Abdul Basit Alvi
Amidst the tumultuous terrain of contemporary politics, negativity has become an unfortunately common refrain. From smear campaigns to divisive rhetoric, the utilization of negativity as a political strategy has risen to concerning heights. Negative politics, characterized by mudslinging, fear-mongering, and character assassination, not only corrodes public trust but also undermines the very fabric of democracy.
While negative politics has long been a fixture in political landscapes throughout history, its prevalence and impact have surged in recent times. The rise of social media and 24-hour news cycles has provided political actors with new platforms and audiences to propagate their toxic narratives. One of the most detrimental effects of negative politics is the erosion of trust in democratic institutions. When politicians prioritize attacking opponents over engaging in substantive debate, it fosters a perception that politics is merely a game of manipulation rather than a pursuit of the common good. This disillusionment can lead to voter apathy and disengagement, thereby weakening the democratic process.
Negative politics thrives on division, exploiting societal fault lines to garner support. By vilifying opponents and framing issues in stark terms, politicians exacerbate existing divisions and make compromise increasingly elusive. This polarization not only hampers progress but also undermines the sense of national unity crucial for a healthy democracy. Additionally, the prevalence of negative politics has contributed to growing distrust on the media. With politicians and pundits weaponizing misinformation and propagating conspiracy theories, discerning truth from falsehood has become increasingly challenging for the average citizen. This erosion of trust in the media further undermines the foundations of democracy, as an informed electorate is essential for holding elected officials accountable.
Especially in the context of Pakistan, negative politics, exemplified by figures like Imran Khan, has aimed to gain political mileage by defaming opponents and institutions. In any democratic society, the strength of institutions is paramount to the functioning of the state and the well-being of its citizens. From the judiciary to the legislature, from law enforcement to the free press, each institution plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law, ensuring accountability, and safeguarding the rights and freedoms of the people. Hence, nurturing a culture that reveres all institutions is not only crucial for the nation’s stability but also for the safeguarding of democracy itself. Showing respect for every institution within the country is tantamount to upholding the rule of law. Entities like the judiciary serve as custodians of the legal framework that governs society. When individuals and collectives honor judicial rulings, irrespective of personal or political leanings, they reinforce the principle that no one is exempt from legal obligations. This cultivates trust in the legal system and guarantees impartial dispensation of justice. Institutions furnish checks and balances that hold those in authority accountable for their deeds. For instance, a robust legislature serves as a platform for discourse and oversight, ensuring that governmental policies and choices are subject to open scrutiny and debate. Similarly, independent regulatory bodies and commissions play a vital role in overseeing various sectors, ranging from finance to the environment, and ensuring entities are held accountable for their actions. By honoring these institutions and their mandates, citizens contribute to the transparency and integrity of the governance process. Entities like the free press and human rights commissions are pivotal in protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals. A free and unbiased media acts as a watchdog, uncovering corruption, injustice, and abuses of power. By acknowledging the media’s role as an informant and a check on authority, citizens empower journalists to hold those in power accountable and ensure the public remains informed. Similarly, human rights institutions advocate for the rights of marginalized groups, ensuring that every individual retains their inherent dignity and freedoms. Upholding all institutions within the country promotes stability and unity within society. When individuals and groups adhere to the decisions and mandates of institutions, even amid disagreement or controversy, they contribute to maintaining social cohesion and resolving disputes peacefully. Conversely, undermining or neglecting institutions can lead to instability, polarization, and a loss of trust in the democratic process.
In the turbulent realm of politics, the allure of negativity often eclipses the necessity to deliver tangible results. However, in a world beset by challenges and intricacies, true leadership lies not in rhetoric or mudslinging but in concrete action and genuine accomplishments. Hence, it falls upon politicians to prioritize performance over negativity, as this not only enhances governance but also fortifies democracy and nurtures public trust.
In an age dominated by soundbites and sensationalism, the prevalence of negativity in politics has reached concerning levels. From personal attacks to partisan squabbles, the discourse frequently lacks substance, leaving citizens disillusioned and disheartened. Nevertheless, by shifting the focus from divisive rhetoric to substantive policy proposals and tangible actions, politicians can re-engage the electorate and restore confidence in the democratic process. Trust forms the foundation of effective governance, and it is earned through actions, not merely words. While negative campaigning might yield immediate advantages, it erodes trust over time by perpetuating cynicism and division. Conversely, when politicians demonstrate a dedication to addressing pressing issues and delivering meaningful results, they inspire confidence and cultivate goodwill among the electorate. By prioritizing performance, politicians can establish genuine connections with constituents and foster a collective sense of purpose. The urgent challenges confronting society today, ranging from economic disparity to climate crisis, demand attention that surpasses mere political drama. Though resorting to negative campaigning may offer short-term gains, it does little to address the substantive issues affecting people’s lives. By directing their efforts and resources towards resolving real-world problems, politicians can effect meaningful change in the lives of their constituents and establish a legacy of positive impact. Leading by example serves as a potent catalyst for change, affording politicians a unique opportunity to inspire the next generation of leaders. Through exhibiting integrity, foresight, and a dedication to public service, politicians can establish a standard for future leaders to follow. Additionally, by giving precedence to performance over negativity, politicians can cultivate an environment more conducive for budding leaders to prosper and make meaningful contributions to society.
In 2018, Imran Khan surged to power in Pakistan, promising sweeping reforms, economic revitalization, and an end to corruption. He campaigned on a platform of transformation, presenting himself as a beacon of hope for a nation grappling with multifaceted challenges. However as Prime Minister, the reality behind Imran Khan’s political rhetoric paints a contrasting picture between pledges made and commitments fulfilled.
Imran Khan’s rise to power was fueled by his portrayal as a charismatic leader, unblemished by the corruption that had plagued Pakistani politics for decades. He captured the electorate’s imagination with visions of a “New Pakistan,” characterized by transparency, accountability, and prosperity for all. His commitments to revamp the economy, fortify institutions, and prioritize the welfare of ordinary citizens struck a chord with a populace fatigued by the prevailing status quo. Central to Imran Khan’s agenda was the pledge of economic rejuvenation and poverty alleviation. He promised to generate millions of jobs, attract foreign investment, and inaugurate a period of prosperity for Pakistan. However, the actuality was fallen short of the rhetoric. Under his leadership, the economy was faltered, grappled with soaring inflation, mounting debt, and sluggish growth. Despite grand assurances, unemployment persisted as a pressing concern, and millions of Pakistanis endured the throes of poverty.
Another pillar of Imran Khan’s platform was the commitment to reform Pakistan’s institutions and purge corruption. He vowed to construct a merit-based society, where nepotism and favoritism held no sway. Nonetheless, his administration has been tarnished by accusations of cronyism, with detractors alleged his appointment of allies to influential positions and his failure to fulfill his anti-corruption promises. Furthermore, institutions such as the judiciary and the media faced mounting pressures, sparking apprehensions regarding the erosion of democratic norms.
Despite his pledge to serve as a unifying force for Pakistan, Imran Khan’s tenure was characterized by polarization and discord. His confrontational political approach alienated opposition factions and stoked tensions within society. Instead of nurturing consensus and dialogue, he has frequently resorted to scapegoating and vilifying his critics, exacerbating political rifts.
As Prime Minister of Pakistan, Imran Khan found himself entangled in a contentious relationship with the country’s institutions. From clashes with the judiciary to confrontations with the military establishment, Khan’s tenure was marked by a perpetual struggle for control and influence. Despite his ascent to power with pledges to challenge the prevailing norms and combat corruption, his confrontational demeanor attracted allegations of undermining democratic principles and corroding institutional credibility.
One of the primary arenas in Imran Khan’s clash with institutions was the judiciary. While initially praising the judiciary as a beacon of accountability and fairness, his government’s actions frequently contradicted the tenets of judicial autonomy. Khan’s administration faced backlash for exerting pressure on the judiciary, particularly in cases involving political adversaries. From attempts to sway court proceedings to accusations of judicial overreach, the dynamic between Khan’s administration and the judiciary has been marked by strain. Imran Khan’s rapport with Pakistan’s influential military establishment mirrored this complexity. During Imran Khan’s tenure, freedom of the press came under heightened scrutiny, with allegations of censorship and suppression of dissent becoming increasingly prevalent. Khan’s administration faced accusations of targeting journalists critical of his government, employing tactics like intimidation, harassment, and censorship to quell opposing voices. The crackdown on media liberties raised alarms about the erosion of democratic values and the stifling of public discourse.
Imran Khan’s confrontational style of governance exacerbated political polarization and deepened societal rifts in Pakistan. Instead of seeking to reconcile differences among political factions, Khan often resorted to divisive rhetoric and scapegoating, exacerbating the existing fractures within the political landscape. His government’s crackdown on opposition parties and civil society organizations further raised concerns about the erosion of democratic standards and the suppression of dissent.
On May 9, 2023, Imran Khan, the founder of PTI, was apprehended by the National Accountability Bureau in conjunction with the paramilitary Rangers at the Islamabad High Court in the Al Qadir Trust case. This development sparked widespread protests nationwide, accompanied by instances of vandalism and unrest. Rioters targeted both military and civilian installations across the country, spurred by Imran Khan’s inflammatory speeches against institutions. Following these events, the government and the military labeled May 9 as a “dark chapter,” expressing their intent to prosecute individuals involved in the riots under relevant laws, including the Pakistan Army Act and the Official Secrets Act. This decision received endorsement from the National Security Committee, the primary decision-making body regarding foreign policy and national security in the country.
May 9 undoubtedly stands as a somber day in the nation’s history. The country’s institutions were targeted to serve the perpetrators’ political agendas. Martyrs were dishonored, and national security was compromised. It has been a year since these events transpired, and questions continue to arise about May 9 from various quarters. Among these inquiries, the most pressing question is why those responsible for planning and executing the events of May 9 have not been brought to justice. The leader of the party associated with the May 9 events has been in custody for the past eight months, struggling to salvage his political career from decline. Many top leaders of the party have distanced themselves from him due to his anti-state policies, while others have retreated from politics altogether. Those who remain active in politics foresee a bleak political future. The party’s leadership has shifted to lawyers, sparking ongoing conflicts between the old guard and new entrants, ultimately fracturing the party’s identity. To maintain its parliamentary legitimacy, the party is reliant on the support of a lesser-known faction like the Sunni Ittehad Council. Despite repeated efforts to conduct intra-party elections, success remains elusive. The party’s narrative is predominantly centered around the leader’s spouse’s illness and baseless allegations against institutions.
Conversely, the political adversaries of this party have formed a coalition government for the next five years, focusing on the agenda of political stability and economic recovery. These opponents of the party linked to the events of May 9 hold governmental positions at the federal level and in three provinces. While the Chief Minister of KPK belongs to PTI, he now seeks to mend relations with the Pakistan Army after distancing himself from the events of May 9. Efforts to foster cooperation with friendly nations are advancing in both diplomatic and economic spheres. Noteworthy milestones include the visits of a Saudi delegation and the Iranian president. Additionally, the United States has signaled Pakistan’s significance as a key partner in the region. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) project is progressing into its second phase. The Special Economic Zone Foundation (SIFC), established with Pakistan Army support to revive the economy, has achieved significant strides in a brief period. Under the personal supervision of the Chief of Army Staff, SIFC is playing a pivotal role in the country’s economic recovery, as evidenced by recent contracts with foreign countries. Collaborative efforts between the government and the military are being undertaken to combat smuggling, thereby enhancing the nation’s economic outlook. Surpassing the milestone of 72,000 in the stock market reflects Pakistan’s sound economic policies. Despite being targeted in the May 9 attacks, the army exhibits unprecedented dynamism and unity, prioritizing both internal and external security while actively combating anti-national elements. In addition to fulfilling its primary duties, the Pakistan Army plays a vital role in supporting the government’s diplomatic and economic endeavors. Considering these developments, it is evident that the perpetrators, facilitators, and planners of the May 9 attacks are either facing or nearing justice, while the state, subjected to their criminal acts, remains resolute in its pursuit of development and prosperity.
In recent times, the specter of riots and civil unrest has cast a shadow over various parts of the world, posing significant challenges to public safety, social cohesion, and the rule of law. Ranging from mass demonstrations to violent protests, riots have the potential to inflict substantial harm on communities and undermine societal stability. In response to such threats, authorities must adopt a decisive and robust approach to quelling riots and restoring order. Riots signify a breakdown in social order, marked by widespread violence, property destruction, and loss of life. Apart from immediate physical damage, riots have enduring consequences, including economic disruption, psychological trauma, and diminished trust in institutions. Furthermore, riots often exacerbate existing social tensions and deepen divisions within communities, leading to prolonged instability. At the core of any functioning society lies the rule of law, which serves as a fundamental pillar of democratic governance and individual rights. Riots directly challenge the rule of law by undermining the authority of legal institutions and eroding public confidence in the justice system. Through decisive action to address riots promptly and effectively, authorities convey a clear message that lawlessness will not be tolerated, and those responsible will be held accountable for their actions. The foremost duty of government is to safeguard the safety and security of its populace. When riots erupt, this responsibility becomes even more pressing, as both lives and livelihoods are at stake. Law enforcement agencies bear a pivotal role in safeguarding lives and properties amidst riots, mobilizing resources and personnel to preempt violence, disband crowds, and reinstate order. Through maintaining a conspicuous presence and exercising judicious restraint as warranted, authorities can alleviate the repercussions of riots and diminish the harm inflicted on communities. Riots frequently emanate from entrenched grievances and societal disparities, highlighting systemic issues necessitating scrutiny and remediation. While addressing the underlying causes of unrest is crucial for long-term stability, maintaining social cohesion immediately following riots is equally imperative. By swiftly restoring order and facilitating dialogue among stakeholders, authorities can mitigate the risk of further tensions and foster reconciliation within affected communities. Establishing trust and communication between law enforcement and community members is paramount, as it lays the groundwork for cooperation in addressing root issues. The Pakistani state is fully dedicated to rigorously addressing riots and anti-state elements.
In Pakistan, no institution other than the Pak Army has remained unscathed from attacks and disparagement, largely stemming from Imran Khan’s rhetoric. I recall an incident during a sit-in where he threatened to forcefully remove the Prime Minister from office. Addressing his supporters in Islamabad, Khan made derogatory remarks against political opponents, police, and judicial officials. Notably, he publicly named a female judge who had ruled against one of his associates. His actions and statements against institutions are well-documented.
Imran Khan has fostered a toxic culture of hatred, intolerance, agitation, and disrespect. He has consistently targeted and attempted to undermine Pakistan’s institutions. While May 9 represents a dark chapter in Pakistan’s history, it also underscores the nation’s resolve to reject divisive narratives and embrace unity. The Pakistani people hold a deep affection for their country and its institutions, and they demand accountability for those who seek to undermine them. The entire nation eagerly anticipates witnessing the positive outcomes of sincere efforts undertaken by a committed civil-military leadership for the progress and development of Pakistan.
