PAKISTAN’S political landscape has long been defined not only by the competition of par-ties but by the competition of narratives.
From the slogans of PTI’s “Naya Pakistan” to PPP’s workers’ rhetoric and PML-N’s development-focused discourse, political communication has relied heavily on creating the sense of empowerment without challenging the structures of power. Viewed through a Marxist lens, these populist narratives are less about serving the people and more about maintaining the dominance of the elite, pacifying the working class and distracting citizens from systemic inequalities.
Populism in Pakistan is deeply intertwined with ideology. Louis Althusser’s concept of Ideological State Apparatuses is instructive here. Political parties, the media and social institutions function to reproduce the existing social order by shaping citizens’ perceptions. In Pakistan, populist discourse creates an illusion of agency. Citizens are made to feel part of a movement, but the structures determining wealth, power and access remain firmly in the hands of a small elite. This is what Marx identified as the extraction of surplus value hidden beneath the ideological veil. The promise of participation masks persistent inequalities in income, opportunity and political influence.
The Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s rise demonstrates the mechanics of modern populism. PTI’s campaigns, particularly online, leveraged social media to mobilize youth and middle-class voters. Slogans like “Naya Pakistan” were repeated in every post, tweet and video, giving the impression of a mass movement. Algorithm-driven content ensured maximum reach, creating a sense that millions were actively participating. Yet, a closer look reveals the structural reality. Policy decisions favoured neoliberal reforms and elite economic interests. The “people’s party” narrative succeeded in obscuring who truly benefited, while young digital labourers created content without institutional protection or collective bargaining rights. Their online participation produced value for platforms, parties and donors rather than for themselves.
PPP, on the other hand, has long relied on a workers’ rhetoric rooted in historical Marxist-inspired discourse. Party manifestos emphasize social justice, labour rights and pro-poor de-veopment. But in practice, these policies rarely redistribute wealth in a meaningful way. PPP’s narrative operates as a form of ideological compensation. Workers are given recognition through discourse, while structural economic policies continue to favour the landed elite and industrial capitalists. The Marxist critique is clear: symbolic empowerment without structural change reproduces, rather than challenges, class hierarchies.
Similarly, PML-N’s development-focused populism appeals to middle-class aspirations through infrastructure projects, megaprojects and urban modernization. The narrative promises progress and good governance. Yet the benefits of these initiatives are uneven, favouring already wealthy regions and elite-connected contractors. For the working class and rural majority, these projects are largely performative, creating a spectacle of modernity while the fundamental class relations of the economy remain intact. Marx would argue that this is a classic example of false consciousness: the appearance of progress masks exploitation and preserves existing power structures.
The recurring theme across these parties is that populism functions as a tool of class pacification. Althusser’s theory helps explain why. Ideological State Apparatuses, including media, education and political parties, shape consciousness in ways that make systemic inequalities appear natural or unchangeable. Populist narratives divide the working class, foster competition for symbolic inclusion and obscure the material realities of unemployment, inflation and poverty. While citizens engage emotionally with these narratives, their capacity to organize collectively around their material interests is diminished.
Digital platforms have intensified this effect. Social media algorithms amplify the most engaging political content, often prioritizing sensational slogans over nuanced policy discussion. In Pakistan, young people create content for political campaigns, engage in online debates and produce memes that entertain or mobilize the audience. This digital labour is largely unpaid, precarious and unregulated, yet it sustains the visibility of populist narratives. In essence, the same tools that offer a sense of participation also serve to consolidate elite power and extract surplus value from voluntary labour, creating a digital extension of Althusser’s ideological apparatus. Economic crises are also narrated in ways that reinforce populism. Inflation, unemployment and austerity measures are often blamed on corruption or mismanagement by the previous government rather than on structural issues like capital concentration, foreign debt or neoliberal policies. Marx’s analysis reminds us that economic structures determine political out-comes. Populist discourse, by framing crises as the result of individual misdeeds, directs public anger away from the systemic mechanisms that maintain inequality. The result is a politics of distraction: citizens focus on personalities and slogans rather than on class relations and structural reform.
For a more substantive political future, Pakistan needs to recognize the limits of populism. Critical engagement requires moving beyond slogans to address material conditions. Labour rights, income redistribution, democratic control of resources and regulation of digital plat-forms are necessary for empowering citizens in reality rather than in rhetoric. Without these interventions, populist narratives will continue functioning as ideological pacifiers, maintaining elite dominance while leaving structural inequalities intact.
Populism in Pakistan is, therefore, not merely a communication strategy; it is a mechanism of class control. Marx and Althusser together provide the analytical tools to understand how political narratives reproduce inequalities under the guise of mass participation. Recognizing these mechanisms is the first step toward a politics that genuinely empowers the working class and challenges elite dominance, rather than simply distracting attention from it.
—The writer is a senior media academic, former Dean of Mass Communication at Beaconhouse National University and University of Central Punjab, and currently a Professor at the University of Central Punjab.
