Imran Khan Needs Money

I switched on ARY Digital a few nights ago, and yet again, there he was, the illustrious Imran Khan being interviewed by P.J. Mir. Is it just me or does Mr. Khan seem to be getting a disproportionate share of air time on ARY? Considering, after all, he has just one national assembly seat to his credit. But that’s a discussion for another day. The more surprising issue is his desperate plea for money. Tehreek-e-Insaaf lacked requisite funds to win more seats, argued Mr. Khan, and so he made his appeal for donations for his eclectic political party. It got better. Mr. Khan cited political uncertainty as the chief reason why Tehreek-e-Insaaf was unsuccessful in collecting the money it so needed to do better in the elections.

Did I hear that right or was Imran Khan really asking us, average Pakistanis, for money to launch his political career! After all, Mr. Khan is one of the richest Pakistanis out there. Sir Goldsmith, his late father-in-law, was valued at roughly a billion dollars at the time of his death. Jemima was said to inherit a seventh of his estate net of administrative costs—that amounts to a whopping 100 million dollars!! Give or take. That is clearly more money than even the more well-to-do amongst us can dream of. And here he is, Imran Khan, straight-faced, asking us for funds, claiming that even his Mianwali electoral exercise suffered from paucity of funds. Well Imran, if you’re going to be stingy in spending on your political adventure, that’s not our problem. A million pound vacation home in Fulham, a two crore property on Hillside Road in Islamabad, exotic vacations in Mexico and Europe, and he wants us to fund his political advancement! Wake up and smell the coffee, Imran. This isn’t a cancer hospital where we can justifiably mail in our zakat, where young school children can contribute their pocket money. Think about what the money is for—Mr. Khan’s shot at Pakistani politics—where the deliverable is, at best, unclear. Small wonder nobody contributed.

But this is how it is done in the West, Imran explained. So, there we go—that’s the ultimate validation—if the West does it, why shouldn’t we? (Incidentally, Mr. Khan hovers about the MMA when it comes to foreign policy issues, but that too is a story for another day). Perhaps I’m being a bit too harsh here. It is true that the West has far better systems and developed democratic institutions as compared to us. And if we are indeed an aspiring democracy, it would not be a bad idea to follow in their footsteps. But not blindly, unquestioningly.

Let’s take a look at Britain. In spite of its rigid class structure and monarchist traditions, Britain tries to be egalitarian in the electoral process. There are strict limits on the amount of money expendable on any given candidate’s election. Generally, the amount spent has a judiciously monitored and enforced cap of £5,000. Not a whole lot of money for a country as rich as Britain. Clearly, however, in Pakistan, law enforcement leaves much to be desired. And so a set monetary limit on any candidacy would in all likelihood evade enforcement. No, can’t do. Doesn’t work. Let’s move on then—let’s look at the U.S.

The capitalist-endearing U.S. system allows campaign contributions and fund raisers for that purpose. But who makes the contributions? Not your run of the mill Jo Shmo. No sirrey, it’s almost always big business and rich folk with vested interests that inevitably have a game plan. You scratch my back, I scratch yours, is the principle. Once the party they support is in power, the donors often want something in return. Enron and WorldCom notwithstanding, the system generally works for them primarily because it is a super-rich economy with many pieces in the pie. Even so, financial contribution remains one of the key sources of scandal in U.S. politics—the Clintons were marred with Whitewater till Monica Lewinsky became the flavour of the day.

Clearly, Mr. Khan cannot be asking us to follow the example of the U.S. in the one area where their democracy cries for reform. Simultaneously, it begs the question—who is his target audience when Mr. Khan makes his funds appeal? The average Pakistani, far worse off than the average American, barely makes ends meet, if that. If it is the rich who are being asked to donate, that too is odd, for is Mr. Khan prepared to mete out the favours that come as part and parcel of rich folk contributions to political campaigns. If the answer to this is in the affirmative then out goes the corruption platform. I would surely be interested to know how Mr. Khan and his advisors intend to reconcile these issues.