Imagine a distinguished professor at Oxford University penning a critical piece on the university’s newly-appointed chancellor, Imran Khan, serving a jail sentence in Pakistan. Within hours, the professor is bombarded by online harassment – not from Britain’s academic peers but from Imran Khan’s fervent Pakistani supporters. A digital mob floods social media and university inboxes, outraged at the audacity to criticize their leader. ‘How dare he critique Khan!’ Thousands of emails attack the professor’s academic integrity and personal life.

Imran Khan has repeatedly aligned himself with regressive forces, most notably resettling the TTP from Afghanistan into Pakistan and declaring Osama bin Laden a martyr.

This scenario isn’t far-fetched. During his political career in Pakistan and now as he campaigns for Oxford’s chancellorship, Imran Khan’s supporters have demonstrated the power and peril of unchecked populism. Imran Khan, who is currently incarcerated on corrupt practice charges, has turned his political movement into a global cult, weaponizing social media to silence critics and push his narrative of victimhood. But when we look at the broader picture, one must ask: Can Oxford afford to invite this level of chaos and disruption into its academic environment?

Also read: Imran Khan, Extremism, Social Fragmentation And the Only Alternative

Imran Khan’s candidacy also raises significant concerns about the role of populism in global academia. He has overwhelmingly dominated social media discussions in this race for Oxford’s chancellorship, overshadowing other respected candidates like Sir William Hague, the former Conservative Party leader; Peter Mandelson, a Labour Party heavyweight and former European Commissioner; Elish Angiolini, a prominent Scottish legal figure; and Jan Royall, a senior Labour peer and former Leader of the House of Lords.

His campaign is not about qualifications or a vision for the university; it’s about leveraging populist support to drown out opposition. This is exactly how populist leaders gain control – by overwhelming the discourse, sidelining merit and expertise, and turning public institutions into political battlegrounds.

Imran Khan’s candidacy also raises significant concerns about the role of populism in global academia.

Can Oxford afford to become the next victim of such tactics?

Then there is his chequered past in academia. Imran Khan once served as Chancellor of the University of Bradford from 2005 until 2014, a controversial tenure. Despite holding the post, he regularly missed key university events, including graduation ceremonies. In February 2014, the University of Bradford Union proposed his removal due to his ongoing absences, prompting Imran Khan to announce his resignation, effective November 30, 2014, citing political obligations in Pakistan. However, the reality was far grimmer – his commitment to the role had long been questioned. How can Oxford expect him to fulfil his duties when past performance clearly shows disinterest?

Oxford, an institution of profound academic heritage, has nurtured some of the brightest minds and upheld values of integrity, independent thought, and reasoned debate. Imran Khan, on the other hand, represents the exact opposite. His candidacy is not a reflection of academic excellence but a testament to his populist ambition. And while his followers might see him as a hero, his legacy tells a different story. His populist appeal in Pakistan was built on incendiary rhetoric, divisive tactics, and the undermining of democratic institutions. The problem becomes even clearer when you examine his political history.

Imran Khan has repeatedly aligned himself with regressive forces, most notably resettling the TTP from Afghanistan into Pakistan and declaring Osama bin Laden a martyr in his National Assembly speech. His disturbing remarks in support of the Taliban – calling their oppressive governance a step towards “breaking the shackles of slavery” – speak volumes about his worldview. How can someone with such views be entrusted with leading an institution like Oxford, which stands for freedom of expression, gender equality, and intellectual liberty?

Furthermore, Imran Khan’s views on women’s rights are deeply troubling. He has openly suggested that women’s clothing is a factor in sexual harassment, a regressive stance that has no place in the leadership of an institution that has consistently advocated for women’s education and empowerment. Oxford has been a pioneer in championing gender equality, and electing someone like Imran Khan would send a chilling message about the university’s commitment to these values.

The real danger lies in how his populist movement operates. His supporters do not just support him; they aggressively campaign against anyone who dares criticize him.

Imran Khan’s current legal troubles also make him an unfit candidate for the role. He is in prison in Pakistan, convicted of corrupt practices and misuse of state funds in what has been termed the Toshakhana case, where he was found guilty of profiting from state gifts. His supporters might claim he is the victim of political vendettas, but the legal realities are far less kind. The man is embroiled in controversy and any university that associates itself with him risks being dragged into a political quagmire.

The real danger lies in how his populist movement operates. His supporters do not just support him; they aggressively campaign against anyone who dares criticize him. A recent example in Pakistan saw his followers not just protest but attack state institutions when he was arrested. It’s not hard to imagine the same tactics being applied to Oxford – an online army that descends on any academic or faculty member who questions their chancellor’s integrity. For an institution that thrives on intellectual discourse and debate, the chilling effect of such a phenomenon would be catastrophic.

Therefore, Imran Khan’s bid for Oxford University’s chancellorship is more than just a political stunt – it is a dangerous proposition for one of the world’s most respected academic institutions. His track record of supporting repressive regimes, promoting divisive rhetoric, and undermining democratic and academic institutions makes him unfit for the role. Oxford deserves a chancellor who embodies integrity, intellectual rigor, and a commitment to academic freedom. Imran Khan, with his populist cult following and troubling political history, offers none of these qualities. Instead, his election would only embroil Oxford in controversy, division, and chaos.