[local_crmdgeon]

Can you explain what TF is going on with Imran Khan? Everyone I see talking about it is either American or Indian and I'm sure they're wrong about basically every detail.

It's good what happened? It's bad? He's in jail?

[roncesvalles]

To understand what's going on requires a deep understanding of Pakistan and its "military-veto democracy". This is the best explanation I've seen, from a veteran Indian journalist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0boy9JdZfWE

tl;dw: The powers-that-be in Pakistan -- the army and whichever political dynasty the army favors that day -- routinely overrule the popular vote because they don't believe that democracy will always spit out the best candidate. This is partly due to arrogance but also because the institutions that are supposed to keep a check on harmful populism in Pakistan are broken or corrupt. These powers-that-be have decided that IK is bad for Pakistan (twist: they're probably right about this; IK is a religious fundamentalist and a giveaway socialist in a country that is broke) and have invoked "special measures" to keep his name off the ballot or the ballot away from the people. Understandably, this has angered the people who have taken to the streets.

[dkarl]

My impression (from western sources) is that he adopted religion and married a religious wife to distance himself from his western playboy past and broaden his political appeal. He chose a wife who is Sufi, which is a form of Islam that is legally accepted in Pakistan but which has been attacked for not being strict enough, because it focuses more on religious experience and less on religious rules than conservative scholars would like.

It seems like a smart choice for a politician who needed to cement his religious status to be viable in an overwhelmingly religious country but wanted to avoid the appearance of insincerity or hypocrisy in cases where he decides not to support conservative religious political policies.

[jychang]

Wrong thread?

[dkarl]

The parent is claiming that Imran Khan is a religious fundamentalist.

[pessimizer]

These psychological explanations are post hoc justifications. Instead of pretending to know what internally motivates people, it's far more practical and fruitful (and dangerous) to look at who finances people. I guarantee the reason isn't because the army (whichever army or "whatever political dynasty") just wants what's best for people.

[game_the0ry]

Pakistani, here.

What happened to Imran Khan is similar to what happened to and continues to happen to world leaders in unstable countries where the west financial and/or national security interests - sloppy regime changes.

As far as whether or not this turns out for the people of PK, we will never know bc he was nto in office long enough to do anything meaningful. PK needs like 20 yrs of stability to see any real progress.

I will say this - Imran Khan was very popular among the young, middle class types I know in PK (bc he is a populist), but not liked by western establishment governments. Take that for what it is worth.

[phatfish]

The military have quite a strong political influence in Pakistan I think?

There is some parallel to Turkey, the military there had a lot of influence, until Erdogan out maneuvered them. The military in Turkey were supposedly protecting democracy and keeping the state secular, but threatening coups against democratically elected politicians doesn't scream protecting democracy to me.

European countries had a working relationship with Erdogan in the beginning because of this. Obviously power corrupted in the end.

It feels like a similar situation with Imran Khan (both did time in prison on politically motivated charges), but I don't know enough about Pakistani politics to be sure.

[lbsnake7]

The reason for the strong political influence of the military is two fold:

1. Political institutions in Pakistan are very weak and when things start to truly go bad, people look toward the military to bring law and order and not their elected leaders. This in turn gives the military a seat at the table to impact internal matters and foreign relations.

2. India - using India as a general boogeyman since independence has given the military brass a lot of money and power. They in turn use this to further their political ideology and when things start to go a way they don’t like they can start a coup. In turn the people generally go along with this as they think army control might be better than their leaders to solve their issues.

Like it was mentioned, Pakistan needs a few decades of peaceful democracy to get their shit together. Otherwise it will keep circling the drain of being a failed state.

[hadlock]

This was my take as well. Kahn signed an arms deal with Russia just days before the Ukrainian conflict happened. Less than two weeks after the invasion happened he was ousted from office. Pretty unusual, Imran Kahn has been wildly popular in Pakistan for decades, since at least the mid-1980s where he was a Cricket (sport) superstar

[hadlock]

Wow I was not expecting to get down voted for that. If you have a differing opinion just say so

[sfjailbird]

Imran Khan is one of a very few leaders in that entire region who is not corrupt, by general consensus. His political program is heavily social (practically socialist), as well as (unsurprisingly) anti-corruption. These are all great things, if you are the average Pakistani, hence his popularity.

Whether he is a good leader for the country is another matter. He is principled to a fault, which is probably also his downfall. In the world of realpolitik, he probably never stood a chance. It is questionable if he could ever actually carry out his policies, having antagonized practically the entire state apparatus.