Anticorruption experts have long grappled with the enduring puzzle of why voters continue to support allegedly corrupt politicians. Why is it that the same people who point to corruption as a significant problem in their societies nevertheless cast their votes for candidates who have been credibly accused, or even indicted or convicted for, corruption offenses? Consider, as a particularly striking example of this paradox, the case of former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan. At the time of writing, Khan continues to languish behind bars in the high-security Adiala Jail, incarcerated on charges stemming from one of the more than 200 cases that have been filed against him in various courts around the country. Many (though not all) of these cases allege corruption or related forms of financial impropriety. Khan’s incarceration might prevent his candidacy in Pakistan’s upcoming elections. But if he is permitted to run, he is expected to win easily. If Pakistanis detest corruption—as all evidence suggests that they do—then what explains Khan’s overwhelming popularity, notwithstanding the numerous and serious graft-related investigations ongoing against him?
The answer—which may shed light on this puzzle in other contexts as well—is rooted in the politicization of judicial proceedings and the long-term effects of recurrent corruption allegations in politics.
Corruption proceedings have been making and breaking the fortunes of Pakistan’s leading politicians throughout its modern history, and have been a staple of Pakistani politics especially since the 1990s. That decade witnessed repeated transfers of power between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif’s respective civilian administrations, with both politicians holding the prime ministership for two brief rounds each. Nearly all of these four administrations were cut short by anticorruption proceedings. Bhutto was jailed twice, once alongside her husband Asif Ali Zardari. Sharif was jailed once in the 1990s and again in 2017 after the Supreme Court ruled that his family had concealed offshore holdings revealed in the Panama Papers. And during Imran Khan’s stint as prime minister (2018–2022), Pakistan’s anticorruption agency, the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), arrested Sharif’s brother and daughter.
One cannot understand how ordinary Pakistani citizens react to the corruption allegations against Imran Khan without appreciating this history. Although research (in Europe and elsewhere) has shown that credible allegations of dishonest behavior can be an effective method of discrediting one’s political opponents, this research has also demonstrated that frequent deployment of anticorruption allegations in political struggles can have negative long-term effects for all participants in the democratic process.
- First, although frequent allegations of corruption against high-level politicians may signal to citizens that they need to be especially vigilant in monitoring their leaders—a seemingly positive effect—over an extended period of time this vigilance can mutate into apathy. If voters hear rival political factions levy accusations of bribery and embezzlement back and forth over a prolonged period, these voters may become apathetic, believing that “all politicians are corrupt.” This seems an apt description of the current state of much Pakistani public opinion. Decades of watching their representatives trade a constant stream of corruption allegations have left many Pakistanis deeply cynical of such claims.
- Second, the targets of corruption allegations typically resort to a standard playbook, claiming that the charges are politically motivated and that law enforcement agencies and courts are biased. Khan has deployed exactly this strategy, criticizing the proceedings against him as spearheaded either by opposition parties, the country’s military, the United States, or a combination of the above. Khan’s supporters have taken to branding the judges who have ruled against him as crooks and sell-outs to the military or opposing political forces. While such rhetoric might not gain much traction in a country where voters had high trust in legal and judicial institutions, Pakistan is not such a country. Many of the previous corruption cases brought against leading Pakistani politicians where characterized, with some justification, as politically motivated, and there are longstanding concerns about the instrumentalization of anticorruption enforcement. Many voters suspect—again, with some justification—that the targeting of Khan over the last year and a half is less motivated by his particularly corrupt behavior, and more a result of enemies he made with policy decisions while running the country.
In short, the problem isn’t that Pakistanis don’t care about anticorruption. It’s that they’ve grown weary of how their politicians have used corruption allegations as a tool to disqualify their adversaries and manipulate the electoral landscape. They are now deeply distrustful of the institutions that are supposed to investigate and adjudicate such allegations. So, the question of why Pakistanis overwhelmingly support a former prime minister with dozens of graft cases ongoing against him finds its answer not just in the battle against corruption itself but in the fight for the integrity and impartiality of the very systems meant to combat it.
GAB | The Global Anticorruption Blog 
An alternative explanation could be that Pakistani voters assume by default that the other plausible candidates for the office are just as corrupt as Khan. If they’re all seen as equally corrupt, corruption ceases to be a salient factor for voting decisions.
I think this is definitely true and part of the disenchantment of Pakistani voters with anticorruption processes altogether! As I alluded to in the first bullet point, these voters may become completely apathetic, believing that “all politicians are corrupt.” In the Pakistani context, this seems to have resulted not in voters staying away from the polls, but rather in them voting for their preferred candidate and filtering out the “anticorruption” noise (directed in one direction or the other) while doing so.
Imran Khan’s supporters insist that he’s totally clean and only his opponents are super-corrupt. He presented himself as an honest alternative who’ll end corruption. He has a cult-like following and his supporters are not open to a reasonable discussion based on logic and facts. Previously Benazir Bhutto used to have a similar cult-like following. Nawaz Sharif’s support is slightly less cultish in the sense that his party has always been more about infrastructure projects rather than an ideology of change, but his supporters can hardly be described as being more logical either. So while the brazenly tainted nature of accountability proceedings is a factor, the other issue is that no matter how credible a case might be, supporters will insist that their leader is clean.
Ironically, an anticorruption slogan is at the heart of Imran Khan’s politics. He is that populist demagogue who derives his popularity because of his promise to drain the swamp and hold the corrupt accountable. His supporters are fanatically in favor of his opponents being jailed regardless of the merits of the cases against them but dismiss all the cases against Khan as being politically motivated. So the problem isn’t merely that of people being fed up with tainted accountability proceedings but political polarization and partisanship.
Pakistan is a classic case study of a country where corruption is a serious issue but dubious accountability drives have been repeatedly used as a weapon to get rid of opponents and undermine democracy. These accountability drives have brought no reform and only resulted in the subversion of democracy. The disturbing question all this raises is whether it is even possible to carry out genuine accountability in a political context. The example of Pakistan seems to suggest that the answer may be in the negative and that anticorruption efforts starting from holding top politicians accountable through legal proceedings do more harm than good. Perhaps the solution is to focus on other fronts first. Like strengthening institutions and deepening democracy by lowering entry barriers to politics. As long as politics revolves around a couple of personalities or dynasties, it will be very hard to hold them accountable. But if there are lower entry barriers then perhaps voters will be more inclined to dump leaders who indulge in corrupt practises?
Polarization is an element of this picture, for sure. I definitely agree that Imran Khan in particular has a cult-like following, and probably more so than any other politician in the country over the last decade. Another interesting aspect of this phenomenon, however, is that Imran’s dismissal of the anticorruption actions has attracted a lot of support in the electorate, including from people who didn’t vote for him — more so than for any politician before, including (I’d wager) Benazir. So, there is something about this particular anticorruption saga that goes beyond various politicians’ loyal followings.
A different way of seeing this is that Imran has succeeded in selling his story better than the other politicians before him who were similarly prosecuted for corruption, and I think for interesting reasons that distinguish his messaging from Nawaz or Benazir’s. I’m working on a post on Imran’s rhetoric that should be up on the blog soon!
Looking forward to your new post. I think it’s worth looking at what Imran Khan’s supporters think about his insistance that he will not spare Nawaz Sharif and others and will go after them for their corruption cases if he returns to power. If people are genuinely wweary of flawed and politically motivated accountability drives, then they should also be against his refusal to seek some kind of peaceful coexistence with others whom he calls thieves, one would think.
This is a fascinating blog post on an issue raised with anti-corruption campaigns in most countries where corruption enforcement targets regime opponents. While there may be circumstances and instances where this may be the case, it certainly removes from the question of guilt of the accused person. While it is excellent for anti-corruption efforts to be balanced and fair, It appears this criticism is now a shield in the hands of corrupt politicians used to undermine the process of holding them accountable. To me, the focus should instead be on the evidence, irrespective of who is charged. When you are an opposition figure accused of corruption, showing your innocence will be more helpful. But in the end, it is a populist attempt to get their people behind them. There are many Imran Khans around the World. Unfortunately, the public (usually their supporters) listens to them. They are playing exactly into what the populists want – even if the politician is corrupt and there is evidence to support the allegations against him/her.
Thanks for your thoughts, Francis! A pressing issue indeed.