Some people thrust forward the line of early ZAB's, and Khan's uncanny similarities.
Before turning an overall social conservative, ZAB was very far left, and was calling himself a "Peronist". He was as far left, as one can be in such society as Pakistan of seventies.
Another parallel I found when I was researching was a now forgotten political star from seventies: Kosar Niazi. He was also a popular social activist who had no problems rallying crowds like Khan, and nobody wanted to be his opponents, but his attempted transition from street politics into government politics failed much like Khan's.
Being an anti-establishment champion hugely imperiled his chances at becoming a part of it.
On Khan's foreign policy, he been a firm non-aligner, and anti-US, and somewhat anti-EU, and somewhat isolationist, but his foreign policy been dictated not by an ideological alignment, but what he could've put on the table to his electorate. Here he is a solid Peronist.
He splurged huge on welfare, and megaprojects, trying to appeal to proletarian class, and unions, while tying it into his electoral promise.
In overall, his period can be said to be an attempt to sell a very left wing policy to a very right wing electorate. It was an easy concept to be elected on, but proved to be not easy to run a government on.
Before turning an overall social conservative, ZAB was very far left, and was calling himself a "Peronist". He was as far left, as one can be in such society as Pakistan of seventies.
Another parallel I found when I was researching was a now forgotten political star from seventies: Kosar Niazi. He was also a popular social activist who had no problems rallying crowds like Khan, and nobody wanted to be his opponents, but his attempted transition from street politics into government politics failed much like Khan's.
Being an anti-establishment champion hugely imperiled his chances at becoming a part of it.
On Khan's foreign policy, he been a firm non-aligner, and anti-US, and somewhat anti-EU, and somewhat isolationist, but his foreign policy been dictated not by an ideological alignment, but what he could've put on the table to his electorate. Here he is a solid Peronist.
He splurged huge on welfare, and megaprojects, trying to appeal to proletarian class, and unions, while tying it into his electoral promise.
In overall, his period can be said to be an attempt to sell a very left wing policy to a very right wing electorate. It was an easy concept to be elected on, but proved to be not easy to run a government on.
