A Leader Leads, Alone.

A Leader Leads, Alone.

A leader and a follower are forged differently, you cannot be both at the same time. Hence the phrase, “lead, follow, or get out of the way.” Both are traits of human behaviour; you either lead or you follow a leader. A leader creates and nurtures a vision, the followers execute it.

Imran Khan has faced a lot of criticism on his choice of candidates for the upcoming elections. It is being said that majority of these “electable” diaspora have belonged to the same corrupt class of politicians who have plagued our political landscape since independence, so PTI is going to end up being the same as PML-N and PPP. Imran’s arguments against this are quite pragmatic.

First, as an organisation is a whole of its constituent parts, these electables will no doubt be more or less the same people as before. Imran cannot create new electables out of thin air. The difference however is that they will now be part of a new set up, a new party with a different culture.
If you do not utilise these electables, then you cannot win the election with a two-thirds majority in the national assembly. If you do not win in the elections, you cannot form a government. If you do not form a government, you cannot bring in any amount of change to the length and breadth of the country’s landscape. This is a classic cause and effect scenario that many people fail to understand.

Secondly, anyone who joins the party now shall be bound to the party’s ethos and ideology. No matter how allegedly tainted their past has been, they would have to adapt themselves into PTI’s mould. Failing that would result in a pretty short life as an office holder. This has been evident from the party’s recent performance in KPK where they broke alliances and dismissed members based on zero tolerance for corruption.

The turncoats argument is quite weak as well. Politicians change parties all the time, all over the world, including the U.S. and the U.K. Alliances, allegiances, political climate, maturity of political thought, etc., are all subject to change. Jinnah himself moved to Muslim League from Congress. Does that make him a turncoat?

Another argument which usually gets floated around is that Imran is a one-man-show, that there is no one else who can take his place, and that he acts like a dictator.
Any top 100 list of leaders you look at, history only remembers the names of the leaders, not of their respective teams or followers. Test this yourself: pick a leader you admire from history and start naming the team he/she had. I bet you won’t be able to go past one or two names.

There was only one Caesar, one Alexander, one Muhammed (pbuh), and one Jinnah.

Support of the military establishment is another excuse people give for PTI’s recent popularity. I do not have any hard evidence to either support or deny the argument, and for that matter, neither does anyone else. However, what has been proven without a doubt is the revelation of ill-gotten wealth by the Sharifs, and their poor performance in the last five years. Coupled with Imran’s relentless struggle for the last 20 years against these corrupt elements is bound to sway the public opinion.

Long-term strategies are based on short-term tactics. Wars are not won on the first day. You pick your battles wisely, devise tactics, create alliances, make temporary compromises in favour of long-term gains, stick to your general principles of engagement, apply them uniformly, and strive ahead. This perspective can only be brought in by a leader, not a follower.