Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory emphasizes the centrality of leadership and defines leadership that is charismatic as the crux of social and political transformation. For him, history was nothing but the biography of such men. But why? Because studying the characteristics of leaders can help us understand the course of history. He did not consider great men to be flawless, but their greatness lay not in their moral perfection, but in their determination to surmount obstacles.
According to Weber, the leader's efforts to harmonize the mystical and irrational nature of charisma with rationalized and organized mass politics of the modern age make his efforts practical. Material benefits, rather than emotional and metaphysical goals and objectives, attract people to a leader whose views they accept and obey. In order to obtain their support, the charismatic leader must demonstrate that he is personally incorruptible, responsible and has the wisdom to do things with a sense of proportion. Thus, a rational basis for support and loyalty is added to the mystical hold the charismatic leader exercises over others because of his attractive personality. The leaders enjoy advantages over the ordinary members of society, but not in the sense of Nietzsche's ubermensch standing above society and entirely free from its rules and regulations.
Nietzsche's superman is above the constraints of society. He is not a conformist, and is above conventional values. He accords no importance to what the societal norms are, but thinks for himself and acts upon what he thinks is right rationally. But such leaders put ideas into motion that become ideologies and acquire a life of their own, becoming an independent force which may no longer be possible for leaders to withdraw or control.
Leaders cannot extricate themselves from that social contract that exists between public and the government without jeopardizing their support in society. Thus, such a leader, if at any point, seeks to reimagine his ideas, is not free like Nietzsche's superman. He is bound to the emotions and faith that he has evoked among his followers.
It is tragic that all Khan’s self-aggrandizement has really achieved is the rise of political polarization and the ascendance of populism in Pakistan.
Imran Khan, with his oration, has an enthusiastic intonation that is emotionally charged and evokes the great Muslim past that his objective environment is highly conducive of. He uses demagoguery and populism as his main tools in public speeches. Khan doesn't have a coherent vision, but a unilateral ideology that he uses to manipulate his changing visions.
Khan has repeatedly iterated that he is bestowed with all the bounties that the material world has to offer, and is thus incorruptible by that logic. But corruption doesn't always come with personal gain, but also political gains, something the Toshakhana report provides sufficient evidence for to.
Imran Khan constantly evokes the 7th century state of Medina as his goal, which he knows is instantly attractive to his followers, who believe themselves to be the most pious of Muslims. He has strategically used misogynistic remarks, knowing that there is a subsection of his audience that resonates with that line of thinking about the role of women in society. His revolutionary vision is like Hitler's Lebensraum, which visualizes a great future ahead, but with no policies like the enabling act of 1933. Everything happens according to his impetuous nature if it suits his revolutionary vision.
With his revolutionary vision, Khan has radical solutions, almost having made a brand out of providing politically impractical solutions to complex, multifaceted problems. His policy to deliberately anger the West and forge ties with Russia cost Pakistan dearly. Furthermore, after manipulating the public that he won't resort to the IMF for the sake of honor of the new state of Medina, he did exactly that and put the blame on the opposition to rescue his vision, fearing that he would have fallen out of favor with his followers.
Khan’s political career is emblematic of his egocentrism and self-importance. Even when he complains about the establishment in his public speeches, he is not criticizing the structures of power that bestow uncontested authority to the military, he is pleading to be the favored front-man, making a claim for himself as the best candidate of the lot.
Khan’s charisma and the aggrandizement of his personality has bewitched the youth. Struggling with rising unemployment and backbreaking inflation, young people are enthralled by Khan’s grand visions of prosperity and the lost glory of the Islamic Empire that the Great Leader seeks to restore to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
It is no doubt that Khan has positioned himself as the Great Man of Pakistan’s political landscape, capitalizing on what Weber described as charismatic authority. It is tragic that all Khan’s self-aggrandizement has really achieved is the rise of political polarization and the ascendance of populism in Pakistan.