Was/Is PTI an aberration?

PTI rose as a phoenix in the last one decade. For sixteen years it wandered the lonely terrain of politics in desolation till a changed political environment sought an alternate option. That is when Imran Khan and his PTI began to be seen and became a serious prospect. At least that is the more popular and acknowledged narrative of how the PTI shed obscurity to find the eminence which became its fortune till a few weeks ago. More specifically, 9^th May, when the bubble burst. And thus, the question: was/is PTI an aberration?

Popular politics is a lot about sentiment. And none plays it better than Imran Khan. He has the reluctant charm, the charisma and an enigmatic record across the sociocultural backdrop to woo many. He used it to full effect in cultivating a place for himself among the hallowed. And then he went to work. He kindled the imagination of the urban middle class and the upper middle class in a political society where elites shunned politics as a common man’s occupation. He brought these urban and social elites into the political fold and became an item of social eminence. Once in their hands he availed unmatched elite support and power through connections which cut across the political spectrum. That gave the ‘idea’ a possession and ownership. The ‘idea’ itself remained mostly unexplained. Come the slightest bump in this predatory political game of thrones and he was whisked over it with a nudge here and a wink there. He was after all in the ownership of the most influential and the most powerful in the country.

Those arrayed against IK were left lamenting, undone by their own elite cohorts who were substantially invested in supporting their political nemesis through wards, relations and circle of friends, if not personally. That he irked them and mocked them with his unassailability in public perception only added insult to injury. Till May 9^th, of course, when IK blundered into handing it all back on a platter to his beleaguered opposition. This was the most telling in the series of errors that he was forced into by poor counsel and vain arrogance after being forced out of power. Rather than play politics he chose force as an option and lost when contending against the cumulative power of the state and the ‘system’. He failed to recognise the limits of his potential. He was a product of the ‘most powerful’ and a possession of the ‘most influential’. But when pitched against the absolute power of the state and his creators, he lost. These were the triggers and enablers behind his phoenix-like rise and devastating fall.

The phenomenon of Imran Khan did not sustain beyond the first stress test that came his way in this evolution. Or is it that this first major hurdle is only meant to cement the ‘idea’ and propel it forward? What is the ‘idea’? Outside of how and why the ‘establishment’ chose to trigger the rise of Imran Khan there are global and universal reasons for popular politics to find relevance. Beginning with ‘identity’ to being left behind in this rapidly growing socioeconomic race the world over, the inequity and disparity in growth and alienation of the deprived against the privileged that results from it, and how economies have tended to marginalise the dispossessed while multiplying the wealth of the already rich, has meant that acute nationalism based around tribal and ethnic polarisation has enveloped most of the world. Somewhere in there the religion or the race is peppered by the exploiters while others play on the deprivation in marginalisation as their plank to grab power and influence, and control resources. It turns politics ugly and confrontational, making it tribal and familial than civilisational.

Evolution in information domain through pervasive internet and instant communication has only meant that such sentiment can be infused in moments and exploited in a jiffy. That is what gave rise to strongmen claiming popular support in the name of democracy. Erdogan, Modi, Trump and Orban are just a few examples. Imran Khan can be added to that list as a potential autocrat in character if not function. That is what true democracies do — check the demon in a leader who remains beholden to unbridled power. Except that in the former cases democracy too has changed character from liberal to illiberal to neo-liberal. These are electoral democracies in nature but autocratic in function. Popular politics is the foundation from which emerges illiberal democracy thriving in a divisive and a polarised electorate. Pakistan is the latest exhibit in this case of traditional democracy contending against its illiberal, populist version.

The case of PTI was slightly different, though predicated and nurtured on a similar sentiment. Imran Khan was already a national hero even if lost to the political boondocks for as long as he had indulged in it. Famously a one-man party none took him seriously. A need to change betting horses in 2011, in the final years of a dismal PPP government, meant that a search for an alternate to the Sharifs in Punjab was on to fill the space vacated by Zardari’s PPP. That is when ‘Project Imran Khan’ began in earnest. By October 2011 he looked a promising candidate. His appeal to the masses began to take root as more and more traditional politicians flocked to what seemed a winning bet. In the 2013 national polls he was a viable leader of a party which for its first time ever saw more than a couple take oath as members in the National Assembly. Perhaps that is when he also started taking himself seriously. In time, too seriously.

Elections 2018 brought him into power but not without significant external support of cohorts who whisked elected independents into his corner to contrive a majority. A couple of years into power he floundered to devise a political purpose around populist anchors such as divine idealism and bringing the corrupt to justice. As he evolved in power and its trappings surrounded by acolytes who would only whisper praise and purpose of his invincibility, egotism and presumptiveness began defining his conduct increasingly.

From a political leader he turned into a messiah and a crusader on a holy mission. He believed he could lead a revolution and if he didn’t it was a gracious act to spare bloodshed. Gradually the party lost its political moorings and became a cult where none could escape its affiliation. Those that did were haunted, mocked, derided and harassed. In a cult one can only die to escape. Either you were with IK, or you were against him. He left no choice for a nuanced association or a counsel that would make politics worthy of its cause. Towards the end he popularised ‘freedom’. From what and how, remained a shifting post. It finally fell him.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 2^nd, 2023.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.