Pakistani elections have proved to be an interesting study as we see the party that was unable to campaign come out strong even in a splintered state. Election results have once again hit false narratives of traditional parties as voters voted for a leaderless group of independents only because Imran Khan’s PTI supported them. This has revealed the will of the majority that are a direct hit at Pakistan’s political dynasties giving them a wakeup call to change what they are doing.
Given a chance, the voter actually wants a change, and not necessarily Imran Khan and PTI which are the only options from the traditional parties. There are many reasons why voters opted for the independents but could cult following be one of them?
Has Pakistan voted on populism, due to cult mentality or because they want a change?
Most voters might feel offended and declare that their votes were cast to change the status quo and for a better future. But can they answer why they made the choice – really made the choices they did in 2024?
If you ask voters why they didn’t vote for the major parties, some will say so and so party didn’t deliver in the past despite being in power for X number of years and they want to bring change. A logical reason. Why should voters vote for someone they know may probably not do anything if put back into power again?
However, other voters will keep voting for the same parties they have been for decades based on a personality or family name. These voters are not concerned about what the party or leader has delivered; they are loyal no matter what.
So, is Pakistani politics a form of political cult?
It would seem so, as most parties are based around personalities and/or family names. Each one has a major poster personality without which the party loses its importance. For example, PMLN is Nawaz Sharif; PTI is Imran Khan; MQM was Altaf Hussain; PPP is Bhutto and Bibi.
Remove any of these people or in PPP’s case the Bhutto name, will these parties survive? Well, recently we have seen the once formidable MQM crumble after its leader Altaf Hussain was removed. Similar predictions were made when Imran Khan was jailed, and we did see the party lose its momentum in the initial days of the PTI’s leader’s imprisonment.
It was too early to extract Imran Khan from the political scenario since his ‘legacy’ was still strong among the followers who were grieving the loss of their party and the treatment of their beloved leader. Certain ill-timed decisions and steps by the powers that be right before elections didn’t help their efforts to make PTI and its leader redundant and instead backfired, ending up motivating his already devoted voters.
Cult politics is a dangerous trend in a vulnerable country like Pakistan where democracy hasn’t been allowed to take root properly. Political cults are as dangerous as dictatorships. These cults revolve around the same orbit no matter what and continue to support the status quo without considering the short and long-term consequences.
In his 2021 Oped “Why personality cults and democracy don’t mix” in The Washington Post, Brian Klaas – associate professor of global politics at University College London and the host of the award-winning Power Corrupts podcast – wrote:
“At the extreme end, cults of personality are not just dangerous; they’re also absurd. As strange as they might seem, however, cults of personality are a rational mechanism to enforce control. They serve as loyalty tests that sort zealots from dissenters. Sometimes, they can be reasonably innocuous. But they morph into a dangerously authoritarian phenomenon when two criteria are met. First, if party members are required to publicly idolize a single political figure to be fully accepted, you have a problem. Second, if party members are punished for refusing to publicly parrot lies on behalf of that figure, things have gotten out of control.”
Cults are defined as a “usually small group devoted to a person, idea, or philosophy” (Britannica). It is a movement based usually on religious beliefs opposing the dominant party or ideology however some studies show that the cults were integrated into the society. Sometimes other factors apart from religion are the driving force in cults.
Other definitions explain cults as a group that has come together by a common ideological system based on a ‘we-they’ philosophy that has been developed and encouraged by a charismatic leader. The followers are in an echo chamber to drown out all other opinions and voices, they may be socially isolated from non-members including family to ingrain the cult’s doctrine into minds and the cult leader may be seen as a parental figure.
It is interesting to know that “one of the most prominent Roman cults was the imperial cult, which was dedicated to the worship of deceased and deified Roman emperors and their deified family members. Imperial cult worship reinforced the power of the dominant political system, and most or all of pre-Christian Roman society had some degree of membership in it”.
In an article published in The New York Times (1982 by Glenn Collins) ‘The Psychology of the Cult Experience’ Margaret T. Singer a professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley said: ”The techniques of many cults fall under the general rubric of brainwashing. Consciously and manipulatively cult leaders and their trainers exert a systematic social influence that can produce great behavioural changes.”
Experts outline some signs of cultic behaviour which may lead to or are shared by autocratic leaders. Cults may propagate concentration in a single person, the leader of the party or group using constant propaganda that resonates with the many people who eventually become followers. The cults develop rallies or festivals to keep the followers devoted to the leader and engaged through discussions (or speeches) of simple solutions that may or may not be practical and workable. These cults identify someone to blame and keep repeating this until this becomes the mantra and then the belief of the followers.
The followers believe only their leader is the one who can save them and others, and despite demanding democracy and rights, they are in danger of crossing the invisible line and accepting authoritarianism.
Populism and political and religious cults have done more damage to the country’s democracy hence the stability and economic prosperity. Democracy which is still in its nascent stage as the country sweeps through one nazuk dor (delicate time) after another, will survive and hopefully prosper as the country achieves some form of stability in the future.
Pakistan still needs to experience real democracy despite its dictators, autocrats, and democrats and although this is a long and arduous journey it will hopefully achieve this goal as the few but strong democratic voices keep speaking up for basic human rights regardless of a person’s affiliation.
