The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf leader had the right rhetoric, but the solutions which he offered, as and when he did offer them, were far from satisfactory. He came across as being idealistic to the extent of being simplistic, and the voters didn’t buy his line
The tsunami that Imran Khan promised — and was so sure of achieving — never came. His party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, fell way short of Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim league (Nawaz), which is set to form the Government for the third time.
The various surveys and pre-election polls had suggested that Mr Khan would win anywhere from 30 to 60 seats, but his presence in Punjab was meant to act as a spoiler to Mr Sharif’s prospects. As the break-up from Punjab clearly shows, Mr Khan was unable to make a significant dent in Mr Sharif’s traditional stronghold either.
Mr Khan’s meteoric rise in the past few years was one of the biggest talking points in the build-up to the elections. The massive turnout at his rallies in politically significant cities like lahore and Karachi, and the apparent appeal of his proclaimed ‘Naya Pakistan’ (New Pakistan) led many to believe that he would be able to successfully challenge the dominance of the Pakistan Peoples Party and the PMl(N) in Pakistani politics.
Two things seemed to work in favour of Mr Khan: His personal reputation and the general anti-incumbency sentiment in Pakistan. The anti-incumbency was restricted not only to the PPP-led Government but extended to the entire entrenched system, which included Mr Sharif as well. It was this sentiment that was exploited well by Mr Khan through his focus on issues that were bound to find a receptive audience. In particular, he launched a strong critique against corruption, the perks and privileges enjoyed by Government officials, especially the unofficial exemption from payment of taxes, and Pakistan’s alliance with the US in the war on terror and the resultant drone strikes on Pakistani soil.
The fact that Mr Khan had a lacklustre political career till now seemed to be working in his favour as he was viewed as someone outside the system, and thus perceived as a possible solution than being seen as part of the problem. Added to this was Mr Khan’s own clean, corruption-free image, his energy, charisma and popularity as a successful cricketer, which set him apart from the rest of the political elite. His successful management of the cancer hospital in lahore — in a country where much of the health sector is in shambles — was applauded by even his most ardent critics.
However, as the initial euphoria about him began to wane, his flaws became more pronounced. This in the long-run, along with the nature of the Pakistani politics, hurt his chances. This was evident in the opinion polls, which earlier indicated a sign of his rising profile, but now highlighted the reality of his position. From the last quarter of 2012 itself, the opinion polls pinned Mr Sharif as the most popular leader in Pakistan.
Mr Khan had the right rhetoric, but the solutions offered by him — when he did offer them — were far from satisfactory. He was accused of being “idealistic to the extent of being simplistic”. For instance, his claims to resolve the country’s tax collection problem by inspiring people to pay taxes through setting a better example himself, seemed principally sound but impossible to achieve, given the south Asian context. Moreover, while his anti-American and anti-drone rhetoric may have brought tangible benefits for his party in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, it is unlikely that it would have held the same appeal in the rest of the country. There was growing resentment amongst some sections at Mr Khan’s attempts to externalise Pakistan’s security problems. His linking of the problem simply to American presence in the region was seen as extremely naïve. His refusal to speak out against the Pakistani Taliban, at the same time, raised concerns regarding his political and ideological inclinations alienating some sections of the urban population, which was seen as his main vote-bank.
All the talks about ‘Naya Pakistan’ and ‘change’ were also tainted by the PTI’s absorption of defectors and stalwarts from the established political parties. This raised doubts about Mr Khan’s commitment to change. A number of PTI members also resigned from his party, citing the party’s departure from its original ideology as a major factor. The vicious attacks by PTI supporters against media outlets criticising Mr Khan as well as their reported ill-discipline during the electoral campaign led the Pakistani political analyst Ayesha Siddiqa in a recent article for Kafila to argue that what was being “posited as naya is in fact as stale as the old”.
Finally, in the absence of a proper agenda, his personal reputation and anti-incumbency could have only taken him thus far. The PPP and the PMl(N), for all their flaws, are well established parties and have a strong foundation in their respective strongholds. This was evident in their strong showing in Sindh and Punjab respectively. The PPP’s success in Sindh, in particular, highlights the difficulties for a third front to emerge in Pakistan, where kinship continues to be important.
Despite the unpopularity of the Government and especially of Mr Asif Ali Zardari — the incumbent President of Pakistan — the popularity of the Bhutto family ensured a high return of seats for the PPP.
But all is not lost for Mr Khan. He may not have succeeded in ‘sweeping the elections’, but his performance in this election is a significant improvement from his previous outings. From having secured only one seat till date — in the 2002 election — the PTI managed to gain the highest number of seats in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and has also emerged as the main Opposition party in the National Assembly — at par with the PPP. These are no small feats and provide Mr Khan with a solid platform.
By not joining any coalition Government at the Centre, Mr Khan could provide an effective and credible Opposition. It also gives him the opportunity to remain free of the burden of the vast challenges likely to confront the new Government, and maintain his credibility. Using this position and experience to his advantage, Mr Khan should emerge stronger and be a more formidable challenge for the next set of elections in the country.
(The writer is an Associate Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Delhi)