The controversial and sham election of 2018 imparted Mr. Khan with majority seats in National Assembly to constitute a government for the next five years.

The opposition parties, comprising Grand Opposition Alliance, are not ready at any cost to accept the mandate being awarded to Imran Khan and his political party.

The mandate decides the fate of an elected leader. The genuine mandate contributes authority, strength and confidence to the elected leadership. It also encourages the winner to run the state in accordance with popular aspirations. In case reverse, the leader with fake or stolen mandate is easy to be controlled by those who have brought him to power. Thus, he will prove himself but a stooge.

In Pakistan, it has been cultured that the loser always sounds high with slogans of rigging. They are never wrong in too. As with logical grounds, no one can justify that elections are conducted free and fair. Even the election of the 1970s, comparatively more fair, was manipulated and maneuvered by number of ways.

The recent election of July 2018 has brought many more mismanagements to the surface. For instance, lack of provision of equal opportunities and plain field before election for political parties to have election campaigning, collapse of the Result Transmission System (RTS), oust of the political agents on Election Day and delaying of form 45 to be provided to contestants gravely question the credibility of election.

Despite the dissension of the election results, opposition parties joined parliament to avoid the recurrence of 1990s politics. These political parties are no more interested in paralyzing government through the help of street power by staging permanent sit-ins. Contrast to this; they will give tough time to government by keeping their presence inside parliament and continual protest outside parliament.

The genuine mandate, having roots in masses, warrants leadership with authority to raise questions regarding the genuine problems of people rather than trivial or showy ones. Mr. Khan has been remained adherent to following issues.

One, in the victory speech, Imran Khan ensured the opposition leadership for being ready to open any constituency they demand. His maiden speech after victory was though appreciated in varied circles, but it was not materialized in the way Mr. Khan had stated.

He and his party deviated from his very victory speech and approached the apex court to abrogate the ruling of Lahore High Court regarding the recounting order of the NA 131.

Two, the provision of immediate relief to people in the form of uprooting protocol culture, reluctance to utilize PM house and denying security can momentarily raise his personality graph. These kinds of political patterns though impart more psychological relief to some intolerant apolitical public but don’t assist in patterning stability in the sphere of politics and economy. The former PM Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has already set the precedent by not residing in the PM house.

So then why so much grandiose and splendor is made over the issue of dwelling or not in the Prime Minister house?

Three, Mr. Khan’s proposal to send the team to China to bring economic model for poverty alleviation seems more impressive ostensibly.

Turning the pages of history, the economic model of China was designed in the 1970s for economic stability and poverty reduction. Working assiduously on this plan for nearly forty years, China has succeeded in its mission of ousting almost 500 million people from the clutches of extreme poverty. In the case of Pakistan, the consistency of long term planning remains a question mark for top echelons of the government machinery and real masters.

Again, it is the trap for Imran Khan and PTI for having no economic model of its own till now. The lack of such economic models’ would patently left the upcoming finance minister, Asad Umar, with only option to bestow economic stability with the help of ‘Ishq’ than that of expert technicalities.

Four, Imran Khan is the only political leader who regularly talks about corruption and its eradication. Even he talked about this sinister after victory in GE 2018. Strangely, he is devoid of having comprehensive design to eradicate corruption. Chanakya Kautilya says in his work Arthashastra that “It is impossible to know when and how much water a fish drank, similar is the act of stealing government money by officials.

” He adds that corruption could be reduced but not eradicated. For Mr. Khan it is a pending conundrum to provide a design with scientific methodology regarding the eradication of the menace of corruption.

Five, the real breakthrough that could direct Pakistan on the direction of progress is manifested through the help of structural reforms. Materializing structural reforms require extensive planning and elongated timing that confer equal benefits to all sections of society. Short-cuts are no more institutional reforms but only relief to the major intolerant bulk of society.

On similar account, Imran Khan’s reforms planning are neither institutional nor that of structural but only showy and superficial. Without structural reforms the problems of Pakistan could not be solved without exception to adopt the life of austerity. The only austerity could never bring forth political and economic stability to Pakistan.

Imran Khan though searches the prosperity of Pakistan by solving the problems of trivial, showy and superficial nature but it is grave morass. His leadership graph could be elevated to be considered as leader only if he answers the real and genuine questions. The real problems reside in the cocoon of foreign policy, rule of law and civil-military relations.

It is this reason that has never allowed any single premier to complete one’s tenure of office. And Nawaz Sharif’s recent case is, more or less, part of the same chain.

It is therefore awaited whether Mr. Khan, the so-called unpredictable personality, works for the acquisition of independent foreign policy, rule of law and civil supremacy or not. More or less, answering the genuine problems through institutional or structural way can only bring the real change.

And the leader with only popular mandate can ask for the solution of the real problems. Let’s see, if Mr. Khan has genuine mandate.
The writer is a researcher and columnist.