Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
we are against the verdict and governor Rule at Punjab
EXPECTATIONS had been aroused by conciliatory statements from Prime Minster Gilani and Mian Nawaz Sharif that the ongoing confrontation between the government and the PML(N) might finally end. Many thought good sense would finally prevail among the top leadership of the country. These hopes have received a severe jolt from the verdict of a Supreme Court bench, upholding the disqualification of Mian Nawaz from contesting elections and removing Shahbaz Sharif from both the membership of the Punjab Assembly and the post of CM. Even if he is re-elected to the Assembly, he has been effectively disqualified from being the Chief Minister by a bar imposed by former President Musharraf on a third tenure. The imposition of Governor's Rule in the province exacerbates the situation. Mian Nawaz is the leader of the second largest party in the country and has been twice elected Prime Minister. PML(N) lawyers and leaders have condemned the decision as biased and accused President Zardari of putting pressure on the Court to debar his major political opponents. The judgement, which has led to the removal of Mian Shahbaz as CM, has generated a crisis in the largest province of the country, which had a popular, stable and relatively efficient government which faced no threat from the Assembly. With the authority to run the province passing over to the Governor known for his antipathy to the PML(N), the PPP-PML(N) coalition government is virtually dead. The judgement has led to a perception of instability, leaving a negative impact on the share market. Protests by PML(N) workers and the lawyers started all over Punjab, including the provincial capital, soon after the verdict was announced by TV channels. The Punjab Bar Council and Lahore High Court Bar Association declared three days' boycott of the courts. There is a likelihood of similar, though perhaps less spirited, reactions from other provinces also. While the position of other ruling coalition partners is yet not clear, ANP President Asfandyar Wali has expressed dismay over the development, indicating division over the issue within the ruling coalition.
he judgement coincides with the arrival of President Zardari from China. Being an all-powerful President as well as the Co-Chairman of the PPP, he is expected by many to stop the country, already reeling under the threat of militancy, from sliding into a crisis. He has to realise that what is at stake is the stability of the country and the future of democracy. Mian Nawaz Sharif too owes it to the people, as the leader of the second largest party, to ensure that the system is not threatened, but it is primarily the responsibility of President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to play their role to save the democratic process from being destabilised. Mian Nawaz Sharif, who addressed a hard-hitting press conference on Wednesday, needs to calm down also.
Mr Zardari must ensure first that even if Mian Shahbaz is not the CM, the PPP-PML(N) coalition continues to function. A recourse to horse-trading would put the ruling coalition at the mercy of turncoats who would ditch it whenever their self-interest demanded. Second, all legal and political avenues need to be urgently explored by the government to get the verdict changed. If cases against other politicians can be quashed through the NRO, debarring the Sharif brothers on the basis of cases filed for political reasons would lead to a perception of vindictiveness.
XPECTATIONS had been aroused by conciliatory statements from Prime Minster Gilani and Mian Nawaz Sharif that the ongoing confrontation between the government and the PML(N) might finally end. Many thought good sense would finally prevail among the top leadership of the country. These hopes have received a severe jolt from the verdict of a Supreme Court bench, upholding the disqualification of Mian Nawaz from contesting elections and removing Shahbaz Sharif from both the membership of the Punjab Assembly and the post of CM. Even if he is re-elected to the Assembly, he has been effectively disqualified from being the Chief Minister by a bar imposed by former President Musharraf on a third tenure. The imposition of Governor's Rule in the province exacerbates the situation. Mian Nawaz is the leader of the second largest party in the country and has been twice elected Prime Minister. PML(N) lawyers and leaders have condemned the decision as biased and accused President Zardari of putting pressure on the Court to debar his major political opponents. The judgement, which has led to the removal of Mian Shahbaz as CM, has generated a crisis in the largest province of the country, which had a popular, stable and relatively efficient government which faced no threat from the Assembly. With the authority to run the province passing over to the Governor known for his antipathy to the PML(N), the PPP-PML(N) coalition government is virtually dead. The judgement has led to a perception of instability, leaving a negative impact on the share market. Protests by PML(N) workers and the lawyers started all over Punjab, including the provincial capital, soon after the verdict was announced by TV channels. The Punjab Bar Council and Lahore High Court Bar Association declared three days' boycott of the courts. There is a likelihood of similar, though perhaps less spirited, reactions from other provinces also. While the position of other ruling coalition partners is yet not clear, ANP President Asfandyar Wali has expressed dismay over the development, indicating division over the issue within the ruling coalition.
he judgement coincides with the arrival of President Zardari from China. Being an all-powerful President as well as the Co-Chairman of the PPP, he is expected by many to stop the country, already reeling under the threat of militancy, from sliding into a crisis. He has to realise that what is at stake is the stability of the country and the future of democracy. Mian Nawaz Sharif too owes it to the people, as the leader of the second largest party, to ensure that the system is not threatened, but it is primarily the responsibility of President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to play their role to save the democratic process from being destabilised. Mian Nawaz Sharif, who addressed a hard-hitting press conference on Wednesday, needs to calm down also.
Mr Zardari must ensure first that even if Mian Shahbaz is not the CM, the PPP-PML(N) coalition continues to function. A recourse to horse-trading would put the ruling coalition at the mercy of turncoats who would ditch it whenever their self-interest demanded. Second, all legal and political avenues need to be urgently explored by the government to get the verdict changed. If cases against other politicians can be quashed through the NRO, debarring the Sharif brothers on the basis of cases filed for political reasons would lead to a perception of vindictiveness.
he judgement coincides with the arrival of President Zardari from China. Being an all-powerful President as well as the Co-Chairman of the PPP, he is expected by many to stop the country, already reeling under the threat of militancy, from sliding into a crisis. He has to realise that what is at stake is the stability of the country and the future of democracy. Mian Nawaz Sharif too owes it to the people, as the leader of the second largest party, to ensure that the system is not threatened, but it is primarily the responsibility of President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to play their role to save the democratic process from being destabilised. Mian Nawaz Sharif, who addressed a hard-hitting press conference on Wednesday, needs to calm down also.
Mr Zardari must ensure first that even if Mian Shahbaz is not the CM, the PPP-PML(N) coalition continues to function. A recourse to horse-trading would put the ruling coalition at the mercy of turncoats who would ditch it whenever their self-interest demanded. Second, all legal and political avenues need to be urgently explored by the government to get the verdict changed. If cases against other politicians can be quashed through the NRO, debarring the Sharif brothers on the basis of cases filed for political reasons would lead to a perception of vindictiveness.
XPECTATIONS had been aroused by conciliatory statements from Prime Minster Gilani and Mian Nawaz Sharif that the ongoing confrontation between the government and the PML(N) might finally end. Many thought good sense would finally prevail among the top leadership of the country. These hopes have received a severe jolt from the verdict of a Supreme Court bench, upholding the disqualification of Mian Nawaz from contesting elections and removing Shahbaz Sharif from both the membership of the Punjab Assembly and the post of CM. Even if he is re-elected to the Assembly, he has been effectively disqualified from being the Chief Minister by a bar imposed by former President Musharraf on a third tenure. The imposition of Governor's Rule in the province exacerbates the situation. Mian Nawaz is the leader of the second largest party in the country and has been twice elected Prime Minister. PML(N) lawyers and leaders have condemned the decision as biased and accused President Zardari of putting pressure on the Court to debar his major political opponents. The judgement, which has led to the removal of Mian Shahbaz as CM, has generated a crisis in the largest province of the country, which had a popular, stable and relatively efficient government which faced no threat from the Assembly. With the authority to run the province passing over to the Governor known for his antipathy to the PML(N), the PPP-PML(N) coalition government is virtually dead. The judgement has led to a perception of instability, leaving a negative impact on the share market. Protests by PML(N) workers and the lawyers started all over Punjab, including the provincial capital, soon after the verdict was announced by TV channels. The Punjab Bar Council and Lahore High Court Bar Association declared three days' boycott of the courts. There is a likelihood of similar, though perhaps less spirited, reactions from other provinces also. While the position of other ruling coalition partners is yet not clear, ANP President Asfandyar Wali has expressed dismay over the development, indicating division over the issue within the ruling coalition.
he judgement coincides with the arrival of President Zardari from China. Being an all-powerful President as well as the Co-Chairman of the PPP, he is expected by many to stop the country, already reeling under the threat of militancy, from sliding into a crisis. He has to realise that what is at stake is the stability of the country and the future of democracy. Mian Nawaz Sharif too owes it to the people, as the leader of the second largest party, to ensure that the system is not threatened, but it is primarily the responsibility of President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to play their role to save the democratic process from being destabilised. Mian Nawaz Sharif, who addressed a hard-hitting press conference on Wednesday, needs to calm down also.
Mr Zardari must ensure first that even if Mian Shahbaz is not the CM, the PPP-PML(N) coalition continues to function. A recourse to horse-trading would put the ruling coalition at the mercy of turncoats who would ditch it whenever their self-interest demanded. Second, all legal and political avenues need to be urgently explored by the government to get the verdict changed. If cases against other politicians can be quashed through the NRO, debarring the Sharif brothers on the basis of cases filed for political reasons would lead to a perception of vindictiveness.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
How much sovereignty has Pakistan conceded? Sherin Mazari
It certainly did not take Holbrooke long to reveal his arrogant ignorance about Pakistan. Hysterical over the Swat agreement – clearly it undermines the US efforts to expand the destabilisation of Pakistan and thereby seek a rationale for sending troops into Pakistan and eventually targeting the country’s nuclear assets – he made some absolutely absurd remarks. First he chose to declare the 9/11 perpetrators as being similar to the Swat militants and to the groups of militants in FATA. Only his arrogance would push him into displaying such ignorance since we all know that the perpetrators of 9/11 were well-off Saudis educated in Western institutions (not madrassahs) and living in the West. Unlike them, the Swat militants are a motley group comprising various shades of Pakistanis, primarily madrassah educated and certainly not from the financial elite of the country. As for FATA, the militants comprise several groups ranging from Al-Qaeda offshoots, religious zealots, Afghan Taliban, Pakistan Taliban, local groups and criminal elements. But for Holbrooke it would appear these crucial differences are irrelevant and all that is relevant is the religious identity! Talk about bigotry and prejudice. As for his understanding of the security situation in the NWFP, it was defined in terms of people not “being able to walk their dogs!” Now how many ordinary citizens of Pakistan actually keep dogs as pets and walk them every evening a la New York style? And this is the best Obama could muster as a Special Envoy!
But for us Holbrooke is a secondary issue. Far more critical is the lying and cheating the governments of Pakistan have been indulging in with their own people as they have gradually conceded more and more sovereignty to the USA. We now know that the drone attacks have not only been done with the complicity of the Pakistan government (with both the military and civilian components giving their assent) but also with the provision of a special drone airbase at Bandari, about 87 kilometres from Kharan in Balochistan. There has been a deliberate effort to confuse the issue by citing the Shamsi base close to the Iranian border, built by an expansion of the old Juzzak airport, which is actually primarily being used by the US to destabilise Iran. The drone airfield is a separate clandestine one that does not figure even in the international list of the 22 restricted areas identified in Pakistan – because the drone base is not controlled at all by the Pakistan military – it has simply been handed over to the US to do with as they please. Even more pathetic is the news that our air defence personnel are now embedded in the US embassy in Islamabad to ensure the safety of the drones as they go about killing fellow Pakistanis.
As for our Defence Minister declaring that the US drones have been given rights to land only after they have killed Pakistanis; this is so ridiculous a claim one cannot waste time critiquing its irrationality. In any case, the Foreign Minister declared that the statement was based on a misperception – such is the dysfunctional nature of the state. But then when lies and cover ups are to be maintained this is what happens!
or is the drone issue the only major relinquishing of state sovereignty by Pakistan. The New York Times has revealed what many of us had been writing about for some time now, that the US has around 70 military advisers and technical specialists who are training our military to fight Al Qaeda. That is comical given the lack of success the US is having fighting this beast in Afghanistan! Apparently this secret task force has been in Pakistan since summer 2008 – although there have been sightings of the odd foreigner much earlier in the area around Warsak!
Then there is the access given to the FBI to accompany our security forces as they make their arrests. Why? Is it because the US does not trust our security forces? There are also revelations coming in of how the British were part of the torture machinery of Pakistani prisoners alongside our agencies. Now where will all this go? Will we soon simply hand over our nuclear assets to the US also for “security” reasons – if we have not already done so! After all, with all the duplicity going on, who can trust the state anymore to tell the truth?
eanwhile we continue to hear statements that external sources are funding the militants in parts of Pakistan and now the ISPR head, General Athar Abbas has declared that the military cannot control the “external elements” being funded by hostile sources. But the point is why is no one in the state identifying these elements and sources of funding? Why is it being kept so vague? What is the pressure and where is it coming from?
As the deceit by the state continues, the peace in Swat seems to be holding for the present and the nine points for maintaining this peace that have been given by Sufi Mohammad are interesting because they make demands from both sides. Incidentally, the Taliban have also declared a unilateral ceasefire in Bajaur. Since our rulers look up to the West for almost everything, perhaps they should study the Good Friday Agreement which ended the Northern Ireland conflict and in which concessions were made by all parties. Just to inform some judgemental but ignorant critics, the British Army was also unable to go into areas of Northern Ireland controlled by the armed IRA – the many “no-go” areas but eventually control by the state came through dialogue, not military force! And many prisoners were also released as part of the deal.
oming back to the issue of the Pakistani state’s deception of its own people, the net result is that there is no credibility left. That is why interlocutors like Sufi Mohammed become necessary. If the credibility of the government and the establishment is to be re-established, they must first come clean on the extent of the sovereignty already surrendered to the US. Then they must delink from the US and claim back the lost sovereignty before it is too late. Whether one likes it or not, unless Pakistan creates space between itself and the US, there will be no peace and security and the space for moderates will continue to shrink.
tudy the history of US-backed regimes – be it in Iran, Vietnam, or the many examples of Latin America. US leaders like Obama will not alter the strategic vision the US has of itself – and Obama’s first moves vis-à-vis Pakistan have hardly been encouraging. So let us break our leadership’s psychological dependency on Washington. The rest will follow. Otherwise, the threat our ruling and miniscule westernised elites are seeking to avert will surely become a reality.
Tailpiece: It is sad that Farhat Taj has had to resort to using my columns out of context to counter my arguments but then since she is giving me so much time, I feel my writings must be hurting in the right quarters! Just to clarify some points: the sectarian problem in Pakistan was there much before there were any Pakistan Taliban. Secondly, since I have always made a distinction between the situation in Swat and FATA, I am well aware that there are no drones in Swat – though the US could move in that direction if it felt threatened by the peace and stability being re-established there! But that does not mean our leaders should not visit the area instead of remaining barricaded in their ivory tower residences. Not wanting to waste space on the diatribes of Ms Taj, let me simply say that if she is as intolerant of opposing viewpoints what is the difference between her and the Taliban that she accuses of intolerance – just the weapons? But if she wants to devote her columns to critiquing my writings, I have no complaints. It seems it is not just the Taliban and the US that have intolerance endemic in them!
Email: callstr@hotmail.com
But for us Holbrooke is a secondary issue. Far more critical is the lying and cheating the governments of Pakistan have been indulging in with their own people as they have gradually conceded more and more sovereignty to the USA. We now know that the drone attacks have not only been done with the complicity of the Pakistan government (with both the military and civilian components giving their assent) but also with the provision of a special drone airbase at Bandari, about 87 kilometres from Kharan in Balochistan. There has been a deliberate effort to confuse the issue by citing the Shamsi base close to the Iranian border, built by an expansion of the old Juzzak airport, which is actually primarily being used by the US to destabilise Iran. The drone airfield is a separate clandestine one that does not figure even in the international list of the 22 restricted areas identified in Pakistan – because the drone base is not controlled at all by the Pakistan military – it has simply been handed over to the US to do with as they please. Even more pathetic is the news that our air defence personnel are now embedded in the US embassy in Islamabad to ensure the safety of the drones as they go about killing fellow Pakistanis.
As for our Defence Minister declaring that the US drones have been given rights to land only after they have killed Pakistanis; this is so ridiculous a claim one cannot waste time critiquing its irrationality. In any case, the Foreign Minister declared that the statement was based on a misperception – such is the dysfunctional nature of the state. But then when lies and cover ups are to be maintained this is what happens!
or is the drone issue the only major relinquishing of state sovereignty by Pakistan. The New York Times has revealed what many of us had been writing about for some time now, that the US has around 70 military advisers and technical specialists who are training our military to fight Al Qaeda. That is comical given the lack of success the US is having fighting this beast in Afghanistan! Apparently this secret task force has been in Pakistan since summer 2008 – although there have been sightings of the odd foreigner much earlier in the area around Warsak!
Then there is the access given to the FBI to accompany our security forces as they make their arrests. Why? Is it because the US does not trust our security forces? There are also revelations coming in of how the British were part of the torture machinery of Pakistani prisoners alongside our agencies. Now where will all this go? Will we soon simply hand over our nuclear assets to the US also for “security” reasons – if we have not already done so! After all, with all the duplicity going on, who can trust the state anymore to tell the truth?
eanwhile we continue to hear statements that external sources are funding the militants in parts of Pakistan and now the ISPR head, General Athar Abbas has declared that the military cannot control the “external elements” being funded by hostile sources. But the point is why is no one in the state identifying these elements and sources of funding? Why is it being kept so vague? What is the pressure and where is it coming from?
As the deceit by the state continues, the peace in Swat seems to be holding for the present and the nine points for maintaining this peace that have been given by Sufi Mohammad are interesting because they make demands from both sides. Incidentally, the Taliban have also declared a unilateral ceasefire in Bajaur. Since our rulers look up to the West for almost everything, perhaps they should study the Good Friday Agreement which ended the Northern Ireland conflict and in which concessions were made by all parties. Just to inform some judgemental but ignorant critics, the British Army was also unable to go into areas of Northern Ireland controlled by the armed IRA – the many “no-go” areas but eventually control by the state came through dialogue, not military force! And many prisoners were also released as part of the deal.
oming back to the issue of the Pakistani state’s deception of its own people, the net result is that there is no credibility left. That is why interlocutors like Sufi Mohammed become necessary. If the credibility of the government and the establishment is to be re-established, they must first come clean on the extent of the sovereignty already surrendered to the US. Then they must delink from the US and claim back the lost sovereignty before it is too late. Whether one likes it or not, unless Pakistan creates space between itself and the US, there will be no peace and security and the space for moderates will continue to shrink.
tudy the history of US-backed regimes – be it in Iran, Vietnam, or the many examples of Latin America. US leaders like Obama will not alter the strategic vision the US has of itself – and Obama’s first moves vis-à-vis Pakistan have hardly been encouraging. So let us break our leadership’s psychological dependency on Washington. The rest will follow. Otherwise, the threat our ruling and miniscule westernised elites are seeking to avert will surely become a reality.
Tailpiece: It is sad that Farhat Taj has had to resort to using my columns out of context to counter my arguments but then since she is giving me so much time, I feel my writings must be hurting in the right quarters! Just to clarify some points: the sectarian problem in Pakistan was there much before there were any Pakistan Taliban. Secondly, since I have always made a distinction between the situation in Swat and FATA, I am well aware that there are no drones in Swat – though the US could move in that direction if it felt threatened by the peace and stability being re-established there! But that does not mean our leaders should not visit the area instead of remaining barricaded in their ivory tower residences. Not wanting to waste space on the diatribes of Ms Taj, let me simply say that if she is as intolerant of opposing viewpoints what is the difference between her and the Taliban that she accuses of intolerance – just the weapons? But if she wants to devote her columns to critiquing my writings, I have no complaints. It seems it is not just the Taliban and the US that have intolerance endemic in them!
Email: callstr@hotmail.com
Monday, February 23, 2009
New political alignments
Political and social movements, no matter how insignificant, produce certain sentiments and mindsets. The lawyers’ and civil society’s movement for the restoration of the judiciary, still on the march, has caused a significant degree of socio-political mobilisation of the urban middle classes
Perhaps it is too early to judge the recasting of political alliances among the socio-political forces of Pakistan. At the moment, the political lines between different players are blurred, and are not as clear as when the lawyers, the then opposition parties and civil society launched their movement against the imposition of a second martial law by Pervez Musharraf in November 2007. Earlier, the Charter of Democracy signed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif drew the political line between ‘democratic’ and ‘authoritarian’ forces in the country.
The issues of authoritarianism and democracy in Pakistan are complex, as are the political relationships and networks between classes, institutions and political groupings that are ever willing to change positions for immediate political benefits. Under our brand of pragmatic politics, everyone is ready to strike a new political deal.
Musharraf, for all his political faults, understood the opportunism of the Pakistani political class and made effective, in some instances lasting, political deals to consolidate his power. Even during emergency rule, which didn’t last very long, he had a good section of the political forces on his side.
It was the popular democratic mood at the time of the February 18, 2008 elections that raised serious questions about Musharraf’s rule. His confrontation with the judiciary and the media proved to be a fatal mistake that led to his, and his political allies’, undoing.
Political and social movements, no matter how insignificant, produce certain sentiments and mindsets. The lawyers’ and civil society’s movement for the restoration of the judiciary, still on the march, has caused a significant degree of socio-political mobilisation of the urban middle classes. Nawaz Sharif was quick to capture this sentiment in the more developed parts of Punjab, but the PPP was not left behind in owning and participating in the movement either. However, the political dividends of this participation were meagre for the PPP as compared to the PMLN.
There were other, not so insignificant, factors that played a major role in bringing the PPP to power for the fourth time: a stable social constituency of support in different parts of the country; its image as the party of the poor; and the great sacrifice of Benazir Bhutto.
It was the emotional factor, the mixture of grief and resilience among PPP leaders and workers, that led to a big turnout of its supporters on election day, and that was what mattered in the electoral results for the party.
The old political divide between the ‘democratic’ political forces and their bases of social support even today remains unchanged. At the national level, the divide is between the PPP and the PMLN. Ethnic and religious groups are also influenced by the strong pull of the two parties, depending on their political fortunes.
Then what has really changed?
The real change is in the character of the lawyers’ and civil society’s movement, their political agenda, and their flexibility to align with any political group that would lend support to their cause. This is one of the great social movements of Pakistan that mobilised on an issue-basis, i.e. independence of the judiciary and restoration of unfairly deposed judges. Further, a variety of political parties, either for political gains or conviction, support the movement.
Even bringing these issues to the forefront of the Pakistani political consciousness is a major contribution to democratic thought and practice in the country. At least among the urban middle and professional classes, there is the very strong belief that democratic transition will remain flawed, at best incomplete, unless the judiciary is free.
The lawyers’ and civil society’s movement is non-partisan, and started off with the support of every party and faction in the political opposition. However, there is an irony in the character of the movement: as far as political ideas are concerned, it is liberal-secular, and many of its prominent members were part of the socio-political forces that founded and supported the PPP.
So naturally, it seems to be disillusioned by the PPP leaders, whom it accuses of stalling on the issue of restoring the deposed judges. The movement believes that it has exhausted all possibilities of negotiation with the government, and feels that the only way out is political pressure through the Long March and the indefinite sit-in at Constitution Avenue in Islamabad.
There is a question mark about how the deposed judges will be restored and how the independence of the judiciary will be ensured at the end of the Long March and dharna. This will be a major political event that will be carefully watched by everyone in the country, as well as by the countries that want to gauge Pakistan’s political climate for their own national interest.
But the real significance of the dharna is in another question mark over the realignment of socio-political forces in the country. The PMLN has, finally, after some wavering and rethinking about its commitment to the movement, decided to join the dharna, declaring that it is now willing to “go beyond” this event.
What this means is that the PMLN, which a few days ago was questioning the utility of dharna, wants to throw its full weight behind the movement regardless of the political consequences, especially for its government in Punjab.
If this happens, then clearly, we will see a new realignment of activist urban social and political forces. This is going to be a very different kind of alignment, issue-specific but not grassroots-level, and essentially born out of common political frustrations that may not be enduring.
As soon as the issue of the restoration of judges is resolved, which looks unlikely, or the government is toppled, which we hope is not the aim and which cannot be accomplished short of a ‘revolution’, the alignment between the movement and the PMLN and its traditional political allies may remain intact. There is also an innate fear that the social movement may not be able to stand clear of the lines of political confrontation and may become tangled in them with possible divisions along partisan political lines.
Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais is author of Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan (Oxford University Press, 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at rasul@lums.edu.pk
Perhaps it is too early to judge the recasting of political alliances among the socio-political forces of Pakistan. At the moment, the political lines between different players are blurred, and are not as clear as when the lawyers, the then opposition parties and civil society launched their movement against the imposition of a second martial law by Pervez Musharraf in November 2007. Earlier, the Charter of Democracy signed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif drew the political line between ‘democratic’ and ‘authoritarian’ forces in the country.
The issues of authoritarianism and democracy in Pakistan are complex, as are the political relationships and networks between classes, institutions and political groupings that are ever willing to change positions for immediate political benefits. Under our brand of pragmatic politics, everyone is ready to strike a new political deal.
Musharraf, for all his political faults, understood the opportunism of the Pakistani political class and made effective, in some instances lasting, political deals to consolidate his power. Even during emergency rule, which didn’t last very long, he had a good section of the political forces on his side.
It was the popular democratic mood at the time of the February 18, 2008 elections that raised serious questions about Musharraf’s rule. His confrontation with the judiciary and the media proved to be a fatal mistake that led to his, and his political allies’, undoing.
Political and social movements, no matter how insignificant, produce certain sentiments and mindsets. The lawyers’ and civil society’s movement for the restoration of the judiciary, still on the march, has caused a significant degree of socio-political mobilisation of the urban middle classes. Nawaz Sharif was quick to capture this sentiment in the more developed parts of Punjab, but the PPP was not left behind in owning and participating in the movement either. However, the political dividends of this participation were meagre for the PPP as compared to the PMLN.
There were other, not so insignificant, factors that played a major role in bringing the PPP to power for the fourth time: a stable social constituency of support in different parts of the country; its image as the party of the poor; and the great sacrifice of Benazir Bhutto.
It was the emotional factor, the mixture of grief and resilience among PPP leaders and workers, that led to a big turnout of its supporters on election day, and that was what mattered in the electoral results for the party.
The old political divide between the ‘democratic’ political forces and their bases of social support even today remains unchanged. At the national level, the divide is between the PPP and the PMLN. Ethnic and religious groups are also influenced by the strong pull of the two parties, depending on their political fortunes.
Then what has really changed?
The real change is in the character of the lawyers’ and civil society’s movement, their political agenda, and their flexibility to align with any political group that would lend support to their cause. This is one of the great social movements of Pakistan that mobilised on an issue-basis, i.e. independence of the judiciary and restoration of unfairly deposed judges. Further, a variety of political parties, either for political gains or conviction, support the movement.
Even bringing these issues to the forefront of the Pakistani political consciousness is a major contribution to democratic thought and practice in the country. At least among the urban middle and professional classes, there is the very strong belief that democratic transition will remain flawed, at best incomplete, unless the judiciary is free.
The lawyers’ and civil society’s movement is non-partisan, and started off with the support of every party and faction in the political opposition. However, there is an irony in the character of the movement: as far as political ideas are concerned, it is liberal-secular, and many of its prominent members were part of the socio-political forces that founded and supported the PPP.
So naturally, it seems to be disillusioned by the PPP leaders, whom it accuses of stalling on the issue of restoring the deposed judges. The movement believes that it has exhausted all possibilities of negotiation with the government, and feels that the only way out is political pressure through the Long March and the indefinite sit-in at Constitution Avenue in Islamabad.
There is a question mark about how the deposed judges will be restored and how the independence of the judiciary will be ensured at the end of the Long March and dharna. This will be a major political event that will be carefully watched by everyone in the country, as well as by the countries that want to gauge Pakistan’s political climate for their own national interest.
But the real significance of the dharna is in another question mark over the realignment of socio-political forces in the country. The PMLN has, finally, after some wavering and rethinking about its commitment to the movement, decided to join the dharna, declaring that it is now willing to “go beyond” this event.
What this means is that the PMLN, which a few days ago was questioning the utility of dharna, wants to throw its full weight behind the movement regardless of the political consequences, especially for its government in Punjab.
If this happens, then clearly, we will see a new realignment of activist urban social and political forces. This is going to be a very different kind of alignment, issue-specific but not grassroots-level, and essentially born out of common political frustrations that may not be enduring.
As soon as the issue of the restoration of judges is resolved, which looks unlikely, or the government is toppled, which we hope is not the aim and which cannot be accomplished short of a ‘revolution’, the alignment between the movement and the PMLN and its traditional political allies may remain intact. There is also an innate fear that the social movement may not be able to stand clear of the lines of political confrontation and may become tangled in them with possible divisions along partisan political lines.
Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais is author of Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan (Oxford University Press, 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at rasul@lums.edu.pk
Individualism
There is no hope in individualism for egotism. When a man is at last brought face to face with himself by a brave Individualism, he finds himself face to face, not with an individual, but with a species, and knows that to save himself, he must save the race. He can have no life except a share in the life of the community; and if that life is unhappy and squalid, nothing that he can do to paint and paper and upholster and shut off his little corner of it can really rescue him from it.
George Bernard Shaw, The Quintessence of Ibsenism (1891)
George Bernard Shaw, The Quintessence of Ibsenism (1891)
Sunday, February 22, 2009
10 lessons all Pakistanis must learn
Mulk khud hi chalta rehay ga" (approximate translation: the country doesn't need our contribution to thrive) is a sentence many Pakistanis are prone to saying. I confess that till a few years ago, I myself was confident of this misleading notion. Misleading and dangerous - especially in today's volatile climate. As Pakistanis, it is imperative that we come to terms with the fact that no heavenly Manna will alleviate our country's plight. The job rests squarely on our own shoulders; with the destiny of a whole nation tethered to our will and to the execution of that will. And so as the clock ticks and the prophets of doom raise a foreboding murmur from East to West, it is high time for us to learn some crucial lessons. Lessons without which our collective slumber will only deepen:
1) Extremism always overcomes moderation. History is fraught with examples of moderate majorities ruled and controlled by extremist minorities. Therefore unless we are extreme in our moderation, our endeavor - any endeavor - is doomed to be highjacked by powers which know more meticulous passion. From the radicalized Islamic cleric who preaches bigotry and hatred to the Neoconservative-backed Christian televangelist who sermonizes the urgency of preparing for an ethnic genocide pithily called Armageddon, we today live in an increasingly polarized world. And since Pakistan exists on the very fault-lines of this burgeoning conflict, our problems are exacerbated. Regardless of what stance we take or which side we pick, our country will remain on the receiving end for the foreseeable future. And regardless of how hastily we disregard conspiracy theories, the extreme forces on all sides will continue to augment their belief systems with hybrid religiopolitical prophecies. Prophecies which have a way of snowballing into self-fulfilment. Therefore it is critical that we take our moderate stance to be more of a proactive doctrine rather than apolitical aloofness. Our very existence depends on it.
a
) Microanalysis never gives the complete picture. The details are undoubtedly important when comprehending any system. But often overlooked is the effort to mull over the big-picture such details contribute to – roughly the equivalent of what Sir Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal referred to as tadabbur in his reformist discourse. As denizens of a land increasingly rife with numerous challenges, we simply cannot afford intellectual naiveté. Notwithstanding esoteric themes, we consistently fall short of sensibly determining atleast the more obvious big-picture connections in unfolding narratives. This is utter mediocrity. Whereas some would mistake this for a failure of ability – this is infact predominantly a display of negligent disinterest; of an irresponsible, desensitized populace.
Countless times we have allowed ourselves to fall for the same old tricks. A glaring contemporary example is the myth of Pakistan's democratically elected government we all seem to have digested without any modicum of reflection. Ostensibly, the country voted out the dictator and brought in a government ‘for the people by the people’. But consider the macro picture: currently the seat of political power is the Office of the President - a position where the current incumbent's name was never advertised on the ballot on Election Day, a position where the current incumbent affected the people's voting decision by publicly disavowing any interest in the Presidentship on and before election day, a position which still exercises the uber-powerful, dictatorial Article 58 2(b). In form, we indeed have a democratic set-up in place. But in substance?
Now confessedly this example is a soft and convenient target. Moreover even had most Pakistanis successfully connected the dots, demands for a true democratic set up would be a low priority given more daunting issues the country is currently facing. But it's one of the more visible examples and is relatively fresh in memory - overall an effective illustrative point. Furthermore it helps emphasize the need for greater intellectual involvement on our part. Unless we start to discern between real enemies and contrived ones, manipulation of us and our coming generations by exploitative elements both internal and external will continue to be a dominant theme in the national narrative. That is no future to look forward to.
) Moral relativism is a conduit to absolute corruption. Those who start compromising on principles – even in trivial issues – end up going all the way. A textbook example is that of our previous President: By the end of his regime, General Pervez Musharraf was not the man he was when he first usurped the seat of Pakistan's government. Over time as his political age advanced, he underwent a staged metamorphosis: from an amateur idealist, to a practitioner of temperate Realpolitik, and then finally to an outright Machiavellian Prince. This is the classic lifecycle of corruption; the philosophy that principles are subservient to actions instead of it being the other way around. We must learn once and for all that those who have the proverbial ‘crack in the armor’ inevitably succumb; that their demise is a certainty.
ow realistically speaking it is true that there is no absolute escape from moral relativism, but we atleast need to be skeptical of the more blatant practitioners of this philosophy. We all know who they are. Too many times we have fallen for those who claim that they have been reformed; too many times we have made choices based on the ‘lesser of two evils’. This is folly because it reinforces the longevity of the corrupt by repetitively giving them second chances through the people’s misplaced, gullible trust. Until and unless we explicitly reject this opportunism, our polity will remain enslaved by the puppet-masters.
4) Morality is a myth in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Ethnocentric self-righteousness robs us of our ability to be constructively self-critical and stems societal improvement. Unless we teach our progeny the truth about the decrepit moral standards prevalent in the country and pass on a ‘to-do’ list of sorts; we would have failed in parenting responsible future citizens. We have all witnessed how the various religious movements burn CD shops, dynamite girl schools and dismantle barber boutiques without raising an eyebrow at the greater tyranny of the socio-political system. We have personally seen principled stands getting drowned in derision; the politics of necessity being proclaimed king. We have beheld firsthand justice being abused by megalomania; injustice becoming the law. This is not a lesson to be forgotten or concealed.
5) Don't believe everything you see in the media (self-explanatory)
6) But don't become too paranoid either: empathy and objectivity are seminal in asymptotically approaching the truth. Currently as it stands in Pakistan, we seldom 'think things through', and instead prefer to latch on to the first and most convenient explanation the social circle around us resonates with. This is futile practice. Futile because herd mentality is seldom rational, is borne of fear and dread, and invariably leads to the sort of exploitable mass-hysteria we have witnessed many times over circa 9/11. Make no mistake about it - by abandoning empathy and objectivity, we give up our very freedom of thought and become marionettes to higher interests. In a world of pervasive fear today, Pakistan can chart the course of its destiny better if the collective remains independently thoughtful.
7) Our destinies are tied to Pakistan, to our ethnicity, and to our religion. In the increasingly divisive world of today, individual allegiances are being outdone by overarching stereotypes. In other words, no matter what shade my skin may be, what dialect or accent I speak in or what my beliefs about God may be, I will always be perceived as a Pakistani Muslim by the world at large. And thus, my fate is inescapable from that of Pakistan. So for example if this country is torn asunder due to civil-war brought on by geopolitical strife, I will invariably be perceived as a refugee in the world. Thereafter I can achieve the American dream, or move in international social circles, or even perfectly synchronize my habits with Western norms - I can do all that and I'll still be a refugee. Pakistan's imprint echoes in my very existence; in all of us. We can live our life denying this fact and bury our head in the sand. Or we can accept it, embrace it and let it influence our priorities. How we choose our greater allegiance today will shape our collective, intertwined destiny.
8) The onus for reforming the system is on the middle classes. That is, the onus is on people like you and me. We are the potential agents of change. And thus by implication, we are also blameworthy for allowing the system to remain broken, for not wanting to 'get our hands dirty', for being the silent, apathetic onlookers. The moneyed elite are not to blame – they adhere to their characteristic decadence and nonchalance; they do precisely what they're expected to do. Corrupt politicians are not to blame – a thief knows little more than the art of thievery. Likewise, neither the military's top brass, and nor the have-nots of Pakistan are culpable. They all play their designated roles in manners they ought to. This leaves the middle and upper-middle classes - essentially people like you and me. Us. We are the true architects of revolutionary change. For we are the only societal segment in this country which is situated at the confluence of a moral code which may be disillusioned but still partly intact, a vision which is alienated but still somewhat patriotic and an agency which is disoriented but still adequately resourceful. In short we are far from perfect, but we are the only messiahs Pakistan can realistically count on. There is absolutely no one else. This lesson is perhaps the most consequential one we have to learn.
) Incremental change is not a bad option. Activism through small, comfortable increments is not an impractical way of approaching the paradigm of change. That is, even small steps help since at any one time atomic constituents are more solvable than the complex whole. Hence we must not abhor atomizing issues and then indulging in micro-activism – it is ok if how one contributes does not have immediately noticeable repercussions.
I have encountered many Pakistanis who cite their inability to have a substantial, resounding impact as the main driving force behind their evident indifference to the country's woes. To all those who espouse this view, I say that though I can empathize with your sense of demoralization, I simply cannot condone the rationale for such inaction. For it is undeniable that some progress is better than no progress; that going from 100 to 101 is a better deal than staying put; that the smallest gestures help too. If all of us today - the 140 million plus of us no less – individually contemplate the smallest, tiniest way we can contribute to Pakistan's socioeconomic betterment and act on it, is there any doubt that the country will not change overnight in one big rush of altruistic activism? Now this is ofcourse an unrealistic, rhetorical example - but it is thematic of the power of incremental change. A change easy to accomplish with the results snowballing as more people buy into the paradigm. In short we must not overlook this option; rather it is sensible to include it as an ally in our portfolio of loftier ambitions.
0) Lastly, Pakistan can shine. No really; this is not just talk. If you don't know where to start, there's a lot of help around. And not to mention many examples to take inspiration from. Did you know that Pakistan possesses the technological knowhow to manufacture drones indigenously[i]? Or that one of the most highly regarded applications available in Apple's iPhone App Store today is of Pakistani[ii] origin? Or that 27 Pakistani scientists[iii] are scheduled to work on CERN's Large Hadron Collider (the 'Big Bang' experiment machine)? Or that a Pakistani Venture Capitalist has been placed in the top 10[iv] in Forbes magazine's worldwide annual VC ranking?
These are just a few inspirational stories among a plethora of real-world anecdotes and accomplishments with a quintessentially Pakistani stamp on them. For all that is made out to be defective about this country, there are flashes of brilliance just waiting to be given the opportunity to show themselves in their true splendor to the realms; to spread out and envelope the gloom infesting our polity. We just need to get rid of the “Mulk khud hi chalta rehay ga” approach. And fortunately, this is not as hard as it sounds. There are numerous small but meaningful ways in which we can make a personal contribution. Some suggestions are:
Make yourself heard. Become involved, for your continued silence is really an endorsement of the status quo. Reject what must be rejected, condemn that what is condemnable, endorse and encourage where merited. And do not be fooled into thinking that this is an ambitious proposition: increasing accessibility to the information superhighway has made it easier for any individual to become part of the public discourse. There are numerous Pakistani internet blogs and forums where you can voice your opinions and contribute in your own way to mold the national spirit for a brighter future. And you do not necessarily have to write articles – blogs traditionally invite one-liner comments as well. It is the same as, if not easier than, writing a text message on your cell phone.
Brainstorm in public to seed ideas and to inspire. Many people talk about the way the world should be, but much less understand how to get there. If you do have thought-provoking ideas, then there is nothing more fruitful than exposing your design – through, say, the internet – to the collective intellect for it to dissect it, understand it, polish it if necessary and support it when satisfied. Also remember that your proposed solutions do not have to be comprehensive – for many issues simply cannot be solved bottom-up[v] and the burden has to be placed on the unlikely possibility of a non-elitist, well-educated visionary coming along and dominating our political scene in the future. But your ideas can always ameliorate problems; lessen their severity so to speak. It is imperative that such brainstorming enters our public discourse – the resulting crosspollination is what will slowly and steadily alter the course of our destiny.
ecome an activist through inaction (can’t get easier than this). Every populace has its own share of idealists and lunatics. Ones who think the impossible is possible, the unrealistic is realistic and that conventional wisdom is unwise. And too often people succumb to the temptation of vociferously chastising such individuals; of telling them how futile their beliefs are; of how the system will crush their hopes. Now during my days at LUMS, a Groucho Marx quotation used to do the rounds quite often: “Blessed are the cracked ones, for they shall let in the light”. Just let the lunatics be no matter how imbecilic[vi] their ideas are. Let them have their shot at change. Next time you meet the idealist, unreasonably optimistic seedling who thinks he or she can change the world, be lazy and do not make the effort go negative on them.
All of the suggestions above are very small starts confessedly. But by no means is such a start inconsequential. Through the build-up of momentum, confidence to tackle bigger beasts can evolve and we can then trailblaze our way to that true destiny envisioned for Pakistan by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. This is our moment; let’s seize it. Let’s get going.
1) Extremism always overcomes moderation. History is fraught with examples of moderate majorities ruled and controlled by extremist minorities. Therefore unless we are extreme in our moderation, our endeavor - any endeavor - is doomed to be highjacked by powers which know more meticulous passion. From the radicalized Islamic cleric who preaches bigotry and hatred to the Neoconservative-backed Christian televangelist who sermonizes the urgency of preparing for an ethnic genocide pithily called Armageddon, we today live in an increasingly polarized world. And since Pakistan exists on the very fault-lines of this burgeoning conflict, our problems are exacerbated. Regardless of what stance we take or which side we pick, our country will remain on the receiving end for the foreseeable future. And regardless of how hastily we disregard conspiracy theories, the extreme forces on all sides will continue to augment their belief systems with hybrid religiopolitical prophecies. Prophecies which have a way of snowballing into self-fulfilment. Therefore it is critical that we take our moderate stance to be more of a proactive doctrine rather than apolitical aloofness. Our very existence depends on it.
a
) Microanalysis never gives the complete picture. The details are undoubtedly important when comprehending any system. But often overlooked is the effort to mull over the big-picture such details contribute to – roughly the equivalent of what Sir Dr. Allama Muhammad Iqbal referred to as tadabbur in his reformist discourse. As denizens of a land increasingly rife with numerous challenges, we simply cannot afford intellectual naiveté. Notwithstanding esoteric themes, we consistently fall short of sensibly determining atleast the more obvious big-picture connections in unfolding narratives. This is utter mediocrity. Whereas some would mistake this for a failure of ability – this is infact predominantly a display of negligent disinterest; of an irresponsible, desensitized populace.
Countless times we have allowed ourselves to fall for the same old tricks. A glaring contemporary example is the myth of Pakistan's democratically elected government we all seem to have digested without any modicum of reflection. Ostensibly, the country voted out the dictator and brought in a government ‘for the people by the people’. But consider the macro picture: currently the seat of political power is the Office of the President - a position where the current incumbent's name was never advertised on the ballot on Election Day, a position where the current incumbent affected the people's voting decision by publicly disavowing any interest in the Presidentship on and before election day, a position which still exercises the uber-powerful, dictatorial Article 58 2(b). In form, we indeed have a democratic set-up in place. But in substance?
Now confessedly this example is a soft and convenient target. Moreover even had most Pakistanis successfully connected the dots, demands for a true democratic set up would be a low priority given more daunting issues the country is currently facing. But it's one of the more visible examples and is relatively fresh in memory - overall an effective illustrative point. Furthermore it helps emphasize the need for greater intellectual involvement on our part. Unless we start to discern between real enemies and contrived ones, manipulation of us and our coming generations by exploitative elements both internal and external will continue to be a dominant theme in the national narrative. That is no future to look forward to.
) Moral relativism is a conduit to absolute corruption. Those who start compromising on principles – even in trivial issues – end up going all the way. A textbook example is that of our previous President: By the end of his regime, General Pervez Musharraf was not the man he was when he first usurped the seat of Pakistan's government. Over time as his political age advanced, he underwent a staged metamorphosis: from an amateur idealist, to a practitioner of temperate Realpolitik, and then finally to an outright Machiavellian Prince. This is the classic lifecycle of corruption; the philosophy that principles are subservient to actions instead of it being the other way around. We must learn once and for all that those who have the proverbial ‘crack in the armor’ inevitably succumb; that their demise is a certainty.
ow realistically speaking it is true that there is no absolute escape from moral relativism, but we atleast need to be skeptical of the more blatant practitioners of this philosophy. We all know who they are. Too many times we have fallen for those who claim that they have been reformed; too many times we have made choices based on the ‘lesser of two evils’. This is folly because it reinforces the longevity of the corrupt by repetitively giving them second chances through the people’s misplaced, gullible trust. Until and unless we explicitly reject this opportunism, our polity will remain enslaved by the puppet-masters.
4) Morality is a myth in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Ethnocentric self-righteousness robs us of our ability to be constructively self-critical and stems societal improvement. Unless we teach our progeny the truth about the decrepit moral standards prevalent in the country and pass on a ‘to-do’ list of sorts; we would have failed in parenting responsible future citizens. We have all witnessed how the various religious movements burn CD shops, dynamite girl schools and dismantle barber boutiques without raising an eyebrow at the greater tyranny of the socio-political system. We have personally seen principled stands getting drowned in derision; the politics of necessity being proclaimed king. We have beheld firsthand justice being abused by megalomania; injustice becoming the law. This is not a lesson to be forgotten or concealed.
5) Don't believe everything you see in the media (self-explanatory)
6) But don't become too paranoid either: empathy and objectivity are seminal in asymptotically approaching the truth. Currently as it stands in Pakistan, we seldom 'think things through', and instead prefer to latch on to the first and most convenient explanation the social circle around us resonates with. This is futile practice. Futile because herd mentality is seldom rational, is borne of fear and dread, and invariably leads to the sort of exploitable mass-hysteria we have witnessed many times over circa 9/11. Make no mistake about it - by abandoning empathy and objectivity, we give up our very freedom of thought and become marionettes to higher interests. In a world of pervasive fear today, Pakistan can chart the course of its destiny better if the collective remains independently thoughtful.
7) Our destinies are tied to Pakistan, to our ethnicity, and to our religion. In the increasingly divisive world of today, individual allegiances are being outdone by overarching stereotypes. In other words, no matter what shade my skin may be, what dialect or accent I speak in or what my beliefs about God may be, I will always be perceived as a Pakistani Muslim by the world at large. And thus, my fate is inescapable from that of Pakistan. So for example if this country is torn asunder due to civil-war brought on by geopolitical strife, I will invariably be perceived as a refugee in the world. Thereafter I can achieve the American dream, or move in international social circles, or even perfectly synchronize my habits with Western norms - I can do all that and I'll still be a refugee. Pakistan's imprint echoes in my very existence; in all of us. We can live our life denying this fact and bury our head in the sand. Or we can accept it, embrace it and let it influence our priorities. How we choose our greater allegiance today will shape our collective, intertwined destiny.
8) The onus for reforming the system is on the middle classes. That is, the onus is on people like you and me. We are the potential agents of change. And thus by implication, we are also blameworthy for allowing the system to remain broken, for not wanting to 'get our hands dirty', for being the silent, apathetic onlookers. The moneyed elite are not to blame – they adhere to their characteristic decadence and nonchalance; they do precisely what they're expected to do. Corrupt politicians are not to blame – a thief knows little more than the art of thievery. Likewise, neither the military's top brass, and nor the have-nots of Pakistan are culpable. They all play their designated roles in manners they ought to. This leaves the middle and upper-middle classes - essentially people like you and me. Us. We are the true architects of revolutionary change. For we are the only societal segment in this country which is situated at the confluence of a moral code which may be disillusioned but still partly intact, a vision which is alienated but still somewhat patriotic and an agency which is disoriented but still adequately resourceful. In short we are far from perfect, but we are the only messiahs Pakistan can realistically count on. There is absolutely no one else. This lesson is perhaps the most consequential one we have to learn.
) Incremental change is not a bad option. Activism through small, comfortable increments is not an impractical way of approaching the paradigm of change. That is, even small steps help since at any one time atomic constituents are more solvable than the complex whole. Hence we must not abhor atomizing issues and then indulging in micro-activism – it is ok if how one contributes does not have immediately noticeable repercussions.
I have encountered many Pakistanis who cite their inability to have a substantial, resounding impact as the main driving force behind their evident indifference to the country's woes. To all those who espouse this view, I say that though I can empathize with your sense of demoralization, I simply cannot condone the rationale for such inaction. For it is undeniable that some progress is better than no progress; that going from 100 to 101 is a better deal than staying put; that the smallest gestures help too. If all of us today - the 140 million plus of us no less – individually contemplate the smallest, tiniest way we can contribute to Pakistan's socioeconomic betterment and act on it, is there any doubt that the country will not change overnight in one big rush of altruistic activism? Now this is ofcourse an unrealistic, rhetorical example - but it is thematic of the power of incremental change. A change easy to accomplish with the results snowballing as more people buy into the paradigm. In short we must not overlook this option; rather it is sensible to include it as an ally in our portfolio of loftier ambitions.
0) Lastly, Pakistan can shine. No really; this is not just talk. If you don't know where to start, there's a lot of help around. And not to mention many examples to take inspiration from. Did you know that Pakistan possesses the technological knowhow to manufacture drones indigenously[i]? Or that one of the most highly regarded applications available in Apple's iPhone App Store today is of Pakistani[ii] origin? Or that 27 Pakistani scientists[iii] are scheduled to work on CERN's Large Hadron Collider (the 'Big Bang' experiment machine)? Or that a Pakistani Venture Capitalist has been placed in the top 10[iv] in Forbes magazine's worldwide annual VC ranking?
These are just a few inspirational stories among a plethora of real-world anecdotes and accomplishments with a quintessentially Pakistani stamp on them. For all that is made out to be defective about this country, there are flashes of brilliance just waiting to be given the opportunity to show themselves in their true splendor to the realms; to spread out and envelope the gloom infesting our polity. We just need to get rid of the “Mulk khud hi chalta rehay ga” approach. And fortunately, this is not as hard as it sounds. There are numerous small but meaningful ways in which we can make a personal contribution. Some suggestions are:
Make yourself heard. Become involved, for your continued silence is really an endorsement of the status quo. Reject what must be rejected, condemn that what is condemnable, endorse and encourage where merited. And do not be fooled into thinking that this is an ambitious proposition: increasing accessibility to the information superhighway has made it easier for any individual to become part of the public discourse. There are numerous Pakistani internet blogs and forums where you can voice your opinions and contribute in your own way to mold the national spirit for a brighter future. And you do not necessarily have to write articles – blogs traditionally invite one-liner comments as well. It is the same as, if not easier than, writing a text message on your cell phone.
Brainstorm in public to seed ideas and to inspire. Many people talk about the way the world should be, but much less understand how to get there. If you do have thought-provoking ideas, then there is nothing more fruitful than exposing your design – through, say, the internet – to the collective intellect for it to dissect it, understand it, polish it if necessary and support it when satisfied. Also remember that your proposed solutions do not have to be comprehensive – for many issues simply cannot be solved bottom-up[v] and the burden has to be placed on the unlikely possibility of a non-elitist, well-educated visionary coming along and dominating our political scene in the future. But your ideas can always ameliorate problems; lessen their severity so to speak. It is imperative that such brainstorming enters our public discourse – the resulting crosspollination is what will slowly and steadily alter the course of our destiny.
ecome an activist through inaction (can’t get easier than this). Every populace has its own share of idealists and lunatics. Ones who think the impossible is possible, the unrealistic is realistic and that conventional wisdom is unwise. And too often people succumb to the temptation of vociferously chastising such individuals; of telling them how futile their beliefs are; of how the system will crush their hopes. Now during my days at LUMS, a Groucho Marx quotation used to do the rounds quite often: “Blessed are the cracked ones, for they shall let in the light”. Just let the lunatics be no matter how imbecilic[vi] their ideas are. Let them have their shot at change. Next time you meet the idealist, unreasonably optimistic seedling who thinks he or she can change the world, be lazy and do not make the effort go negative on them.
All of the suggestions above are very small starts confessedly. But by no means is such a start inconsequential. Through the build-up of momentum, confidence to tackle bigger beasts can evolve and we can then trailblaze our way to that true destiny envisioned for Pakistan by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. This is our moment; let’s seize it. Let’s get going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
