‘POPULISM’ in politics emphasises the approach of reaching out or appealing to the masses. Quite often, there is a fine line between what constitutes policy and what constitutes populism. For example, to fight corruption, a policy is proposed. When candidates for political office fight from such a platform, they are proposing structural improvements that can change a country for the better.

Fighting corruption is a strong platform to run on, but it is not necessarily a populist one. The average voter will always come back to question how such a policy impacts them. Structural changes are defined by a long-term view — it can take years, if not decades, for the benefits to trickle down to the average voter. It is not typically possible to produce quick and tangible benefits for the public.

Compare that to a political candidate who vows to fight against elite capture in a country. Promises of draining the swamp, or throwing opponents in jail, or taking the country back from ‘the looters’ appeal to the emotions of the public far, far more than announcements of structural policy proposals.

Populism is an ‘us versus them’ approach. A populist leader will blame the problems of a country on a select group of elites while making himself/herself out to be the person representing the masses and vowing to take the country back from the elite group. Putting a face on corruption engages the interest of the public in a way that proposals to amend certain laws cannot.

Voters always come back to question how a policy impacts them.

Regrettably, populism has a way of damaging the quality of conversation in a country. When Donald Trump was gaining steam in the 2016 elections, his Republican opponents were forced to change their style of politics as well. After all, here was a contestant whose entire election manifesto was centred on the ‘drain the swamp’ debate, yet he was leading the Republican race convincingly. Career politicians, like Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, who announced their candidacy on a multi-policy platform, were struggling to keep pace with him.

So, instead of discussing their own policy proposals, they started personal attacks against him — targeting his sources of wealth and history of racism. Interestingly, if you go back and follow the 2016 Republican debates, from first to last, the candidates who stuck to their policy proposals were weeded out while those who took the Trump approach and threw back punches were able to stick to the end.

We have seen a similar scene play out in Pakistan. Policy has never been Prime Minister Imran Khan’s strong suit. His main appeal has always rested on the fact that he led Pakistan to a World Cup win in cricket. However, his 2014 ‘Azadi march’, that showcased personal attacks and vitriol, was a harbinger of the politician we see today. Imran Khan was able to pander to the emotions of the public with promises of taking the country back from the ‘plunderers’ and ‘looters’ among politicians such as the Sharifs and Zardaris.

As populist leaders gain popularity, they have to do more of the same to ensure they can continue to keep the masses engaged. But populism is a hollow pursuit. Trump and Khan both became more aggressive in tone over time, focusing less on the ‘how’ and more on the ‘who’. Khan, despite gaining power, continues to attack his opponents with greater fervour than when he was not in power. In fact, it appears that even as prime minister, Khan is playing the role of opposition

Underneath a self-cultivated messiah image lies a deficit of concrete policy proposals that could enable meaningful change in the country. Populism is quickly and always exposed. After nearly four years in power, the party leader’s focus is on undermining political opponents, inst­e­­ad of reflecting and engaging in a serious discussion on the governm­ent’s performance or the future course of the country.

Unfortunately, fighting populism with policy is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Therefore, just like Trump’s opponents, Khan’s political rivals, too, have also focused solely on berating and discrediting the prime minister, instead of discussing what concrete measures they themselves can take for the country.

Populism has the potential to seriously undermine the political narrative, discourse and behaviour in a country. One need only look at the Jan 6, 2021, Capitol attack in Washington, and the Sindh House attack in Islamabad about a week back, in order to understand the kind of effect such a brand of politics can have on the country.

It is hoped that, with the country standing on the precipice of another political shift, the leaders of tomorrow will start to focus more on formulating sound policies and less on pandering to the emotions of the public. The future course of Pakistan depends on it.

The writer is a lawyer.

Twitter: @azwarshakeel12

Published in Dawn, March 29th, 2022