In 2013, Cas Mudde outlined a narrow ideology that includes the conflict between a morally good public and a morally bad ruling class, as well as a firm com­mitment to popular sov­ereignty no matter what. This concept is some­times called an ideolo­gy, although it can also be a movement. If a well-known person is in charge and trying to mobilise the pop­ulace against the privileged class, leaders frequently create and de­stroy identities by dividing their group from others. Leaders portray themselves as the only ones with the will and ability to free the people from subjugation, emphasising their role as saviors. Constructive conver­sations about social disparities can support the argument that individ­uals are represented discursively. Populist rhetoric also involves “the people,” who are seen as the “central framework for the construction of systems of meaning.” Müller (2016) states that populism still rejects plu­ralism. Populist leaders claim sole power to represent the people, de­spite their exclusive inclinations. They create discriminatory rules and remove “other” people after tak­ing power. Even those of “the peo­ple,” his most loyal and dedicated supporters, who disagree with the leader are routinely excluded from this process. Populists are more like­ly to be authoritarian. Nationalism and populism often overlap. 

Pakistani and international de­liberations on the internal effects of regressive and populist poli­tics are lacking. The rise of Naren­dra Modi and Hinduism in India has changed Pakistan’s domestic poli­tics the most, especially in the East. In response to India’s robust mil­itary stance along the border and in Kashmir, legitimacy and securi­ty have been strengthened. Paki­stan’s progressive foreign and cul­tural policies have lost credibility, but less overtly. Numerous groups and individuals have supported the concept of improving interperson­al relations and gradually restoring diplomatic relations with India. Vi­olence against Muslims and other minorities is rising, and the Hindu right is becoming more chauvinis­tic online and in public. This is un­dermining social acceptance and inciting Indian nationalism. This contrasts with the preceding de­cade, when these ideas, typically anchored in academic and intellec­tual discourses, were more promi­nent in domestic politics. 

Fear is a great tool for populist politicians. Populist discourse dehu­manises opponents to the point of calling them animals. Pakistan Teh­reek-e-Insaf (PTI) campaigned on an anti-corruption agenda, promis­ing to challenge the nation’s political and economic leaders and improve social services for the poor. Popu­lism can bring about great change, although it is often connected with authoritarianism and anti-democ­racy. Many critics of the PTI have cit­ed its use of military tribunals, per­secution of political opposition, and media freedom limitations. Imran Khan intentionally positioned him­self as an opponent of the political system and a champion of the peo­ple, fighting for anti-corruption and fundamental reforms. He is gener­ally connected with populism de­spite his authoritarian tendencies, such as oppressing the media and political opposition. While a mi­nority of Pakistanis may support him, he must ensure that his plan does not damage democratic insti­tutions or alienate certain groups. Individual charm, party dedica­tion, and military involvement in politics impact Pakistani political leadership. Some presidents have advanced democracy and develop­ment, but gaps persist. 

Imran Khan’s dedication to meet­ing the public’s immediate needs and wishes helped him ascend into populist politics. Khan has tireless­ly promoted social justice in Paki­stan throughout his political career. His political program focuses on im­proving education and employment opportunities to improve the quali­ty of life for the public. Khan’s edu­cational endeavors demonstrate his commitment to empowering youth and building a prosperous future. He has worked to equip the next gener­ation for a rapidly changing world by advocating for high-quality edu­cation and investing in education­al infrastructure. The leader’s popu­list strategy and policy changes have started a political movement that criticises the current system, pro­poses a fair and prosperous Paki­stan, and has won public support. 

Social justice advocate Imran Khan has criticised Western imperi­alism and globalisation. The author claims that wealthy Western nations have used economically poor coun­tries like Pakistan for geopolitical and economic gain. Khan’s position reflects his opinion that global pow­er distribution has caused social and economic inequities in emerging countries. Khan claims that global­isation’s economic integration and homogenisation are destroying Pak­istan’s cultural values and customs beyond economic exploitation. The individual believes media and tech­nology are spreading Western cul­tural norms and values, threatening his nation’s rich cultural heritage and identity. Many Pakistanis worry about losing their cultural identity due to rapid global change, so they empathise. Khan is remembered as a populist leader who aggressively challenged the world order due to his anti-imperialist stance. This has garnered support from those who see him as a defender of national autonomy and cultural purity. Im­ran Khan’s narrative combines so­cial justice with strong opposition to Western imperialism and global­isation’s alleged detrimental effects on Pakistani society