he Imran Khan government, which is on the verge of an exit, can best be described as one that achieved the opposite of what it promised. It promised an end to corruption, recovery of stolen money to alleviate poverty and improve the living standards of the ordinary people, a resolution of the long-standing problems that blight the lives of ordinary citizens, such as homelessness, lack of adequate housing and the scourge of massive unemployment by creating millions of jobs in the public sector.

Much has been written on the vast disconnect between the promises made by Khan during his famed “22 years of political struggle” speech and what his government has managed achieve in its three and half years in office. Imagine an outsider unfamiliar with the promises who has to guess the priorities of the PTI. He can’t be faulted for thinking that justice must be central to the PTI’s ethos considering the word “Insaf” appears in the party’s name.

One might think therefore that radical reforms in the judicial system would be the central policy plank of its government. Speedy justice is not just an economic imperative; it also makes for better law and order. The adverse consequences of a denial of justice (or delay in the administration of justice) or miscarriage of justice are no secret.

However, the way national institutions were used for selective accountability of the government’s political opponents while ignoring the financial misconduct of some other influential individuals spoke of witch-hunt rather than justice.

Last year, the International Consortium for Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) published an expose on “a shadow financial system that benefits the world’s most rich and powerful.” Names of around 700 individuals from Pakistan were on the list.

While the findings of the Panama Papers investigations had been manipulated to destabilise an elected government and put the then prime minister behind bars, barring a few exceptions, all those mentioned in the papers remained unscathed. As there was no visible sign of going after the individuals mentioned in the Pandora Papers, the sincerity of Imran Khan’s government in going after the corrupt came to be doubted. Selective justice is seen as no better than injustice and does not inspire confidence.

Justice and truth are closely related ideas. The Khan regime has been conspicuous in muzzling the truth and propagating lies. A policy of sustained intimidation of the media under the PTI government used a variety of slings and arrows: attacks on media houses, withholding of government advertising dues, forcing major downsizing, forced termination of employment contracts of journalists known for their criticism of the government and institution of criminal cases against journalists for their private social media postings under the controversial cybercrime law.

The PTI projected a narrative through its media teams that only the PTI government had the courage and strength of faith to tailor a principled foreign policy based on self-respect.

The disturbing claims about billions of rupees stolen by leaders of the Pakistan Peoples Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz regimes have never been corroborated by facts. The PTI government never tired of claiming to be on the same page with other national institutions, including the institutions tasked with accountability. Still, no significant headway was made in proving the charges of corruption, let alone recovering the stolen wealth and channeling it to the welfare of the ordinary people.

The government’s initiative to bring back looted money supposedly parked in some foreign banks received a bloody nose. Kaveh Moussavi, the CEO of asset recovery firm Broadsheet, which many years ago was hired by Gen Musharraf to investigate political opponents, including the Sharifs, has issued an apology to the PML-N supreme leader because he could find “not one rupee was related to Mr Nawaz Sharif or any member of his family.” He blamed the National Accountability Bureau for the “witch-hunt.”

Duality or multiplicity of standards goes against the fundamental principles of justice. Justice requires a consistent application of moral standards in diverse situations. It may also require transcending personal affiliations and standing on the right side, even if that means acquitting one’s opponents or hurting one’s friends.

In the last few decades, and more specifically, in the last three and half years, national politics has been reduced to binaries. This is reminiscent of the sinister war cry of former United States president George W Bush, who famously said, “if you are not with us, you’re against us.” On several occasions, government-sponsored legislation including that required to provide an extension to the current army chief and guaranteeing autonomy of the State Bank were passed with the help of opposition votes.

So when some opposition members went against party line and voted for government-sponsored bills, it was considered kosher. In fact it was praised as transcending narrow party interests and keeping the national interests supreme. However, when some parliamentarians from the treasury benches joined the opposition ranks, Khan described this as treason. He also accused the opposition of promoting “foreign agenda” in trying to topple his government.

Though not for the first time in Pakistan’s history, Khan’s regime stands apart in its excessive use of religious symbolism. He vowed to transform Pakistan into a Riyasat-i-Madina. It cannot be overemphasised that using religion for personal ends is something Islam clearly warns against.

Regarding the (ab)use of religious and nationalistic sentiments, when IK went ballistic against the opposition for playing in the hands of a foreign power (read the USA) to topple his government because Khan wanted an independent foreign policy and self-sufficient Pakistan willing to deal with the foreign powers based on the principles of mutual respect and shared benefits. Media teams of the PTI government then projected him as a messiah who reposed his trust in God and was not willing to toe a foreign policy agenda for paltry material gain.

The PTI narrative said that only the PTI government had the courage and strength of faith to tailor a principled foreign policy based on self-respect. The PTI media team contrasted its government’s position with the previous governments to claim that they could never have a truly independent foreign policy.

Facts however run counter to this narrative. The government after all was unable to fulfill its promise with the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan on the issue of expulsion of the French envoy. It was then implied that expelling the French envoy would hurt Pakistan economically and diplomatically. The duality of the logic in the two cases suggests that Khan’s recent effort to earn political mileage was at the cost of Pakistan’s economic and diplomatic interests. One does not make a paradigm shift in foreign policy in the heat of the moment. It requires careful planning and a lot of groundwork. In the absence of any tangible effort to put the nation on a radically different diplomatic trajectory, the recent claims only point to realpolitik.

A disregard for and even contempt for rule of law is another attribute that characterises the PTI regime. Some of its youthful supporters may not have a clear understanding of the centrality of the constitution for national integration. The abrogation of the 1956 constitution and the subsequent carte blanche given to the military dictator Ayub Khan had paved the way for the disintegration of Pakistan.

The PTI government has also led in the development of a political culture where dialogue has been replaced by a free for all exchange of expletives. The regularity with which some top-ranking PTI leaders have used abusive language on-air indicates the erosion of democratic values and norms. Sadly, we are more divided and more entrenched in our positions than ever before. This represents a loss for democracy and due process.

The writer is an associate professor in the Department of Economics at COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus