Imran Khan can be described as one of the most talkative political leaders in the history of Pakistan. The more he talks, the more he utters problematic statements. But there are three specific political positions Imran Khan has adopted in recent years that can be viewed as particularly problematic if one values the continuation of democratic order in our society.
It is not my position that in the absence of Imran Khan, Pakistan was or is an ideal democratic system. Far from it – Pakistan’s political system has some inherent legal, constitutional and administrative flaws which make our system a deeply flawed democracy. The first flaw in the system are the discriminatory constitutional and legal provisions against religious minorities. Second, the absence of any legal and constitutional provisions that could accommodate the specificities of ethnic communities that constitute our federating units. Apart from these flaws, Pakistan is a federal parliamentary democracy, where the electoral system functions on the principle of universal franchise. At the theoretical level at least, the Pakistani political system treats every Muslim citizen of the country as equal. Muslims are politically privileged under our constitutional setup, but within the Muslim community there are no discriminations, strictly legally speaking.
Imran Khan’s problematic political positions, however, have made the country's political system more vulnerable to instability and more polarized.
The purest of the pure
Imran Khan claims special status for himself and his party: his entire narrative is built off the back of his claims that he is an exalted moral being, the perfect Mr. Clean. Khan accuses his political opponents however, of being a coterie of morally corrupt thieves. He started this as a political slogan, but now wants everyone to treat his claim as gospel truth. The vast following the moral simplicity of his narrative has garnered among the middle and upper middle classes of Central Punjab and urban areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa allows many to claim that the PTI worldview is indeed equivalent to gospel truth. But surely, he has political opponents who contest his claims. If only for a second, we assume that Imran Khan’s claims are absolutely true, it does not confer any special rights or privileges on him as a legal citizen of the Pakistani state. For instance, he can’t claim any special privileges before any court of law on the basis of his claims. He can surely use his claims to attract voters who price honesty as a virtue in politics. Beyond that, he cannot claim special treatment from state institutions, which are supposed to be non-partisan in political conflicts. His claim of honesty and truthfulness become especially problematic in the political arena when he flaunts his claims of honesty while the Supreme Court and other superior courts are hearing decisive political cases that can tilt the balance in his favor, or against his opponents. He routinely flaunts his claims to moral superiority when demanding special treatment from other non-partisan political and public institutions.
Circumstances have played out in such a way that Imran Khan and his party are now at the receiving end of the wrath of state institutions. Still, he has not parted with his rhetoric - in which he flaunts his special status over all others in the political realm. This problematic position of Imran Khan could assume very dangerous forms if he comes to power with a thumping majority.
The last crusader
Imran Khan describes his political campaigns in idioms and vocabulary borrowed from religious history: he calls his political campaign jihad. Does he consider his political opponents infidels? While it is true that jihad is an oft used term in our society, and we idiomatically call our struggles jihad if we find them to be full of hardship, it doesn’t matter if the struggle is related to a purely secular subject.
But this is not the case with the rhetoric of Imran Khan. He adds a few other religious precepts to couch his rhetoric and narrative within a purely religious framework. The use of religious terminology like jihad in the political arena of a Muslim society is one way you seek to present your opponent as absolutely unacceptable – as a choice perhaps even worse than death. You are not ready for any compromise, which is the essence of a parliamentary democracy.
The expression of any disagreement with the one waging jihad becomes un-Islamic and haram. From here, there are only a few steps to take to turn towards larger scale political violence. This kind of jargon and terminology is deeply unsuited for use in the institutions of a parliamentary democracy. Political parties in a democracy are established to represent particular political, social or economic interests. There are two types of models of religious scholars, allowing the establishment of political parties to represent Islamic thinking on politics in our surrounding.
Imam Khomeini worked to establish a religious political party during the Shah’s time and this political party became a ruling party after the Revolution in 1979. The Khomeini regime banned all other political parties after coming to power and prosecuted their leaders. Jamaat-e-Islami, established by Maulana Maududi never fully assumed power and turned into a dormant political party, though JI did have a tryst with violence and religious exclusivity.
Imran Khan’s use of religious idioms is linked with his proclivity to flaunt his special status as an honest politician. There are clear hints that Imran Khan wants to assume a special religious role for himself and his burqa clad wife, if he sweeps the elections as he often claims. Indications of this became evident when on more than one occasion, Khan talked about the special piety of his wife in eulogizing language. A special status and that too a religious one for a leader of the state or their partner would pave the way for total destruction of whatever is left of Pakistani democracy.
Military man
Imran Khan is dead set against key institutions playing a non-partisan role in the affairs of the Pakistani state, especially the military. His rhetoric condemning the neutrality of institutions has by now attained legendary fame. But there is something more to it. Since he was ousted from power, Khan has repeatedly expressed a dislike for how the military leadership remained non-partisan when the opposition was conspiring to dislodge him from power. Since he claims special status for himself as the “only honest politician,” he also claims that the military should have sided with him in the contest for political power, and that it should be partisan - in his favor.
The Pakistani military, even when it was directly ruling the country, has always been invested in maintain the fiction of its non-partisan role in society. Most of the Pakistan's military problems stem from the fact that it has always become a party in political conflicts. Imran Khan envisions a role for the military which aggravates its political problems, and creates a deep divide in Pakistani society that would be impossible to eradicate. At present, Khan is facing the wrath of the military leadership for the events that transpired on May 9. But his mind is still fixated on his own formula for a partisan role for the military. So much so, that Khan is quite misleadingly hoping that there will be a coup in the military against General Asim Munir, of which he will be the beneficiary. Fortunately, nobody is taking the PTI Chairman seriously on this count.
If they did, we would have a full blown civil war on our hands.
The million-dollar question that political commentators are spending time answering these days is whether Imran Khan will be tried in a military court for planning May 9 riots. This will be an extremely difficult decision to make. At present, Imran Khan’s popularity is on the rise. Pakistan is an intensely power-oriented society. We not only romanticize those in power, we also like those who challenge the powerful. This is exactly what Imran Khan is doing in the popular imagination.
But the penalization of Imran Khan would itself be highly problematic for the political system. Let’s hope the authorities don’t have any incriminating evidence against him. Otherwise, his imprisonment under military laws will amount to a significant disruption of the political system, even if the verdict that leads to his imprisonment is legally justified.
It is not my position that in the absence of Imran Khan, Pakistan was or is an ideal democratic system. Far from it – Pakistan’s political system has some inherent legal, constitutional and administrative flaws which make our system a deeply flawed democracy. The first flaw in the system are the discriminatory constitutional and legal provisions against religious minorities. Second, the absence of any legal and constitutional provisions that could accommodate the specificities of ethnic communities that constitute our federating units. Apart from these flaws, Pakistan is a federal parliamentary democracy, where the electoral system functions on the principle of universal franchise. At the theoretical level at least, the Pakistani political system treats every Muslim citizen of the country as equal. Muslims are politically privileged under our constitutional setup, but within the Muslim community there are no discriminations, strictly legally speaking.
Imran Khan’s problematic political positions, however, have made the country's political system more vulnerable to instability and more polarized.
Imran Khan claims special status for himself and his party: his entire narrative is built off the back of his claims that he is an exalted moral being, the perfect Mr. Clean.
The purest of the pure
Imran Khan claims special status for himself and his party: his entire narrative is built off the back of his claims that he is an exalted moral being, the perfect Mr. Clean. Khan accuses his political opponents however, of being a coterie of morally corrupt thieves. He started this as a political slogan, but now wants everyone to treat his claim as gospel truth. The vast following the moral simplicity of his narrative has garnered among the middle and upper middle classes of Central Punjab and urban areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa allows many to claim that the PTI worldview is indeed equivalent to gospel truth. But surely, he has political opponents who contest his claims. If only for a second, we assume that Imran Khan’s claims are absolutely true, it does not confer any special rights or privileges on him as a legal citizen of the Pakistani state. For instance, he can’t claim any special privileges before any court of law on the basis of his claims. He can surely use his claims to attract voters who price honesty as a virtue in politics. Beyond that, he cannot claim special treatment from state institutions, which are supposed to be non-partisan in political conflicts. His claim of honesty and truthfulness become especially problematic in the political arena when he flaunts his claims of honesty while the Supreme Court and other superior courts are hearing decisive political cases that can tilt the balance in his favor, or against his opponents. He routinely flaunts his claims to moral superiority when demanding special treatment from other non-partisan political and public institutions.
Circumstances have played out in such a way that Imran Khan and his party are now at the receiving end of the wrath of state institutions. Still, he has not parted with his rhetoric - in which he flaunts his special status over all others in the political realm. This problematic position of Imran Khan could assume very dangerous forms if he comes to power with a thumping majority.
The last crusader
Imran Khan describes his political campaigns in idioms and vocabulary borrowed from religious history: he calls his political campaign jihad. Does he consider his political opponents infidels? While it is true that jihad is an oft used term in our society, and we idiomatically call our struggles jihad if we find them to be full of hardship, it doesn’t matter if the struggle is related to a purely secular subject.
But this is not the case with the rhetoric of Imran Khan. He adds a few other religious precepts to couch his rhetoric and narrative within a purely religious framework. The use of religious terminology like jihad in the political arena of a Muslim society is one way you seek to present your opponent as absolutely unacceptable – as a choice perhaps even worse than death. You are not ready for any compromise, which is the essence of a parliamentary democracy.
The expression of any disagreement with the one waging jihad becomes un-Islamic and haram. From here, there are only a few steps to take to turn towards larger scale political violence. This kind of jargon and terminology is deeply unsuited for use in the institutions of a parliamentary democracy. Political parties in a democracy are established to represent particular political, social or economic interests. There are two types of models of religious scholars, allowing the establishment of political parties to represent Islamic thinking on politics in our surrounding.
There are clear hints that Imran Khan wants to assume a special religious role for himself and his burqa clad wife, if he sweeps the elections as he often claims.
Imam Khomeini worked to establish a religious political party during the Shah’s time and this political party became a ruling party after the Revolution in 1979. The Khomeini regime banned all other political parties after coming to power and prosecuted their leaders. Jamaat-e-Islami, established by Maulana Maududi never fully assumed power and turned into a dormant political party, though JI did have a tryst with violence and religious exclusivity.
Imran Khan’s use of religious idioms is linked with his proclivity to flaunt his special status as an honest politician. There are clear hints that Imran Khan wants to assume a special religious role for himself and his burqa clad wife, if he sweeps the elections as he often claims. Indications of this became evident when on more than one occasion, Khan talked about the special piety of his wife in eulogizing language. A special status and that too a religious one for a leader of the state or their partner would pave the way for total destruction of whatever is left of Pakistani democracy.
Military man
Imran Khan is dead set against key institutions playing a non-partisan role in the affairs of the Pakistani state, especially the military. His rhetoric condemning the neutrality of institutions has by now attained legendary fame. But there is something more to it. Since he was ousted from power, Khan has repeatedly expressed a dislike for how the military leadership remained non-partisan when the opposition was conspiring to dislodge him from power. Since he claims special status for himself as the “only honest politician,” he also claims that the military should have sided with him in the contest for political power, and that it should be partisan - in his favor.
Khan is quite misleadingly hoping that there will be a coup in the military against General Asim Munir, of which he will be the beneficiary. Fortunately, nobody is taking him seriously on this count.
The Pakistani military, even when it was directly ruling the country, has always been invested in maintain the fiction of its non-partisan role in society. Most of the Pakistan's military problems stem from the fact that it has always become a party in political conflicts. Imran Khan envisions a role for the military which aggravates its political problems, and creates a deep divide in Pakistani society that would be impossible to eradicate. At present, Khan is facing the wrath of the military leadership for the events that transpired on May 9. But his mind is still fixated on his own formula for a partisan role for the military. So much so, that Khan is quite misleadingly hoping that there will be a coup in the military against General Asim Munir, of which he will be the beneficiary. Fortunately, nobody is taking the PTI Chairman seriously on this count.
If they did, we would have a full blown civil war on our hands.
The million-dollar question that political commentators are spending time answering these days is whether Imran Khan will be tried in a military court for planning May 9 riots. This will be an extremely difficult decision to make. At present, Imran Khan’s popularity is on the rise. Pakistan is an intensely power-oriented society. We not only romanticize those in power, we also like those who challenge the powerful. This is exactly what Imran Khan is doing in the popular imagination.
But the penalization of Imran Khan would itself be highly problematic for the political system. Let’s hope the authorities don’t have any incriminating evidence against him. Otherwise, his imprisonment under military laws will amount to a significant disruption of the political system, even if the verdict that leads to his imprisonment is legally justified.