Last Sunday, during his last major public speech, PM Imran Khan spoke about a ‘letter’ that his government received from certain international powers. While clutching a copy of the supposed letter, he claimed that his ouster through a no-confidence motion moved by the opposition was part of a global conspiracy. He, rather conveniently, also said he could not make the contents of the letter public.

Analysts who know Khan well were of the view that this was nothing more than yet another populist stunt by a man who has repeatedly used sensationalist claims to retain the awe of his core constituents, whose faculties of critical thinking remain suspended while listening to him.

But the number of people willing to do this for Khan has steadily declined ever since he came to power and stumbled badly. Nevertheless, there are still quite a few who want to retain the original reverie that they were fed a decade ago. It was a fantasy about the emergence of an incorruptible, morally upright and brave leader, set to vanquish the ‘old corrupt political elite.’

But there were always some analysts who were warning that it was just that: a fantasy. Their analyses were treated as sour grapes when the fantasy began being aggressively peddled by a large number of TV anchors and, ironically, especially by some leading figures of the state elite. However, the fantasy started to crumble with alarming speed when Khan finally managed to get himself ‘elected’ as PM.

To understand how PM Imran Khan ended up where he is today, the fine line between political amorality and bad politics needs to be understood

It quickly became apparent that he just wasn’t cut out for the job. And the elites who had put him there began to worry. Analysts who saw this coming were few. But their analysis would be proven right, though they continued to be ridiculed, even by their own contemporaries.

Interestingly, though the contemporaries in this respect were extremely sceptical about an analysis that was predicting the gradual crash of Khan’s regime, they were quick to invest more brain cells on something that was quite obviously nothing more than a political stunt: the letter that Khan was waving.

If only they had been more invested in doing some actual political analysis, they would have reached the same conclusion that only a handful of analysts, such as Najam Sethi, Saleem Safi, Fahd Hussain and Abbas Nasir, did. And even when it became apparent that things were moving towards exactly what these analysts had predicted, there was still an exhibition of denial or, worse, some finger-wagging about ‘horse-trading.’

People often talk in cliches when it comes to politics. This has become more-than-apparent on social media sites, especially Twitter. In a nutshell, ‘good politics’ is about exhibiting high morals and ethics, and ‘bad politics’ is about being unethical, and even immoral. This understanding is rooted in theological notions of morality, which are even embedded in many secular folk as well.

Theological notions treat morality as the direct opposite of immorality. Indeed, theologians often ignore the relative natures of morality and immorality, but others are aware that they are relative. Yet, even they, to make an immediate comment, especially on social media or on a TV talk-show, use absolutist theological concepts of morality and immorality.

Take for example the opinions tweeted by journalists and TV personalities who were not tilting towards Imran Khan. When the no-confidence move against Khan began heating up, and some members of the ruling party started to exhibit their intent to vote against his government, Khan and his ministers claimed that they were being “bought” by the opposition.

There was no visible evidence to substantiate this claim. Yet, some ‘well-meaning journalists’ joined the chorus. In their minds, they were not echoing what the government was saying; rather, they were speaking against the ‘unethical’ and ‘immoral’ nature of Pakistani politics.

Most of them (apart from, of course, those who were unabashedly pro-Khan) had aired similar views, when before the 2018 elections, Khan’s party was being stuffed by his friends with ‘electables’ from other parties in the then not-very-neutral establishment.

They may have come out seeming more ‘objective’ than the usual pro-Khan or pro-opposition lot, but this objectivity, really, has little to do with any detached analysis. Rather, it is grounded in theological notions of ethics and morality, not politics.

One feels that they understand politics as they would a social issue. Of course, social issues are frequently tied to politics, but they are not politics. For example, most crimes are social issues. The political bit in this only emerges when a government gets involved in addressing the issue. If the crime is committed by a politician, it is still a social issue. It only becomes political if it is used to undermine a political opponent. That’s tactic. Are political tactics immoral? Not quite. They are amoral.

Morality is a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behaviour and character. Such definitions are derived from ‘moral theories’ conjured by theologians, and by moral theorists. Moral theory is about ‘what ought to be’, instead of ‘what is’ (F. Lamus in Moral Christianity versus Civic Virtue).

Lamus writes that politics has its own set of morals. The Italian political thinker Niccolò Machiavelli (d.1527) separated political morality from individual/personal morality and warned that the two can collide when it comes to defending the republic. According to Machiavelli, if holding power is the most desired goal, then wisdom only involves how to achieve it. Lamus concludes, “politics thus becomes an art, freed from ethics.”

Of course, this would sound rather repulsive to most. But political amoralism is dependent on the impact it has on the polity. For example, if a politician or a dictator uses religion to attract support, it is often seen as exploiting religion. But the fact is, it is a political tactic. However, if this tactic ends up creating discord in society then it is bad politics — not because it is immoral, or unethical, but because the discord can negatively impact (even dislodge) the tactician’s position and power. Political amorality has its own checks.

Khan acquired power through political amorality. But when this amorality began to create discord, he ended up where he is today. This is an analysis. But saying that he should be allowed to complete his full term, is not. That is a personal, moral opinion.

Published in Dawn, EOS, April 3rd, 2022