Narcissistic leaders often create a “cult of personality” where loyalty to the leader becomes more important than adherence to democratic processes or the well-being of the nation. Narcissistic leaders are psychologically characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and a lack of empathy for others. They tend to see themselves as above the rules, focusing more on their personal image and power than on the collective good, which can have a number of negative consequences, including poor decision-making, disregard for others’ opinions, and an inability to work cooperatively. This strategy has the potential to weaken institutional trust, undermine government, and cause social division in a democracy. These dynamics are particularly noticeable in Pakistan’s political history, as the emergence of narcissistic leadership has had a major impact on the political, social, and economic climate of the nation.
One of Pakistan’s best examples of this type of leadership is Imran Khan, a former cricket player who is now a politician. Promises of transformation, such as his commitment to establish a “Naya Pakistan” (New Pakistan) free from poverty and corruption, marked the beginning of Khan’s political career. Many people found resonance in his message, especially those who were dissatisfied with the established political elite. However, his leadership style gradually evolved to exhibit many narcissistic characteristics. Khan became increasingly preoccupied with his personal reputation, and his policies frequently revolved around his image rather than real answers to Pakistan’s problems. His reluctance to accept criticism and penchant to blame others for his flaws resulted in a heated political atmosphere. Khan’s unwillingness to accept opposing viewpoints or participate in constructive engagement with opposition parties exacerbated tensions in Pakistani society.
One of the most obvious manifestations of Khan’s narcissistic behavior was his attitude to governing. As Prime Minister, Khan centralized power in his own hands, ignoring regular democratic processes and making choices based on his own judgment rather than those of experts or his cabinet. This consolidation of authority was demonstrated by his reliance on presidential ordinances and his failure to build a clear succession plan inside his party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Khan’s policies frequently appeared to be motivated by a desire to perpetuate personal power, rather than a real interest for developing Pakistan’s political institutions or maintaining stability. His repeated contempt for parliamentary procedures, as well as his personal attacks on institutions such as the court and military, both of which were frequently critical of his government, demonstrated a refusal to accept any opposing viewpoint. This resulted in a political environment that prioritized devotion to Khan as an individual over the promotion of democratic values.
Another characteristic of Khan’s narcissistic leadership style was his propensity to fabricate a victim story. Khan refused to acknowledge the legality of the process when he was removed from office in April 2022 after a vote of no-confidence. Instead, he presented himself as a martyr battling against global powers and asserted that his expulsion was the consequence of a foreign conspiracy. His supporters, many of whom viewed him as a champion of their interests, continued to support him because of this victim narrative. But because it depicted a country split between Khan’s supporters and everyone else, this rhetoric simply served to further polarize Pakistani society. Despite his inability to lead successfully, he was able to keep his place as a key figure in Pakistani politics by using his power over traditional media outlets and his ability to control the narrative on social media.
Khan’s narcissistic inclinations also hurt his reputation abroad. His activities frequently appeared unpredictable and self-serving on the international scene. Many of Pakistan’s longstanding allies were offended by his choice to travel to Russia in February 2022, just days before Russia invaded Ukraine. His reputation was further damaged by rumors that international leaders had called him “rude” and a “narcissist.” These critiques showed how his leadership style harmed Pakistan’s relations with other nations in addition to his own actions. Khan’s actions were frequently perceived as self-serving, prioritizing his personal interests over those of Pakistan or its people.
Khan’s fan base remained steadfastly loyal in spite of these flaws, frequently attributing his inadequacies to outside forces rather than his own poor leadership. This devotion demonstrated the perils of narcissistic leadership while also demonstrating the strength of his personality cult. Although Khan’s supporters persisted in viewing him as a savior, the larger political landscape grew more poisonous, with widening rifts and annoyance among those who disagreed with him. It was evident that his narcissism had a detrimental effect on Pakistan’s political and social structure. Although some found his leadership inspiring, in the end, it made the nation more divided and economically unstable.
Finally, the leadership of Imran Khan in Pakistan is a potent reminder of the perils of narcissistic politics. Excessive narcissism can erode institutions, polarize society, and obstruct good governance, yet charismatic leaders can inspire immense loyalty and effect change. Khan’s legacy emphasizes the value of leaders who put the welfare of the group ahead of their own goals and are open to hearing different points of view in order to create a more secure and prosperous future for their nation.