Zulfi Bukhari’s recent campaign for Imran Khan’s chancellorship at Oxford University has revealed several strategic errors. The campaign not only showed inadequate preparation but also called into doubt Bukhari’s competency and Khan’s candidature. Engaging many lobbying companies was costly and unsuccessful since their efforts failed to create a unified narrative. Instead of bolstering Khan’s candidature, the dispersed campaign aroused concerns about outside meddling. The excessive dependence on public relations gimmicks reveals poor planning and a misunderstanding of Oxford’s academic ethos, which prioritises scholarship over theatrics. Oxford elections require honesty and depth, not PR stunts.
By focusing on media visibility, Bukhari harmed the campaign’s credibility. Instead of making a convincing argument for Khan’s chancellorship based on qualifications or vision, the campaign relied on Khan’s “brand power,” which resonates in Pakistani politics but not in UK academic circles. Bukhari’s reaction to bad legal advice from a King’s Counsel demonstrates the campaign’s lack of preparedness. His flippant remarks—claiming that for every unfavourable opinion, he could supply 200 positive ones—show a lack of knowledge of how legal choices affect institutional entities such as Oxford. Legal views from credible sources have weight, and claiming that bad opinions are the product of lobbying simply exacerbates public impression.
Legal problems cannot be overlooked at Oxford, which is governed by institutional standards and directed by rigorous processes. The fact that a legal chamber questioned Khan’s eligibility made it critical for the campaign to answer these concerns via study rather than media manipulation. Bukhari’s failure to anticipate this obstacle demonstrates carelessness and bad strategic thinking. The campaign has also drawn significant criticism, with many accusing Bukhari of mismanaging the process. Critics have often cited the interview in which he dismissed legal concerns, fuelling doubts about his leadership abilities. Bukhari’s efforts to blame opposing lobbying companies indicate a failure to effectively handle objections and counterarguments.
Furthermore, his statements against other Pakistani political parties—claiming that the PPP and PML-N need Khan in jail to survive—have diverted attention away from the campaign’s emphasis. Instead of improving Khan’s reputation, these statements strengthened the notion that Khan’s candidature was motivated by political grievances rather than intellectual desire. Oxford’s scholarly community is immune to the political techniques utilised in Pakistan. Zulfi’s assertion that “differences of opinion are normal” inside the PTI may be applicable in political arenas, but it does not explain the question regarding Khan’s eligibility. The idea that Khan’s imprisonment and exile from politics qualifies him for the chancellorship is erroneous. Oxford’s decision-making processes are focused on merit, eligibility, and institutional rules rather than compassion or political hardship.
Furthermore, presenting Khan’s imprisonment as the primary cause for other political parties’ existence diverts attention away from the campaign’s aim. Instead of establishing Khan’s eligibility, the story portrayed him as a political martyr—a perspective with little relevance to an academic election. The most obvious concern is scepticism about Zulfi Bukhari’s competency and commitment. His tumultuous campaign, characterised by poor planning and unclear message, has left many wondering if he aided or harmed Khan’s cause. The outcry on social media reflects rising dissatisfaction among Khan’s followers, who blame Bukhari for causing an unnecessary PR disaster. His incapacity to manage international legal systems and cultural sensitivities has irreversibly undermined the campaign.
The reaction on social media indicates the dissatisfaction of fans who anticipated more leadership and planning. In the end, the campaign’s refusal to interact with Oxford’s norms and principles caused more harm than good. If anything, this misadventure demonstrates that political theatrics cannot substitute solid policy, particularly on a global scale.
