Not for the first time in its modern history, Pakistan’s judiciary — tacitly backed by the rest of its “establishment” — appears to be seeking to snuff out the career of a leading politician. Late last week, former prime minister Imran Khan was convicted of misappropriating official gifts. He has been sentenced to three years in prison and cannot stand for election for five years.
Khan claims, not without reason, that the slew of legal proceedings against him are intended to keep him from contesting the next general elections, expected this fall. Khan’s party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf or PTI, has won a streak of by-elections since being forced out of power last year and has a good chance of returning to power.
That prospect is anathema to Pakistan’s establishment, in which the military plays a dominant role. After first embracing Khan’s insurgent, Islamist, anti-US rhetoric, the generals have more recently recoiled against his increasingly direct, populist attacks.
Past Pakistani leaders, including Khan’s predecessor Nawaz Sharif, have been disqualified on equally flimsy grounds. In many ways, though, Khan’s hold over his followers is unique — closer to that wielded by a figure such as former US president Donald Trump, himself caught up in an expanding legal morass. Neither man’s opponents should celebrate too soon.
On the one hand, it is true that the populist movements led by figures such as Khan and Trump are highly dependent on their personalities. Khan’s decades in the public eye as the charismatic captain of the national cricket team mean that his followers see him not as a “regular” politician but as a successful celebrity outsider capable of transforming the country.
Both men are also in their 70s, with no obvious successors. Entangling them in court proceedings and appeals should theoretically distract them long enough to break the hold they have over their followers. It is hard to look like a winner if you are losing case after case in the courts.
It is equally true that neither Khan nor Trump can credibly complain about their treatment. Khan, who originally rose to power thanks to the military’s backing and who campaigned for Sharif’s disqualification as a candidate, cannot act surprised if the establishment has now withdrawn its protection. Similarly, Trump has plenty of nerve criticizing the US Justice Department after cheering on the FBI’s far less damning inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server in 2016.
Nevertheless, both men are likely to get away with such cynical attacks. Like all populist leaders, their appeal is based around the belief that they share their followers’ experience of victimization and persecution. Those acolytes do not particularly care about the open hypocrisy of their champions. Liberals believe that those who break norms should pay a price for this error, populist leaders can convince voters that norms are just another establishment conspiracy.
On purely rational grounds, too, Khan has reason for confidence. Pakistan faces an economic emergency, which helps him make the usual populist case that the country has been betrayed by mainstream politicians.
Perhaps he would miss one election; that need not mean that his career is at an end. Pakistanis point out that even after Sharif was disqualified, his party clawed its way back into power. His brother is now prime minister. Knowing that might help explain why Khan’s followers have been relatively muted in their response to his conviction so far.
In Pakistan no less than the US, the fact is that no judicial verdict, however justified or overdue, can substitute for a political one. Khan’s sentencing, just like Trump’s many indictments, would only feed his followers’ paranoia and paradoxically increase his political power.
Liberals in the US should have learned by now they cannot rely on judges to fight their battles for them. Similarly, Pakistan’s establishment, accustomed to pulling strings behind the scenes, needs to step back and let Pakistan’s civilian politicians — who love neither Khan nor the military — learn how to win back voters’ trust on their own.
Populism is a disease of democracy and needs to be defeated democratically. The US, with its centuries-old institutions, might be able to see off Trump next year; Pakistan, with a much shallower democratic tradition, might find moving beyond Khan much harder.
However, the defense of democracy permits no shortcuts.
Mihir Sharma is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi, he is author of Restart: The Last Chance for the Indian Economy. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s