Just before the 2018 polls and during electioneering, PTI chief Imran Khan had bluntly, in his usual style, stated that the international establishment had sided with the convicted and jailed PML-N supremo Nawaz Sharif. Many questioned Khan’s choice of words and the narrative he was trying to build.
Foreign media organizations, in a simultaneous manner, have termed the Pakistan elections controversial not only due to the allegations of 'pre-poll rigging', 'media censorship' and 'level playing field' for the political parties, but also owing to the claims that the state’s institutions intervened on the polling day to help Khan’s cause.
BBC: 'The 'angels' at play in Pakistan election'. Read here.
Most of the columns, news feature and analysis done on PTI’s victory have either painted Khan as an army’s puppet or alleged him of having a strong backing from the Pakistani military. While this gives an impression of bias, the government should in any case respond to the reports as they are bringing bad name to Pakistan, even if they are intended to do just that.
Here are some more screengrabs from international publications:
The Australian: 'Imran, the army's puppet' published in The Australian. Read here.
Washington Post: 'Pakistan's military has its fingerprints all over the elections'. Read here.
It may be noted that even though Imran Khan highlighted the need to resolve the tensions between India and Pakistan, the former's media campaign never painted him as a deserving candidate.
Postcard: 'The puppet of Pakistani Army and the terrorism fan Imran Khan is all set to become the new PM of Pakistan! Will this lead to a new war between Indian and Pak'. Read here.
Swarajya Mag: 'Army Puppet or Own Man, Imran Khan Is Going To Make No Difference To India'. Read here.
On the other hand, European Union (EU) and the US government have also 'raised concerns' over Pakistan elections.
European Union: 'Pakistan election not a level playing field'. Read here.
US State Department: 'The United States concurs with the conclusions of the European Union Election Observation Mission, whose report notes that while there were positive changes to the legal framework for elections in Pakistan, these were overshadowed by restrictions on freedom of expression and unequal campaign opportunities'. Read here.
Foreign media organizations, in a simultaneous manner, have termed the Pakistan elections controversial not only due to the allegations of 'pre-poll rigging', 'media censorship' and 'level playing field' for the political parties, but also owing to the claims that the state’s institutions intervened on the polling day to help Khan’s cause.
BBC: 'The 'angels' at play in Pakistan election'. Read here.
Most of the columns, news feature and analysis done on PTI’s victory have either painted Khan as an army’s puppet or alleged him of having a strong backing from the Pakistani military. While this gives an impression of bias, the government should in any case respond to the reports as they are bringing bad name to Pakistan, even if they are intended to do just that.
Here are some more screengrabs from international publications:
The Australian: 'Imran, the army's puppet' published in The Australian. Read here.
Washington Post: 'Pakistan's military has its fingerprints all over the elections'. Read here.
It may be noted that even though Imran Khan highlighted the need to resolve the tensions between India and Pakistan, the former's media campaign never painted him as a deserving candidate.
Postcard: 'The puppet of Pakistani Army and the terrorism fan Imran Khan is all set to become the new PM of Pakistan! Will this lead to a new war between Indian and Pak'. Read here.
Swarajya Mag: 'Army Puppet or Own Man, Imran Khan Is Going To Make No Difference To India'. Read here.
On the other hand, European Union (EU) and the US government have also 'raised concerns' over Pakistan elections.
European Union: 'Pakistan election not a level playing field'. Read here.
US State Department: 'The United States concurs with the conclusions of the European Union Election Observation Mission, whose report notes that while there were positive changes to the legal framework for elections in Pakistan, these were overshadowed by restrictions on freedom of expression and unequal campaign opportunities'. Read here.