“One cannot lose if he does not accept defeat ... and in PTI’s dictionary, defeat does not exist.”
Imran Khan said to his supporters in Lahore on October 4th, while other PTI leaders standing behind him softly chuckled.
In the context of a democratic election, does this statement hold true?
Despite the rhetoric, on Sunday, by a close margin of 4,031 PML-N’s Sardar Ayaz Sadiq held his seat against PTI’s Aleem Khan in NA-122.
In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, a satirical allegory on Russian totalitarianism, lead character Napoleon plays to the base needs of his followers who chant, “Napoleon is always right.” They are told to envision a utopia, where there would be no corruption and equality amongst the classes. But goals promised are never truly defined nor real solutions offered.
It becomes a dangerous thing when citizens fail to ask tough questions, developing a cult of personality following to their leader. Ultimately, left unchecked, Napoleon becomes a tyrant worse than the original leaders of Animal Farm.
Khan also promotes a utopia: a corruption free Naya Pakistan. During his rallies, he rouses his young followers with catchy slogans and lofty promises (and here and there makes some unconstitutional demands).
In between each promise made, a neutered version of the unruly Gullu Butt, a tame DJ Butt, plays a carefully synchronised song. The crowds are encouraged to chant and dance, before having much opportunity to reflect on what was said.
Playing upon religious and historical references of purana Pakistan’s founders Quaid-e-Azam and spiritual head Allama Iqbal, Khan urges for a more “Islamic” and idealistic state; a state that prides itself in the stern implementation of justice.
But, is there justice in this dystopia for women killed in honour killings, for minorities deprived of religious freedoms, or millions of children enslaved in forced labour? No.
The party’s leadership does not rally in the streets to end these injustices. Justice is also not reserved for those killed by the Taliban. Khan has advocated forgiveness and talks as the solution, even after the horrifying APS school attack.
The stern justice he wishes to unleash is preoccupied with seizing the power of the rulers. Like the revolutionaries in Animal Farm what the advocates of a Naya Pakistan may not have realised is that in Celebrity Khan’s idyllic new world, “naya” soon means old and “justice” ultimately means to usurp the country’s democracy.
Khan’s politics of agitation, allegations of rigging, and long marches are nothing new for Pakistan.
Had he and Tahirul Qadri been successful in overthrowing the government (and system) it would’ve proven a dangerous transition back to the real status quo in Pakistan, in which a weak democracy is usurped by a military dictatorship. This has been the case for nearly half of the nation’s short history.
In one of his recent press conferences, Imran Khan openly invited the army to conduct operations to “cleanse the nation” referring not to terror groups up in arms against the country, but to politicians.
And if one had any doubts after he pleaded with a third umpire to raise his finger and meddle into political affairs, over 20,000 costly posters covered the streets of Lahore, propagating candidate Aleem Khan alongside General Raheel Sharif. It is a stark reminder to the haunting posters, not yet forgotten, of Nawaz Sharif alongside General Zia.
The verdict by Justice Kazim Malik for NA-122, ruled for re-elections based on irregularities but cleared Sadiq Ayaz, or the PML-N, of any wrongdoing. This was widely celebrated as a victory for the PTI by its supporters.
The judicial commission’s report also laid to rest any allegations of systematic rigging. But this has not stopped the PTI’s continued cries of a stolen mandate by the ruling party PML-N.
Can the PTI continue to say their mandate has been stolen, when they have lost many by-elections to various parties oftentimes failing to retrieve even the same vote bank they had in the “rigged” 2013 elections?
A celebration would make sense had the PTI won the re-election for NA-122 but they now face another loss to Sadiq Ayaz.
In 2002, in the same constituency, Imran Khan had lost to Ayaz Sadiq by a substantial margin of 18,893 votes.
Similarly in 1997, when both he and Imran Khan were running under the banner of the PTI, both losing to PML-N candidates, Sadiq still received more votes than the widely popular Khan.
In the 2013 General Elections, Sadiq won against Khan by a margin of 8,945 votes. An audit of the votes later confirmed Sadiq’s win. The audit report found 3,642 invalid votes and 180,000 verified votes, which included 23,639 votes missing signatures of presiding officers and/or stamps but were otherwise ordained as verified and legitimate votes by the commission.
These were referred to repeatedly as “bogus” votes by the PTI, although this is not what the report claimed. (Had they been declared bogus, it would constitute approximately 17 per cent of the total votes, leaving 83 per cent as valid.)
The soft spoken Sadiq not only seems to have a sustained mandate throughout the years in his constituency, but has also earned the confidence of his fellow parliamentarians who voted him speaker of the house with a majority of 258 out of 313 votes. Still, the PTI put up a considerable fight and the gap is getting tighter.
Aleem Khan fared better than Imran Khan against Sadiq and, had he won it, would have been a big blow to the ruling PML-N party.
Like a cruel joke for a country used to seeing it’s elected officials sacked by military rulers, Sadiq was the third National Assembly speaker to be de-seated.
Still, Imran Khan continued to ask for a more “entertaining match”, as he wished to be competing against Nawaz Sharif, not Sadiq.
But one must ask, considering Pakistan’s fragile democracy, its current war against terrorism, and a population suffering from poverty, is there room for a never ending cycle of “entertaining” (yet very expensive) election matches, which may be toying with the mandate of the people?
Could all that money and time be better spent on education and alleviating poverty?
For a party claiming the country’s fight against rotten apples as its very own, controversial Aleem Khan was an unlikely choice for an important reelection which serves as a decisive battle for the PTI. Having a notorious reputation of being part of the land mafia, it is clear he was not picked on merit as much as on the fact that he is one of the biggest donors to PTI.
In an alarming social media message defending his decision, Imran Khan silenced dissent, calling those not in favour of the appointment of Aleem Khan as Trojan horses and the “worst of enemies” of the PTI.
As the popular saying goes, be cautious when you are promised too much too soon. Would Aleem Khan being elected into Parliament, the same one PTI once referred to as fake, really bring back Ibn Khaldun’s glory days and would Imran Khan’s Prime Ministership bring about the emergence of a Pakistani Caliphate? Probably not.
Imran Khan often says he has everything, but the one thing he has never had is power. That is the one of the greatest lusts of man which he is now seeking. At the rally on October 4th he even alluded to the “patience” with which he has been waiting for it. Such lust can corrupt the very best of us.
Hence, PTI supporters must be open to criticism of their leadership, engage in critical thinking, and demand better decision making.
Shouldn’t they demand Khan apologise to his own followers first and foremost that much of his allegations about systematic rigging simply didn’t prove to be true?
The Judicial Commission categorically declared Pakistan’s 2013 General Elections, “...in accordance with the law,” as well as “a true and fair reflection of the mandate given by the electorate.”
Pakistan’s May 2013 elections were also monitored by over 40,000 independent observers. Such is the protocol in fragile democracies to settle cries of rigging and to offer much needed legitimacy to elections. Along with the country’s most esteemed judges comprising the Judicial Commision, that Imran Khan himself praised, these independent organisations saw no evidence of systematic rigging.
There was consensus that the irregularities found were largely due to human error and not on a large enough scale to deem the election not transparent. Unfortunately irregularities to some degree even exist in the elections of the most stable and oldest of democracies, including that of the United States.
Yet, remarkably, mesmerising Khan has managed to continue the rhetoric that massive rigging took place. Is it that hard to fathom that the then bedridden Imran Khan did not win the elections of 2013? Even if he were certain of his loss, would he not accept defeat anyway?
If the PTI is to be a formidable force for much needed change in the country, it’s up to its promising wide-eyed followers to take lead of their party, hold its own leadership accountable, and not buy into rhetoric when it ceases to make sense.
In the meantime, we can at least thank the PTI for pressurising the ruling PML-N party into action.