Imran Khan — The Same Face of the Coin in Politics
Written by: Noor Qureshi
Imran Khan is globally known as a celebrated cricketer and
the victorious captain of Pakistan’s 1992 World Cup team. In 1996, he founded a
new political party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), presenting himself
as a savior, an honest leader, and a harbinger of change. But was the reality
the same as the claim?
For the first fourteen years in politics, Imran Khan gained
little traction. His rallies remained empty, his vote bank weak, and his
organization inactive. He experienced a sudden rise in popularity during the
2011 Lahore rally — but this surge was not possible without the backing of
powerful state institutions. In truth, it wasn’t the public that gave Imran
Khan political ground, but certain influential circles.
The slogan of a "State of Madinah" was used to
emotionally and religiously attract the public. Yet, the interest-based
financial system remained untouched. No Islamic judicial reforms were enacted.
Instead of reducing poverty, inflation, unemployment, and national debt
increased. No practical model of justice, welfare, or accountability was ever
implemented. Islam was invoked in speeches, but no laws were passed, nor were
Islamic values enforced.
He claimed to promote simplicity, yet commuted daily in a
government helicopter from Bani Gala — a sign of his royal lifestyle. Millions
were spent on his protocol, security, and other luxuries — a clear
contradiction between his words and actions. He called shifting stances a
leadership trait, and partnered with those he once called corrupt — such as
PML-Q, MQM, and BAP. His actions revealed that the real aim was not national
reform, but securing the Prime Minister’s seat.
His speeches and public gatherings became known more for
mockery, hate, and abusive language than for moral training. Phrases like
“Cherry Blossom,” “Diesel,” “Thieves’ Gang,” “Spineless Assembly,” and “Wet
Cat” were frequently used. A true leader is reflected in his speech — and Imran
Khan’s words spread division, hatred, and disrespect.
His party’s internal affairs were far from democratic. Imran
Khan remained the sole power center. Educated and principled individuals were
either silenced or expelled. No second-tier leadership emerged. Ideology faded
into the background, and the party was run based on personal loyalty.
PTI governed Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for twelve consecutive
years. While some initial steps were commendable — such as the health card,
police restructuring, and tree plantation campaign — traditional flaws soon
resurfaced: corruption, administrative inefficiency, and poor governance.
Peshawar's BRT project faced repeated delays. Political interference returned
to the police force. Hospitals deteriorated, schools remained understaffed, and
promises to empower local bodies were never fulfilled.
After losing power, Khan blamed it on a U.S.-backed
conspiracy. Chants of “Absolutely Not” rang loud — yet in 2019, he was seen
meeting the U.S. President, expressing willingness to cooperate. Even after his
government’s fall, his close aides continued lobbying for better ties with the
U.S.
His stance on Palestine and Israel remained weak. On the
global stage, his rhetoric of independence lacked firm actions.
While embracing Western media, women’s political
participation, freedom of speech, and democratic principles — he simultaneously
chanted for a “State of Madinah.” This contradiction showed that although he
adopted Western political strategies, he never embraced their core values. No
Islamic legislation or judicial reform plan ever materialized.
He accused opponents of corruption but failed to present
evidence. Meanwhile, he inducted corrupt individuals into his own party and
prioritized personal loyalty over ideology.
He undermined electoral processes and showed disdain for
democracy: rejecting election results when they didn't favor him, but staying
silent when the same system worked in his favor. From the 2014 D-Chowk sit-in,
the storming of Parliament, to the events of May 9 — all reflected his fragile
commitment to democratic norms.
His economic policies were marked by inconsistency — with a
new strategy introduced every few months, damaging the economy further.
In his politics, personal ego, revenge, and narcissism took
center stage — while national unity and interest took a back seat. He treated
every institution with an “either with me or against me” mindset — be it the
judiciary, military, election commission, or media.
While in power, he never criticized the establishment, often
declaring “we are on the same page.” He praised General Bajwa and credited him
for his success. But once removed from power, he turned on the same
establishment — accusing them of conspiracy, corruption, and betrayal. This is
not courage — but the frustration of losing power.
Despite heavy criticism, it’s important to acknowledge some
of his positive initiatives:
- Ehsaas
Program — a structured strategy to reduce poverty and offer financial
assistance
- Health
Card — providing free annual healthcare in KP and Punjab
- Billion
Tree Tsunami — globally recognized for environmental improvement
- Citizen
Portal — a digital system for public complaints
- Youth
Programs — including training and loans under Kamyab Jawan
Scheme
It must also be clarified that this is not a defense of
traditional parties like PPP, PML-N, or others — all of whom are products of a
decaying political system rife with nepotism, corruption, and exploitation.
However, the issue with Imran Khan, his party, and his
supporters is the blind belief that he is an honest, Islamic savior and a
promise-keeping leader. When claims are that grand, accountability must be
equally serious.
A true leader develops more leaders — builds a
vision-driven, trained team, rooted in personal and collective values. A true
leader listens to criticism, corrects mistakes, and embraces dissent as a means
to national improvement. He does not treat opponents as enemies but includes
them in the journey of national progress.
But these noble leadership traits have been absent in Imran
Khan’s politics. He mastered blame, mockery, and division — spending his time
in government accusing the opposition of treason and corruption, and doing the
same when in opposition.
It appears that his politics have always revolved around
power — not real development or national unity. He neither cultivated
leadership within his party, nor maintained harmony with institutions, nor
accepted criticism for reform. His politics, much like other traditional
politicians, remain rooted in opportunism, popularity, and the race for power.
If you only listen to slogans and ignore actions, you
will always be deceived. Judge a leader by their character, decisions, and
ethics — not by emotional attachment. Stand for truth, justice, and principle.
Seek religion not in slogans, but in character.
