PTI Chairman Imran Khan continues to occupy a pivotal position in Pakistani politics despite being removed from the premiership as a result of claims of a “foreign conspiracy”. He is currently holding a series of protest rallies across the country to mobilise his political supporters against an” imported regime”. He is also demanding immediate elections. He managed his entry into the corridors of power when his political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), emerged as the single largest party in the National Assembly in the 2018 general elections.
I attribute the ‘Kaptaan’s’ instant rise to power primarily to his self-evolved political doctrine aimed at articulating and achieving his cherished political goals in the country. This doctrine has also been dubbed in Urdu as “Imraniyaat” at times. “Imraniyaat” is essentially the very embodiment of certain political precepts and practices of Kaptaan. It is, indeed, a complex political doctrine involving a number of controversies, inconsistencies and sweeping contradictions. It stands for political change. But, at the same time, it favours adopting some tools to bring about such change which have long been the hallmarks of the political status quo in Pakistan.
Carefully evaluating “Imraniyaat”, one may find it closely related to Machiavellianism—a political thesis associated with the Italian Renaissance political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli. Based on the premise that “the end justifies the means”, Machiavellianism strongly advocates employing any tactic or tool to achieve a superior or higher objective. Noticeably, such sort of characteristic subordination of the means to an end has also been a dominant feature of “Imraniyaat”.
Probably inspired by the 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama, Kaptaan raised the slogan of “Tabdeeli” (change) to make a Naya Pakistan. He also readily pushed forward a political discourse identifying “corruption” as the root cause of most of the woes of Pakistanis as a nation.
Simultaneously, he held the status quo leadership, especially former PM Nawaz Sharif, responsible for the failure of Pakistan as a state. Thus, he made Nawaz Sharif a symbol of political corruption in Pakistan. Also, he feels no hesitation in garnishing his political views with religious trimmings in the form of notions like ‘Riyasat-i-Madina’.
Considering Nawaz Sharif a major hurdle in the way of making a Naya Pakistan, Imran Khan sought to remove him from the country’s political landscape by hook or by crook. He looked really convinced to adopt any political strategy to achieve such a ‘higher and noble’ national objective.
He also considered it justified introducing a political culture encouraging making fierce verbal and personal attacks on one’s political opponents. So, we saw an opposition leader openly insulting and intimidating senior public officials and government ministers for the first time in Pakistan.
Imran Khan did not hesitate at all in resorting to some inappropriate or rather non-democratic means to dislodge then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. And for this sole purpose, he, along with his supporters and party activists, staged a 126-day sit-in in the capital city of Islamabad. They asked Nawaz Sharif to step down on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of electoral rigging. They invaded the premises of some premier state institutions, including the Parliament. He also called for a civil disobedience movement.
It is also widely being believed that Kaptaan, along-with his close political aides, has just artfully evolved another political narrative, based on a conspiracy theory, on the eve of his ouster from the premiership through the recent no-confidence move in the National Assembly. He has simply overplayed the so-called lettergate scandal to make Pakistanis believe that a grand international conspiracy has been hatched to topple his regime.
For this purpose, he has dexterously exploited the populist Anti-Americanism in the country. He is publicly vowing to preserve the country’s ‘independence’ and ‘sovereignty’ though Pakistan is facing no such imminent threat from any foreign country at the moment. Though the veracity of lettergate is still questionable, he has just successfully regained a considerable political space for himself in the face of falling popularity of the PTI-led government in the country.
Imran Khan appears to have been overly influenced by his own political doctrine. We have seen him transforming from a democratic Fabian to a revolutionary radical. At the same time, his political party also switched from political idealism to political pragmatism by resorting to certain popular tools of realpolitik. A large number of Pakistanis, especially the diehard activists of PTI, have also become the protagonists of “Imraniyaat”. They have been explicitly expressing their bizarre political views through social media.
Inspired by the “Imraniyaat”, a large segment of the mainstream media in Pakistan has switched to partisan journalism after abandoning the recognised principles of media ethics, impartiality and professionalism.
Quite contrary to his earlier claims, Imran Khan could introduce only a run-of-the-mill governance model in Pakistan. He couldn’t deliver anything extraordinary. He miserably failed in implementing its ambitious first 100-day plan. He also did not succeed in stabilising the country’s troubled economy. So, the miseries of disillusioned Pakistanis just multiplied.
It was one the most significant assumptions of “Imraniyaat” that Pakistan would successfully overcome its major governance challenges as soon as an upright and honest person like Kaptaan will become its chief executive. I believe the basal flaw in “Imraniyaat” is that it has just been revolving around Imran Khan. It failed to impart any dynamic political ideology to the country’s political discourse. It overly relied on a single individual while ignoring the importance and role of institutions in the process of nation-building.
Noticeably, the very ideological pedestal, upon which the entire edifice of Naya Pakistan rests, has been severely crumbled. Nevertheless, “Imraniyaat” is still looking to retain Imran Khan’s political significance and relevance in the country. At this point, it is persuading Pakistanis to continue supporting an ‘honest’ and ‘patriotic’ leader for fear of reverting to the “state of nature” where they would again be exploited by the ‘plunderers’ and ‘traitors’.
I attribute the ‘Kaptaan’s’ instant rise to power primarily to his self-evolved political doctrine aimed at articulating and achieving his cherished political goals in the country. This doctrine has also been dubbed in Urdu as “Imraniyaat” at times. “Imraniyaat” is essentially the very embodiment of certain political precepts and practices of Kaptaan. It is, indeed, a complex political doctrine involving a number of controversies, inconsistencies and sweeping contradictions. It stands for political change. But, at the same time, it favours adopting some tools to bring about such change which have long been the hallmarks of the political status quo in Pakistan.
Carefully evaluating “Imraniyaat”, one may find it closely related to Machiavellianism—a political thesis associated with the Italian Renaissance political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli. Based on the premise that “the end justifies the means”, Machiavellianism strongly advocates employing any tactic or tool to achieve a superior or higher objective. Noticeably, such sort of characteristic subordination of the means to an end has also been a dominant feature of “Imraniyaat”.
Probably inspired by the 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama, Kaptaan raised the slogan of “Tabdeeli” (change) to make a Naya Pakistan. He also readily pushed forward a political discourse identifying “corruption” as the root cause of most of the woes of Pakistanis as a nation.
Simultaneously, he held the status quo leadership, especially former PM Nawaz Sharif, responsible for the failure of Pakistan as a state. Thus, he made Nawaz Sharif a symbol of political corruption in Pakistan. Also, he feels no hesitation in garnishing his political views with religious trimmings in the form of notions like ‘Riyasat-i-Madina’.
Considering Nawaz Sharif a major hurdle in the way of making a Naya Pakistan, Imran Khan sought to remove him from the country’s political landscape by hook or by crook. He looked really convinced to adopt any political strategy to achieve such a ‘higher and noble’ national objective.
He also considered it justified introducing a political culture encouraging making fierce verbal and personal attacks on one’s political opponents. So, we saw an opposition leader openly insulting and intimidating senior public officials and government ministers for the first time in Pakistan.
Imran Khan did not hesitate at all in resorting to some inappropriate or rather non-democratic means to dislodge then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. And for this sole purpose, he, along with his supporters and party activists, staged a 126-day sit-in in the capital city of Islamabad. They asked Nawaz Sharif to step down on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of electoral rigging. They invaded the premises of some premier state institutions, including the Parliament. He also called for a civil disobedience movement.
It is also widely being believed that Kaptaan, along-with his close political aides, has just artfully evolved another political narrative, based on a conspiracy theory, on the eve of his ouster from the premiership through the recent no-confidence move in the National Assembly. He has simply overplayed the so-called lettergate scandal to make Pakistanis believe that a grand international conspiracy has been hatched to topple his regime.
For this purpose, he has dexterously exploited the populist Anti-Americanism in the country. He is publicly vowing to preserve the country’s ‘independence’ and ‘sovereignty’ though Pakistan is facing no such imminent threat from any foreign country at the moment. Though the veracity of lettergate is still questionable, he has just successfully regained a considerable political space for himself in the face of falling popularity of the PTI-led government in the country.
Imran Khan appears to have been overly influenced by his own political doctrine. We have seen him transforming from a democratic Fabian to a revolutionary radical. At the same time, his political party also switched from political idealism to political pragmatism by resorting to certain popular tools of realpolitik. A large number of Pakistanis, especially the diehard activists of PTI, have also become the protagonists of “Imraniyaat”. They have been explicitly expressing their bizarre political views through social media.
Inspired by the “Imraniyaat”, a large segment of the mainstream media in Pakistan has switched to partisan journalism after abandoning the recognised principles of media ethics, impartiality and professionalism.
Quite contrary to his earlier claims, Imran Khan could introduce only a run-of-the-mill governance model in Pakistan. He couldn’t deliver anything extraordinary. He miserably failed in implementing its ambitious first 100-day plan. He also did not succeed in stabilising the country’s troubled economy. So, the miseries of disillusioned Pakistanis just multiplied.
It was one the most significant assumptions of “Imraniyaat” that Pakistan would successfully overcome its major governance challenges as soon as an upright and honest person like Kaptaan will become its chief executive. I believe the basal flaw in “Imraniyaat” is that it has just been revolving around Imran Khan. It failed to impart any dynamic political ideology to the country’s political discourse. It overly relied on a single individual while ignoring the importance and role of institutions in the process of nation-building.
Noticeably, the very ideological pedestal, upon which the entire edifice of Naya Pakistan rests, has been severely crumbled. Nevertheless, “Imraniyaat” is still looking to retain Imran Khan’s political significance and relevance in the country. At this point, it is persuading Pakistanis to continue supporting an ‘honest’ and ‘patriotic’ leader for fear of reverting to the “state of nature” where they would again be exploited by the ‘plunderers’ and ‘traitors’.
