Khan at Capital One: a lost opportunity

That PM Khan managed to attract such a big audience in Washington deserves commendation. It has probably left his rivals with envy. This was no ordinary audience; they weren’t there for biryani or out of fear. And this is in the US, where markets are competitive to the degree that people really have to think twice before taking a leave from work. But did Khan capitalise on this opportunity to speak to a captive audience comprising of professionals and businessperson?

There seems to be a clear divide. There are fans who argue that this was gathering of Imran Khan’s supporters – nay expat fans who really feel that he will fix things back home. That he needed to play to the gallery of populi – the average fan followers who want to listen to Khan on corruption because corruption is what sells among his supporters, more than any other thing.

Then there are others who are not fans but take a realistic position on Khan’s address to non-resident Pakistanis (NRPs). They maintain that Khan’s key messages on which he was able to garner votes included putting corrupt officials in jail and following the Medina model. And that to expect more from him would be aspiring, but maybe a bit unrealistic given that anti-corruption rhetoric is his brand, especially considering that public leaders usually stick close to their brand in political gatherings.

But while Khan’s gathering in DC was unprecedented, he could have used the opportunity much better. With power comes great responsibility. Instead of simply harping about corruption and trivialities such as removing the air conditioner from quarters of jailed politicians, Khan could have instead used this opportunity to emerge as a visionary statesman.

For instance, he could have talked about various forms of economic, investment and trade opportunities that exist in Pakistan and how the NRPs at large could collaborate with resident Pakistanis. He could have dwelled on the various roles of NRPs in building Pak-American social and economic ties; he could have encouraged, if not support, NRPs in the US to rise within the power corridors of America. In addition, he could also have spoken about inter-faith harmony in the US, and in Pakistan (even if for lip service); he could have argued for regional peace by talking the need for regional trade and investment.

The organisers of the gathering, too, could have achieved more for their efforts. For example, they could have taken the sound bites of what the NRPs’ hopes and fears are concerning life in Pakistan and America. Their concerns could be shown as short videos to Khan on the screens so he could respond to those in his speech.

This kind of messaging would not have been entirely strange to leaders of developing economies who want to attract or engage with their expat community. Indian premier Modi has previously done the same in his address to non-resident Indians in the US. While Modi has talked about corruption in such gatherings, he has spoken much more about what his government is doing in terms of technology, health, education, etc. Modi has also used such opportunities to tarnish Pakistan’s image directly or indirectly by popularising his views on surgical strikes and terrorism. And he has done so subtly.

To say that Khan’s only brand is anti-corruption or that it’s the only thing that has brought him to power and then make the argument that corruption is what he should talk about is flawed reasoning. Talking on corruption may have brought him to power; but it is not the only issue faced by Pakistan. Besides, it is not as if Khan is incapable of talking about other things.

When he used to stand atop containers, Khan did talk a lot about corruption. But in his televised address to the nation, he moved to ‘having compassion’, building a Medina-like welfare state, taking care of the poor, addressing stunting and malnourishment, and other relevant things. When he gave a speech to business leaders at an event organised by the Pakistan Business Council late last year, he focused only on wealth-creation and only made passing reference on wealth or income distribution.

Granted that Khan met Pakistani business community in the US in a separate closed-door meeting where he or his team may have touched on the specifics of economic or business cooperation, but the gathering at Capital One Arena wasn’t the typical masses in hinterland towns in Pakistan, even if they were his fans. These are the people who can get things done as businesspersons and professionals.

Diasporas help brand a country, and speeches by leaders are conversation starters that lead toward solutions or at least a better understanding of the complex cobweb of problems that countries like Pakistan face. Khan’s visit to the US and the huge gathering in DC may help him shine at home and abroad. But the impact of his speech in DC could have been far-reaching if he had equally focused on issues other than corruption, asking his fanlike captive audience to participate on issues broad and sundry. In that sense, Capital One was a lost opportunity!