Pakistani politicians, especially the incumbent ones, are seemingly fond of projecting themselves as victims of international conspiracy. Previously Prime Minister Imran Khan wasted a lot of his precious time waiting for a call from US President Joe Biden, and presently is projecting the opposition’s no-confidence motion as a part of an international conspiracy against him. He wishes to be a national hero and synchronically a victim of international intrigues. It’s quite a paradox.
Robert Jervis, acclaimed American expert of political psychology, describes this mindset as an abnormality -- “Overestimating your importance as a target”.
Imran Khan is not the only Pakistani politician suffering from this state of mind. From Zulfikar Bhutto to Nawaz Sharif to Imran Khan, all have been victims of this state of mind.
Imran Khan reacted oddly against the European Union in his recent public rally in Islamabad, and lashed out at the bloc’s ambassadors for asking Pakistan to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine. As a result, the story doing rounds in Islamabad is: Imran Khan defied international establishment by going to Moscow and now the mighty force wants to get rid of him. And Khan is playing on as well. He has gone all out to portray a conspiracy, where he is a true nationalist and Americans and EU villains at a time when the opposition parties are giving final touches to their plan to dislodge him through a no confidence motion. His outrage is well timed.
Historically, Americans have played a central role in Pakistan’s domestic politics because of their financial and military assistance. Their role became even more intrusive during the nine-years-rule of Pervez Musharraf. This gives them a certain level of leverage within the domestic power structure of the country.
However, the mechanics of Pakistani politics have been in the tight grip of institutions that are prime beneficiaries of the American generosity. Americans have always been in a position to bolster the legitimacy of their favourites -- in Islamabad or Rawalpindi -- by providing financial and military assistance to Pakistani state institutions. But they have neither succeeded in preventing their favourites go down the slippery slope of power nor in creating an enabling environment to dislodge those whom they dislike.
Consider this: Americans increased the acceptability of military dictator General Musharraf by providing generous military and financial assistance to his illegitimate government. But they could do nothing to protect their protégé against the Lal Masjid catastrophe or the Lawyers’ Movement. Similarly financial and military assistance under the Kerry-Lugar Bill to the PPP government could not save it from the wrath of institutions that control Pakistan.
Lal Masjid, Lawyers’ Movement and Memogate are incidents in history of Pakistan that expose the true mechanics of Pakistani politics. They are certainly not Americans. And here’s another paradox: though the Americans do not control the mechanics of Pakistani politics, they can still make those in control feel extremely vulnerable by regulating the financial assistance.
Imran Khan so far has failed to register himself as an asset in the western capitals. The question they pose to Pakistani interlocutors is how successful the Pakistani state is likely to be in stemming the tide of extremism and the Afghan Taliban. Given Khan’s favourable position on Afghanistan, he has remained a non-entity for the West. Not surprisingly, thus, the western diplomats are more interested in visiting Rawalpindi than Islamabad.
At the end of the day, it is always the foreign financial assistance that drives the country. It is the aid and grants that shape the power dynamics. It depends largely on the skilful handling of political forces by the incumbent leader. And, Imran Khan has proved to be particularly inapt and naïve in this respect.
Robert Jervis, acclaimed American expert of political psychology, describes this mindset as an abnormality -- “Overestimating your importance as a target”.
Imran Khan is not the only Pakistani politician suffering from this state of mind. From Zulfikar Bhutto to Nawaz Sharif to Imran Khan, all have been victims of this state of mind.
Imran Khan reacted oddly against the European Union in his recent public rally in Islamabad, and lashed out at the bloc’s ambassadors for asking Pakistan to condemn Russia for invading Ukraine. As a result, the story doing rounds in Islamabad is: Imran Khan defied international establishment by going to Moscow and now the mighty force wants to get rid of him. And Khan is playing on as well. He has gone all out to portray a conspiracy, where he is a true nationalist and Americans and EU villains at a time when the opposition parties are giving final touches to their plan to dislodge him through a no confidence motion. His outrage is well timed.
Historically, Americans have played a central role in Pakistan’s domestic politics because of their financial and military assistance. Their role became even more intrusive during the nine-years-rule of Pervez Musharraf. This gives them a certain level of leverage within the domestic power structure of the country.
However, the mechanics of Pakistani politics have been in the tight grip of institutions that are prime beneficiaries of the American generosity. Americans have always been in a position to bolster the legitimacy of their favourites -- in Islamabad or Rawalpindi -- by providing financial and military assistance to Pakistani state institutions. But they have neither succeeded in preventing their favourites go down the slippery slope of power nor in creating an enabling environment to dislodge those whom they dislike.
Consider this: Americans increased the acceptability of military dictator General Musharraf by providing generous military and financial assistance to his illegitimate government. But they could do nothing to protect their protégé against the Lal Masjid catastrophe or the Lawyers’ Movement. Similarly financial and military assistance under the Kerry-Lugar Bill to the PPP government could not save it from the wrath of institutions that control Pakistan.
Lal Masjid, Lawyers’ Movement and Memogate are incidents in history of Pakistan that expose the true mechanics of Pakistani politics. They are certainly not Americans. And here’s another paradox: though the Americans do not control the mechanics of Pakistani politics, they can still make those in control feel extremely vulnerable by regulating the financial assistance.
Lal Masjid, Lawyers’ Movement and Memogate are incidents in history of Pakistan that expose the true mechanics of Pakistani politics. They are certainly not Americans. And here’s another paradox: though the Americans do not control the mechanics of Pakistani politics, they can still make those in control feel extremely vulnerable by regulating the financial assistance.
Imran Khan so far has failed to register himself as an asset in the western capitals. The question they pose to Pakistani interlocutors is how successful the Pakistani state is likely to be in stemming the tide of extremism and the Afghan Taliban. Given Khan’s favourable position on Afghanistan, he has remained a non-entity for the West. Not surprisingly, thus, the western diplomats are more interested in visiting Rawalpindi than Islamabad.
At the end of the day, it is always the foreign financial assistance that drives the country. It is the aid and grants that shape the power dynamics. It depends largely on the skilful handling of political forces by the incumbent leader. And, Imran Khan has proved to be particularly inapt and naïve in this respect.