In the contemporary political landscape, the health of a democracy is measured not merely by the periodic occurrence of elections but by the integrity of its institutions and the impartial application of the rule of law. Justice is the lifeblood of a functioning state; where justice is selective, democracy withers. France recently reaffirmed this foundational principle when its judicial system held one of its most influential political figures, Marine Le Pen, accountable for serious financial misconduct. The French courts did not yield to political pressure, populist backlash, or partisan calculations. Le Pen was found guilty of misusing state funds, sentenced to five years in prison, heavily fined, and disqualified from participating in elections. This conviction sent an unambiguous message that political power is not a license to subvert the law. It is this kind of courageous, transparent, and uncompromising judicial action that sustains the credibility of democratic systems.
The French example is a compelling reminder of how accountability, when consistently enforced, can restore faith in democratic institutions. However, the situation in Pakistan presents a jarring counterpoint, a case study of how the selective and politicized application of the law erodes state authority and fosters systemic dysfunction. Nowhere is this contrast more glaring than in the political career and conduct of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his party, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI).
Imran Khan’s ascension to political prominence was premised on an anti-corruption platform. He claimed to represent a new political order untainted, honest, and committed to justice. Yet, a careful examination of his tenure in power and his party’s conduct reveals a staggering gap between rhetoric and reality. Despite his fiery speeches about eradicating corruption, Khan’s rule in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and later at the federal level was marked by mounting allegations of financial misappropriation, nepotism, and the misuse of state resources by bureaucrats. Numerous audit reports, investigative exposes, and whistleblower testimonies over the past decade have pointed toward widespread irregularities in the KP government’s management of public funds. From the embezzlement of funds allocated for health insurance schemes to irregularities in procurement contracts and public works projects, a trail of corruption implicates many senior PTI officials. Yet, these cases have remained conspicuously absent from the prosecutorial agenda.
More troubling is the culture of political immunity that Khan has actively fostered within his ranks. Instead of facilitating transparent inquiries, PTI has repeatedly undermined investigative institutions and manipulated judicial processes to shield its loyalists. The Anti-Corruption Establishment and the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) were weaponized against political opponents, while PTI’s financial scandals were systematically ignored. This selective justice where accountability is harshly pursued against rivals but conveniently suspended for allies has devastated public trust in Pakistan’s fragile democratic architecture.
Imran Khan’s conduct after losing power further exemplifies this double standard. Facing a plethora of legal cases himself, he has consistently framed legitimate judicial proceedings as political victimization, painting himself as a martyr of an oppressive state apparatus. This narrative of perpetual victimhood has been instrumentalized to deflect from substantive allegations of corruption, financial misdeeds, and even direct incitement to violence against state institutions. In 2023, PTI supporters, under Khan’s tacit approval, attacked military installations, police stations, and public property in an unprecedented show of lawlessness. Yet, Khan’s public response was not one of condemnation but of justification, further eroding the already fragile line between political dissent and criminality.
The failure to hold Khan’s party accountable has broader and more dangerous implications for Pakistan’s political future. In any democratic society, the rule of law functions as the great equalizer, ensuring that power does not shield one from consequence. When political elites are allowed to flout the law with impunity, democratic institutions decay, and a culture of lawlessness permeates the social fabric. In Pakistan’s case, the erosion of judicial impartiality has already begun to manifest in the form of increased political polarization, public disillusionment, and social unrest. A state that cannot enforce the law equitably cannot command the loyalty of its citizens.
Moreover, Khan’s populist strategy has effectively hijacked the discourse on accountability. By cloaking himself in the language of anti-elitism and victimization, he has inverted the meaning of justice positioning himself as the victim while actively protecting the corrupt elements within his political enterprise. This is a classic populist tactic: delegitimizing institutions of accountability as part of an imagined “corrupt elite conspiracy” and presenting oneself as the singular, morally pure voice of the people. However, history has shown that such tactics, left unchecked, inevitably lead to institutional breakdown and democratic backsliding.
The comparison with France’s handling of Marine Le Pen’s case is instructive. France’s judicial institutions demonstrated that even the most politically influential figures must submit to legal authority. The French courts neither succumbed to political expediency nor hesitated in delivering a clear, transparent, and fair verdict. Pakistan’s judiciary, in contrast, has repeatedly allowed itself to become a political battleground, bending to the pressures of populist rhetoric and street power. The inability or unwillingness to prosecute financial misconduct within PTI’s leadership reflects not just institutional weakness but also deeper political cowardice a reluctance to confront power when it does not align with the prevailing narrative.
If Pakistan is to emerge from its current state of institutional decay and political paralysis, it must reclaim the integrity of its judicial processes. Accountability must be blind to political affiliations. It must target not just opposition figures but those in power who manipulate state resources, subvert institutions, and erode democratic norms. The continued impunity enjoyed by Imran Khan’s inner circle in the face of credible corruption allegations and documented misuse of public funds is not merely a political scandal, it is an existential threat to Pakistan’s democratic survival.
Justice is not a slogan. It is a structure, an impartial process, and a binding social contract. Pakistan cannot afford to treat it as a partisan weapon. The fate of the country’s democracy hinges on its ability to subject all political actors, including those who wrap themselves in the flag of populist virtue, to the same legal standards. France has shown what real accountability looks like. It is now Pakistan’s turn to decide whether it will uphold justice or continue down the perilous path of selective impunity. The choice is clear, and the time for excuses is over.
