Nations are born and sustained through ideologies that serve as guiding principles, shaping every aspect of their statecraft. These ideologies transcend individuals and governments, embedding themselves into the state’s social, political, and cultural fabric. Institutions, as the functional organs of the state, are both a reflection of and a vehicle for perpetuating this ideology. They embody its values, protect its sanctity, and ensure its continuity through their policies, practices, and governance structures.
Institutionalism is not a mechanical process; it is an organic representation of a nation’s collective identity, aspirations, and values. Whether it is the judiciary, the legislature, the executive, or the armed forces, institutions are not isolated entities operating in a vacuum. They derive their legitimacy and strength from their alignment with the national ideology. The erosion of these institutions through internal discord, external manipulation, or populist rhetoric undermines the ideological coherence of the state. This is not a theoretical argument but a lived reality that has been observed repeatedly in history. When institutions are delegitimized, the state loses its anchor, leaving it vulnerable to chaos, instability, and disintegration.
The Weimar Republic (1919–1933) and the Soviet Union’s collapse (1980s–1991) are stark examples of how institutional erosion leads to state disintegration. The Weimar Republic, born under the shadow of the Treaty of Versailles, faced political polarization and economic turmoil. Populist rhetoric from the Nazi Party undermined institutions like the judiciary and parliament, eroding public trust and paving the way for totalitarian rule, World War II, and the Holocaust. Similarly, the Soviet Union, weakened by economic stagnation and Gorbachev’s reforms (glasnost and perestroika), saw its institutions lose legitimacy as nationalist movements and populist leaders like Boris Yeltsin criticized the central government. The ensuing instability culminated in the USSR’s dissolution in 1991, leaving a fragmented political and economic landscape. Both cases highlight the catastrophic consequences of institutional delegitimization.
In Pakistan’s context, the erosion of institutional legitimacy has taken a particularly dangerous turn under Imran Khan’s political trajectory. Imran Khan came to power in 2018, promising reform, accountability, and institutional integrity. His rhetoric of a “Naya Pakistan” (New Pakistan) resonated with a public disillusioned by decades of political corruption and mismanagement. However, his governance style and political strategies—both during and after his tenure—have sparked serious concerns about the long-term implications for Pakistan’s ideological and institutional fabric. After his removal through a vote of no-confidence in April 2022, Khan’s actions unleashed a series of events that have not only polarized the nation but have also directly threatened the stability of state institutions.
Since his ouster, Imran Khan’s relentless narrative has centered on accusations of a foreign conspiracy orchestrated by the United States in collusion with Pakistan’s military and political opposition. While domestic and international analysts have repeatedly debunked this claim, it has served as a potent tool for mobilizing Khan’s base. Khan’s approach has been to vilify every institution that does not align with his political ambitions. The military has been accused of orchestrating his ouster. The judiciary, when issuing rulings against him, has been labeled as compromised. The Election Commission of Pakistan has been accused of bias whenever decisions have not favored him. Even Pakistan’s democratic processes have been portrayed as corrupt and illegitimate unless they serve his interests. This wholesale de-legitimization is not born out of a desire for reform but rather a calculated effort to strip these institutions of their authority, rendering the state itself frail.
Imran Khan’s post-ouster political strategy represents a direct and systematic attack on the ideological foundation of Pakistan’s state institutions. In his quest to regain power, Khan has undertaken a relentless campaign to malign and delegitimize the very institutions that uphold the state’s ideology and structure. The ideological foundation of any state is inseparable from its institutions. Ideologies foster institutions, and institutions, in turn, safeguard and reinforce those ideologies. This reciprocal relationship forms the backbone of statecraft and governance. Any attack on state institutions is, therefore, an attack on the ideological essence of the state itself.
What makes this approach particularly dangerous is its underlying purpose: to dismantle the existing institutional framework so that Khan can present himself as the sole savior of the nation. This strategy not only undermines the state’s ability to function effectively but also shakes the very ideological principles upon which Pakistan was founded. Unity, faith, and discipline—values that form the ideological core of the nation—have been supplanted by division, mistrust, and disorder. By accusing state institutions of betrayal and conspiracies, he has created a climate of cynicism and suspicion among the masses. This erosion of trust in institutions has far-reaching consequences. It weakens the rule of law, disrupts governance, and paralyzes decision-making. Moreover, it sends a dangerous signal to future leaders and citizens alike: that state institutions are expendable in the pursuit of personal or political power.
The attack on state ideology is, in effect, an attack on Pakistan itself. When institutions are maligned and delegitimized, the state’s ideological foundation is destabilized. Without a shared ideology, a state cannot sustain itself as a cohesive entity. The consequences of such a breakdown are profound and far-reaching, threatening not just the present but the very future of the nation. Khan’s actions are not those of a leader concerned with the welfare of his nation. A sincere leader or citizen would recognize the sanctity of state institutions and the critical role they play in preserving the nation’s ideology.
Reform, where needed, should come from within the framework of dialogue, engagement, and adherence to democratic principles. Pakistan’s ideological foundation is not just an abstract concept; it is the guiding principle that ensures the nation’s survival and progress. The institutions of the state—be it the military, the judiciary, or democratic bodies—are its practical embodiment. Weakening these institutions weakens the state’s ideological resolve. No personal ambition, no matter how grandiose, can justify such a reckless gamble with the nation’s future.