Celebrating his party’s victory in toppling the PML-N government in Punjab, former Prime Minister and PTI chairman Imran Khan gave a speech on Wednesday that was undeniably reminiscent of one made on the campaign trail by a candidate sure of winning the election.
He reaffirmed his call for an early election as the only way to address the current challenges, and he promised to carry on the public welfare programmes his government had already begun. More importantly, he elaborated on the course his policies would take in important areas if he won the election again.
For instance, Mr. Khan urged the country to choose “death over servitude” while stating that he sought good relations with all nations, including the US, which he accuses of orchestrating the overthrow of his government through a conspiracy.
In a same spirit, the PTI leader asserted that he would enable Pakistan to stand on its own two feet and that his request for financial support would appeal to Pakistanis living abroad.
As usual, Mr. Khan’s remarks had little substance and were laden with populist rhetoric. In 2019, the PTI government signed a bailout plan with the IMF agreement and had no reservations about seeking financial assistance from other nations, just to highlight one fact.
Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that populism and reality have a shaky relationship. However, Mr. Khan’s claim in his presentation on Wednesday that he can speak with the TTP or the Baloch separatists but not with “thieves,” as he frequently refers to the leadership of the major political parties other than the PTI, cannot be readily dismissed or written off as a “rhetorical flourish.” He asked, “Will you talk to someone who robs your house?”
It is repulsive and foolish to compare government officials, no matter how corrupt, to ruthless militants who have killed tens of thousands of innocent Pakistanis. Such false equivalence ignores the seriousness of the crime of terrorism, which is punishable by the death sentence in many countries, including Pakistan. Even countries that have abolished the death penalty reserve the harshest penalties for those found guilty of terrorism.
It also raises the issue of prosecutable evidence. Political leaders who are found guilty of corruption should, of course, face consequences. But why was the PTI unable to successfully prosecute the majority of the political figures it accuses of theft during its nearly four years in power, despite having a compromised and hence compliant NAB chairman directing its “anti-corruption campaign”?
Finally, Mr. Khan’s position depressingly demonstrates that personal animosity, fueled by obduracy, continues to be the motivation behind his politics. The former prime minister and possibly a future one as well insists on demonising his opponents despite the fact that the nation is gripped by a severe financial crisis and polarisation has reached dangerous heights when the only sane course of action is to lower the political tempo and engage with those on the other side of the aisle.
