From Unity to Discord: Populism’s Cost

In contemporary political discourse, the tension between democracy and populism has emerged as a defining challenge. Democracy, with its foundational commitment to pluralism and peaceful power transitions, acts as a unifying force within nations. In contrast, populism often divides societies, framing opposition not merely as political rivals but as enemies of the people. The consequences of this dichotomy are far-reaching, particularly in fragile democracies like Pakistan, where the rise of populist leaders such as Imran Khan has posed a significant threat to democratic stability and societal cohesion. This article explores the fundamental differences between democracy and populism and examines the divisive impact of populist politics, using Imran Khan’s tenure and its aftermath as a case study.
Democracy thrives on the principle of inclusion. It acknowledges the multiplicity of viewpoints within a society and provides a structured framework for these perspectives to coexist. Elections in democratic systems are not battles for survival but mechanisms for renewal. Losing parties accept results, regroup, and prepare for the next electoral cycle. This process fosters continuity, stability, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts.
Moreover, democracy institutionalizes dissent. Citizens and political parties can voice opposition without being labeled as adversaries of the state. The rule of law and independent judiciary act as safeguards, ensuring that governments remain accountable and power transitions occur without violence. This framework not only preserves societal harmony but also strengthens the legitimacy of governance by ensuring it reflects the will of the majority while respecting minority rights.
Populism, by contrast, thrives on polarization. Populist leaders often portray themselves as the sole representatives of the “real” or “pure” people, casting opponents as corrupt elites or agents of external powers. This “us versus them” narrative erodes the fabric of democracy by delegitimizing opposition and dissent. In populist rhetoric, electoral losses are not seen as part of the democratic process but as evidence of systemic manipulation or betrayal.
The result is a dangerous erosion of trust in democratic institutions. Populist leaders often paint state institutions, including the judiciary, bureaucracy, and media, as complicit in undermining the will of the people. This narrative fosters an environment where followers are encouraged to view any government other than that of their chosen leader as illegitimate. In extreme cases, this can lead to civil unrest and a breakdown of democratic norms.
Imran Khan’s political journey provides a textbook example of populism and its destabilizing effects on democracy. Initially celebrated as a reformist and an anti-corruption crusader, Khan leveraged populist rhetoric to galvanize mass support. He positioned himself as the voice of the disenfranchised, promising to dismantle a corrupt political elite and restore the rights of the common man. However, his tenure as Prime Minister (2018-2022) and his actions following his removal from office reveal the darker side of populist politics.
Khan’s narrative consistently framed opposition parties and state institutions as obstacles to the people’s will. His dismissal from office via a parliamentary no-confidence vote in April 2022 was portrayed not as a constitutional mechanism but as a conspiracy orchestrated by domestic and foreign enemies. This rhetoric not only delegitimized the democratic process but also incited his supporters to revolt against state institutions. Violent protests, attacks on military installations, and public disobedience became hallmarks of his post-ouster strategy.
Khan’s divisive tactics have left Pakistan’s democracy in a precarious state. His relentless critique of the judiciary, armed forces, and election commission has weakened public trust in these institutions. Meanwhile, his refusal to accept electoral losses or engage in meaningful dialogue with political opponents has deepened societal rifts. These actions highlight the inherent danger of populism: its tendency to prioritize personal power over institutional stability and national unity.
It is crucial to understand the long-term consequences of unchecked populism. Populist leaders often leave a legacy of division and institutional decay. Their followers, conditioned to view dissent as betrayal, may struggle to reintegrate into a pluralistic political culture. This undermines the very essence of democracy, which relies on mutual respect and the peaceful resolution of differences.
In Pakistan’s context, Khan’s populism has not only polarized the masses but also painted the state as an adversary. His rhetoric has encouraged a culture of defiance against state authority, with devastating consequences for governance and law and order. If this trajectory continues, the country risks sliding further into political instability and social discord.
The battle between democracy and populism is not merely a theoretical debate; it has tangible implications for the stability and unity of nations. Democracy, with its commitment to pluralism and institutional integrity, offers a path toward sustainable governance and societal harmony. Populism, on the other hand, sows seeds of division, undermines trust in institutions, and threatens the very foundations of democratic governance.
For Pakistan, the lessons are clear. The masses must recognize the dangers of populist rhetoric and the dark path it paves. Imran Khan’s rise and fall serve as a cautionary tale, underscoring the need to prioritize democratic norms over personal loyalty to any leader. Only by reaffirming a commitment to democracy can Pakistan hope to rebuild trust, restore stability, and chart a course toward a more united and prosperous future.