly for domestic political consumption, along with the lack of political engagement and delivery, have left the establishment (who had outrightly supported him) in a state of despair and confusion.

In response to that, PTI’s head extended his policy of division into the ranks of the armed forces and Judiciary but failed. During his last days, the establishment refused to share the burden of Imran Khan’s self-inflicted parliamentary crisis.

Similarly, the judiciary also stepped aside. In a landmark judgment, The Supreme Court turned down the Imran Khan’s last effort to manipulate the system and directed him to follow the constitutional process of no-confidence in letters.

In the wake of public criticism over inflation and sensing the lost “fulcrum” of the PTI government, a few of his own parliamentarians and his allies openly defected. During the last two weeks of his office, he transferred the burden of his ouster to a conjectural theory of foreign intervention by the USA designed to pull him down by bribing his opponents and defectors.

Perhaps, after getting failed in substantiating his previous rhetoric, he sets out a new narrative by drilling the political divide deep down in the social fabric. While grounded on religion and anti-Americanism this time, Imran Khan’s ‘dynamic populism’ reshapes itself for a new electoral battle. His populism has different shades for different situations, is adaptive, and intertwined so organically that contradictions do not matter at all.

The top security brass of the country has categorically denied any foreign conspiracy linked with the process of the no-confidence motion. Although this appears to be a toxic exit with glaring contradictions, Imran Khan’s confidence in the conspiracy narrative is based on his unsurpassable cult following; readily available to uphold and disseminate his narrative without putting a bar of objective analysis.

Imran Khan’s strength is his direct communication with his workers. He does not rely on power brokers to charge his crowds. His party has thousands of aspirants and paid experts working in and out of the country on designing, propagating, and hammering the political spins through social media. He has delicately sliced the nation into pro-Imran and anti-Imran sections.

Moreover, Imran Khan speaks to his audience in a singular tone. Due to his training as a sportsman, he knows the power of consistency and glamour in a strategy. His propaganda machine is times more efficient than his opponents and keeps alive his credentials for his followers—particularly his posture as “straightforward” and a financially “incorruptible” man.

On the other side, the anti-Imran alliance has still too less to offer to Anywheres of the country and counter this dynamic populism. It is a heterogeneous mixture of religionists (JUI), ethnicists (MQM), liberalists (PPP), nationalists (ANP) and pragmatists (PML). `The challenge is to integrate different streams with high contrast together in a government and then perform when the economy is already hitting the historic lows in Pakistan.

The major traditional parties PML (N) and PPP could not re-position their narratives and organizations with a focus on how to communicate to the “green space” of the electorate. Their political growth is still largely driven by patronage, cultism, and a nomenclature having no attraction for democratic citizenries, youth and women. Their struggle for constitutionalism flows outwards without showing any commitment to inward democracy and reforms.

The balance is inevitable in this defining movement. The polity struggles between tradition and “dynamic populism” in Pakistan. The divide between urban and rural electorate is getting wider. This is a critical chance for the mainstream leadership of Pakistan (including Imran Khan) to review their approach toward politics, infuse pluralism and truth, dilute their hero-worships and develop their parties as institutions.

Unexpectedly, Pakistan’s systemic resilience performed well to save the constitutional ethos. If the political class will not mark the sensitivity of the situation and respond selflessly, then it is quite possible that populism will transfigure itself and remerge in a more horrible and uncontrolled form.

The writer is an academic, columnist and public policy researcher.