here are political failures, and then there are collapses that feel Shakespearean. Former prime minister Imran Khan’s trajectory lies in the latter category. Khan’s downfall was not simply about losing an election; it was the inevitable collapse of a political experiment built on a myth; a delusion that personal magnetism could substitute for coherent policy, robust institutions and genuine accountability.

From the moment he took office on August 18, 2018, he cast himself as a crusader against corruption, a champion of the dispossessed and the man who would heal Pakistan’s deep divides. The dream found fertile ground among the disillusioned middle classes, Diaspora youth and urban professionals who projected their aspirations onto him, mistaking polished rhetoric and personal austerity for political vision. But charisma, unanchored from competence and reliant on fleeting alliances, proved a dangerously hollow foundation, leaving the country more fragmented and its democratic architecture ever weaker.

Khan’s government did register some popular achievements. The Ehsaas programme digitised cash transfers, scholarships and health stipends, briefly working on extreme poverty. The Sehat Card extended up to Rs 1 million in annual medical coverage to millions of families in the Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. His United Nations address on Islamophobia and advocacy for Kashmir earned him applause.

However, each of these victories rested on precarious scaffolding. Ehsaas continued to rely on an outdated social registry, leaving data mismatches unresolved. Provinces not governed by the PTI stalled or watered down the Sehat Card rollout. Foreign policy gestures, while well received initially, masked a lack of a cohesive strategy that could survive changing alliances and economic crises. Good intentions failed to translate into enduring reform.

From the start, Khan positioned himself above the moral rot. His project was personal, not political in the traditional sense. He wasn’t just another leader; he was the alternative. However, this distinction survived only as long as his methods went unexamined. Historian Ayesha Jalal captured this contradiction well, describing Khan as “more of a populist authoritarian than a beacon of light for his democracy-deprived compatriots, leading a party that refuses to talk to political rivals and wants a direct line with the chief of army staff.” This craving for unilateral authority was baked into his politics from the beginning, even as it was cloaked in rhetoric of reform.

Governance

Long before governance began, Khan mastered pageantry. His 2011 Lahore rally was choreographed like a cinematic premiere: drone footage, stirring anthems, epic crowds beneath the banner of Naya Pakistan. Social media subsumed policy debates in high-definition visuals and moral slogans. Once in power, he governed much as he campaigned - for the camera. This obsession with appearances soon shaped key decisions. Loyalty often trumped expertise. The appointment of Usman Buzdar as chief minister exemplified this dynamic. The finance ministry turned over three ministers in as many years, extinguishing any hope of sustained economic planning.

Senator Mustafa Nawaz Khokhar encapsulated the widespread frustration when he argued that Khan’s stubborn refusal to replace Buzdar, despite repeated advice, reflected a callous disregard for effective governance. Khokhar also lamented that it was “a tragedy that a totally inexperienced person was given........

© The News on Sunday