Depoliticization and its causes

Here is the first part of this article: A depoliticized Pakistan on the rampage

The 2nd and the final part: Depoliticization and its causes

What’s a depoliticized Pakistan; how is it different from a politically apathetic Pakistan; how is it damaging both for the society and its state; who does now represent it, such questions were discussed in A depoliticized Pakistan on the rampage. In the present piece, some other questions will be dwelt on such as: why doesn’t a depoliticized India or Bangladesh exist in India or Bangladesh, for example?  Why that’s so only with Pakistan? Why is Pakistan so fecund for such elements? What are the elements that feed milk and butter to a depoliticized Pakistan?

Since long it has been my contention that the main culprit for the backward Pakistan is Politicians. In this case also, the main culprit for a depoliticized Pakistan is again Politicians. The previous article argues that it is barren politics that among other things may have caused Political Apathy to take root. That’s natural. Decades of experience made people learn: ‘Politics, Sir, is a cow that will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull.” (Samuel Johnson used Truth in the place of Politics!) Though sort of a “Development Politics” entered the political arena, but it could not change the political paradigm. In the midst of present Islamabad Dharna, one must have noticed the top leadership of the Pakistan Muslim League-N harping on its development projects in vain.

It’s no denying that Political Apathy contributed to the solidification of a depoliticized citizenry. Moreover, it is consecutive martial laws which banned political activities, curbed political liberties, surgically operated political parties, built up artificial political structures, and last but not least, destroyed an independent political culture. Whoever ventured in politics made it a point that in order to succeed he needs to be part and parcel of the so-called establishment! It was the most successful short-cut to power in Pakistan. That it inspired a depoliticized Pakistan to love no-politics is evident.

Despite the voluminous charge-sheet against the imposers of martial laws, it may be argued that no martial law did ever succeed without the complicity of politicians. Let the generals impose martial law, and let no political party come to their aid, you will see the generals running back to their barracks! It is politicians who partner with the generals and give them constitutional cover. It is like reprieving a murderer from the gallows. In response to an objection that politicians are an amorphous entity and thus are vulnerable to insinuations, one may retort that politicians are well-organized in political parties with a devout following, and may prove an invincible citadel if they plan to act so; however, they always choose the path of submission and subservience. In this sense martial laws did not create such conditions which proved conducive to the growth and spread of a depoliticized citizenry, but it is the political opportunism and political cowardice on the part of political parties which helped a depoliticized citizenry most in fortifying its depoliticized vision for Pakistan.

Also, it is political parties which did not create an independent political culture in Pakistan; they always let their trees grow in the lawns of in-service or retired generals. Practically they behave in a manner as if the source of power lies in the General Head Quarters (GHQ). It’s strange and at the same time perplexing that no political party ever seems to believe in the constitution which unequivocally declares power as residing with the people of Pakistan. They do vie for the people’s mandate but never abide by its implications. Once they come to power, they do not remain in contact with the people whose mandate makes them rule the same people. That does strengthen the depoliticized Pakistan.

Another factor is the same old refrain: political parties did not deliver, political parties do not deliver. That translates into a fact that politics do not deliver; so let it be passed, let it be part of the past. Surprisingly it is characteristic of a depoliticized Pakistan that it does not delve into the past; it focuses its eyes only on the future. It is in this sense that a depoliticized Pakistan discards all that is part of a political past; it lives in the future. This especially explains the politics of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf: Imran Khan and his followers have no inkling of Pakistan’s political past and they present the PTI as the first true political party of Pakistan, trashing all others. That’s not mere arrogance of an ignoramus; it is inherent in the politics of PTI that it’s the only true political force, whereas all other parties are just corrupt entities. That’s depoliticized Pakistan in action!

One more thing requires some elaboration as it is far more confusing. That’s about the number of people who participate in the PTI Dharnas, meetings and rallies, the latest one held in Rahim Yar Khan on Nov 9. Actually, numbers must not be mixed up with principles. Hitler had much following in Germany; but at the end of the day he was a fascist, who finally set out to conquer the world. Imran Khan has a substantial following of those sections of a depoliticized Pakistan which believe in political power legitimately belonging to them, and as their privileged right like divine right of the Kings of medieval world. It is fascism pure and simple. Imran Khan also wants to conquer the whole Pakistan, but what is characteristic of him and his politics and a depoliticized Pakistan also which he represents is his non-political politics, or his anti-political politics (a contradiction in terms). He seeks power in non-political ways.

As for India, there may be a depoliticized citizenry too weak to be noticed; it may be more vibrant in Bangladesh; but for the same reasons a depoliticized citizenry seems stronger and more damaging in Pakistan. It means it is not in martial laws (Bangladesh has had its share of which) that the rationale for a depoliticized citizenry may be found; it is in the quality of politicians that the process of depoliticization grows it stuff and substance. It is politicians themselves who depoliticized Pakistan, who fed it with milk and butter; now they are condemned to face the same depoliticized Pakistan!

Note: The 2nd part of this article was completed on October 1st and was originally posted in December 2014.

Prosperity is here in Pakistan, Mr. PM!

Countries may be likened to individuals who are resourceless and in order to grow and progress need help from their near ones, dear ones or they borrow from a professional lender. That may be understood as the reality of setting-up a business for which capital is a sine qua non. Such attempts of likening countries with individuals appear quite promising, but are paradoxical. The case of Warren Buffet may be used, for instance, for Pakistan to follow. Is it so? Or it tears apart the likeness between both?

In the first place, individuals are individuals, and countries are countries. One cannot be both. In the second place, countries are political-legal entities wherein millions of individual human beings inhabit. Thus one man’s struggle may not be likened to the struggle of millions of individuals under a state. An individual may be resourceless or resourceful; he may borrow from his relatives to set-up a business, or from his friends or a professional lender or lender institutions. He may fail in his struggle, and then may join another successful business. Or he may come out as a successful business. Or when failing, he may have financial, practical, professional, or moral help extended to him by his relations or friends or well-wishers. Or he may continue with his business on a sustaining level and be happy with it. There are billions of real examples being lived, shaped and created by billions of real individuals. Against this, as far as countries’ examples are concerned, there may only be few ones, and those too turn out to be individuals’ efforts at making their countries adopt such policies which free their individual citizens to bring progress and prosperity.

So, Mr. Prime Minister, the first thing to see and realize is that Pakistan, or for that matter any other country, is a real place on this planet where millions of individuals full of life and urge to live live. Mr. PM, you cannot replace their individual plans with your plans for them from the above. Mr. PM, why don’t you look back and see your father struggling with a small business and finally transforming it into a big business empire? Did your father require a government or for that matter government of Pakistan to help him make progress? So unlike your father why do you think and act like a government which in your view brings progress and prosperity to the country? Mr. PM! It was your family business which brought progress and prosperity to Pakistan; not the government of Pakistan which brought progress to your family business!

The second thing to see and realize is that the sole task of a government is to let its individual citizens make their own plans and implement them in an environment of peace where their life and property enjoy complete protection. Such a government is not one which imposes itself from the above; it works among the citizens ensuring them security of their person and property and dispensation of justice as its foremost function. No doubt, in performing this function diligently such a government makes sure the citizens are free to enjoy their fundamental rights and freedoms and no individual or groups or state itself are encroaching upon their personal freedoms.

However, altogether opposed to such thinking and approach, I see your government completely obsessed with foreign help/loans to bring prosperity to Pakistan. Mr. PM! I see it as a misleading economic philosophy. Rather it is the economic philosophy of Pakistan’s Riyasati Ashrafiya (State Aristocracy) and one of its two ingredients is: Prosperity comes down from the above, i.e. prosperity is a prerogative of Riyasati Ashrafiya which it allows to flow downward to its subjects. It means prosperity is brought by a country’s government. Its second ingredient sees prosperity as something imported from abroad. Certainly, it is too Ashraafist to see prosperity as something imported; at the same time it is quite natural for Riyasati Ashrafiya because it lives and thrives on that. This ingredient has developed into an independent Ashraafist model of progress and prosperity. This model stands on the proposition: Progress and prosperity of a society is the function of the magnitude of foreign help, grants, loans, which its government succeeds in procuring for it.

This Ashraafist model of progress serves both parties: which gives and to which is given. The first party pursues its politico-economic objectives in giving, be it grants, loans, etc. The second party, which otherwise may make good use of it, always aims at many a target in receiving what is given to it, which include from hefty appropriations for itself to political good-will at home. You know Mr. PM! You and your party in the heat of Islamabad Inqilab and Azadi Sit-ins have been harping on the visits of this or that country’s delegation and especially of Chinese President’s visit as a result of which agreements worth billions of dollars between the two countries were to be signed and which these Dharnas obstructed; which finally would bring forth prosperity to Pakistan, it was argued.

Now when you have signed a lot of agreements in China, it is being argued that it would bring prosperity to Pakistan. No sooner were you back from China than you went to Germany, and it is reported after that you would be proceeding to UK. Very good progress, Mr. PM! That means there is something wrong with your prosperity model for Pakistan. It’s not that an individual or a country needs no help or loans to prosper; it needs both but only when it desperately requires that. No individual or country espouses taking loans as a philosophy of life; it’s about 7 decades that Pakistan government is living with this philosophy in the name of prosperity which is still a far-fetched dream.

Mr. PM! Progress and prosperity lies here within the individual citizens; why do you look for it abroad! Trust the Pakistani citizens! Only let the market forces under due regulation work to create wealth. Let them freely trade either with China, Germany or India wherever they find a good deal. Only reform your state and its machinery to the effect that it’s not there to control but to facilitate. And you will see, Mr. PM! Progress and prosperity sprout from within! 

Note: This article was completed on November 11, and was originally posted in November 2014.

ISPR’s political semantics - I

Nothing can be understood in isolation. So is the case with three recent press releases of the Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR), which acts as the voice of Pakistan Army. However, any attempt to understand them without putting them in their proper context is misleading. Actually, words and sentences are packets of explosives or envelopes of goodwill. It is the situation in which words and sentences are expressed which determines the nature of their destructive or constructive character.

So let’s indulge in a bit of political semantics: Here is the text of the 1^st press release (N0.184/2014-ISPR), which was issued on August 31^st: “(1) Corps Commander Conference was held at General Headquarters tonight. (2) Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif presided over the conference. (3) While affirming support to democracy, the conference reviewed with serious concern, the existing political crisis and the violent turn it has taken, resulting in large scale injuries and loss of lives. (4) Further use of force will only aggravate the problem. (5) It was once again reiterated that the situation should be resolved politically without wasting any time and without recourse to violent means. (6) Army remains committed to playing its part in ensuring security of the state and will never fall short of meeting national aspirations.”

As far as the sentence 3 is concerned, though the PR reaffirms Army’s support to democracy, but in the same breath it shows its serious concern not only on the existing political crisis, but on its turning violent and resulting in large scale injuries and loss of lives also. The question is why it’s so much concerned about the existing political crisis. The Army is an institution which is sub-ordinate to the country’s civil power, then how come that it stepping beyond its constitutional duties expresses its concern on the violence entering the crisis and large scale injuries. It may also be questioned why it’s so much serious about the violence, injuries and loss of life, which was the result of law-forcing agencies’ efforts to protect the state buildings. Did other institutions such as Rangers, Capital Police and other police officers express any such concerns? Then, it must be asked how such a sub-ordinate institution can judge the policy of the government and its aftermath, whatever it is!

The next sentence 4 reinforces the impression that the earlier sentence gives rise to, i.e. it clearly censures the further use of force. In that, not only does it publicly criticize the government’s policy, but advises it to avoid using force. That amounts to depriving the state and the government of its monopoly of violence, and thus makes it vulnerable to those elements which are creating a worst law and order situation in the capital city. Implicitly it may mean to be understood as carving out a niche for the protesting parties, PTI and PAT. Another angle of understanding 3 and 4 is that in the capacity of a constitutionally sub-ordinate institution, the Army may not advise or exhort any elements which are not part of the government to desist from violence; though they did the same earlier when a PR talked about the sanctity of the state buildings. It be noticed here that the word “force” is generally used for organized (governmental) force, and not for the above-mentioned elements, for which the word “violence” is used usually. It means that the advice exclusively stood for the government!

The sentence 5 reveals the whole stance of the PR. It reiterates political resolution of the crisis, and gives a time frame, affording no wasting of time. More to it, it advises once again no recourse to violent means. Obviously in accordance with the dictates of the constitution, the lawful authority rests with the government, and it is for it to see and decide whether to go for a political resolution, or delay it, or to go for the use of force, or delay it. Here it may be objected that, as argued above, it is justified for the PR to advise or exhort the government to do this or that. But that misdirects the argument, which indirectly tries to make sense of the PR of the ISPR. First, the Army as a state institution may tell or advise only a government institution, not a non-state actor. Second, as it is a sub-ordinate institution, it may not tell or advise the government to which it is subservient.

Finally, the last sentence 6 may be termed paradoxical. While it is said, ‘Army remains committed to playing its part in ensuring security of the state,’ it may at once be asked why that assurance was required to be made. Does it address that mistrust that a long history of military rule in Pakistan has created and strengthened? Or, does it address the doubts lurking around regarding the Army’s role? Be that as it may, the constitution makes the Army to protect the geographical boundaries of the country as well as to come to the aid of the civil power; whenever it is directed to play both of its roles (A-245)! That’s the rationale of its existence.

The second part of the same sentence is rather fatally amenable to various interpretations since the choice of words in it is quite sentimental and problematic. It states: ‘Army will never fall short of meeting national aspirations.’ It is relevant here to note that the constitution consists of twelve parts, and it is in the last part XII and its chapter 2 that the 3 articles relating to the Armed Forces are contained. There are no such words or expression in these 3 articles which may be taken to mean that the Army should not fall short of meeting “national aspirations.” How to understand the meaning of this expression? I would suggest it’s quite a political and partisan expression. How can one know: What the national aspirations are at this moment? That’s something politically subjective, and political leaders use this expression so often to their purposes that it is only in elections that the national aspirations may come to fore and to our knowledge in the form of votes only.

Hence, particularly this PR of the ISPR, which may be said badly or meaningfully worded, does not have only one meaning that the Corps Commanders may have been meaning to say; it may be interpreted in many ways, all of which cannot make part of a short piece of writing. In conclusion, it may said that the spirit and the message of this PR is ominous for the incumbent government, and may be taken to mean something akin to what goes beyond the ambit of the constitution. In short, it’s yielding to the Realpolitik of the moment!

Note: This article was completed on September 2 and was originally posted in September 2014.

Charter of Democracy’s half truth

As the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek launched this August 14 their “Azadi March” and “Inqilab March” respectively, and then undertook the Sit-Ins (Dharnas) in Islamabad; day by day it was increasingly perceived as a deadly threat to political constitutional set-up prevailing in the country. With worsening law and order situation in the capital including the fears of occupation of state buildings by the marchers, the fear of military intervention loomed large on the political horizon. However, in the face of it something very surprising took place: All the political parties sitting in the parliament reposed and reiterated their complete confidence in the current political set-up, including the government, rejected the marchers’ calls for prime minister’s resignation, dissolution of national and provincial assemblies, and holding of mid-term elections. More to it, bar associations and civil society organizations throughout the country supported the cause of the continuation of the current political constitutional set-up. Finally the Supreme Court also judged that all the institutions and authorities of the state must work remaining within their constitutional domains.

That’s unprecedented for the long checkered polity of Pakistan. Somehow all the political elements, except the protesting ones, out of which the PAT has no representation in the parliament, have put their weight on the side of the constitution ruling out any military adventure. Symbolically, it’s the victory of the Charter of Democracy, which Nawaz Sharif (Pakistan Muslim League-N) and Benazir Bhutto (Pakistan Peoples Party) signed in May 2006. However, it is strictly a political victory, which may or may not translate into something concrete for the individual citizens of Pakistan.

A look at the Charter of Democracy may reveal the political contours of the tale: It lists the following maladies that afflict Pakistan: Political crisis; Threats to its survival; Erosion of the federation's unity;  Military's subordination of all state institutions;  Marginalization of civil society; Mockery of the Constitution and representative institutions; Growing poverty, unemployment and inequality; Brutalization of society; Breakdown of rule of law; and, Unprecedented hardships facing our people under a military dictatorship.

After listing the afflictions, the Charter of Democracy proposed an “alternative direction” for the country characterized by the following: Economically sustainable; Socially progressive; Politically democratic and pluralist; Federally cooperative; Ideologically tolerant; Internationally respectable; Regionally peaceful; and, Resting of the sovereign right with the people to govern through their elected representatives.

In no way, anything agreed in the Charter of Democracy by the two larger political parties related to any aspect of the fundamental rights of the individual citizens of Pakistan. Revisit the Charter of Democracy and note its essential political character, which may be interpreted if not in an anti-citizen manner, necessarily not in a pro-citizen way either. Hence, what the Charter of Democracy agreed at achieving in 2006, it has achieved at this moment a substantial political part of it in 2014. Notwithstanding the fears that the rallying of the major political parties behind the demands of the constitutional rule and continuity, and against the PAT / PTI’s calls of winding up of the political system may evaporate tomorrow or day after tomorrow.

In view of the above analysis, every sane person would love to support the present constitutional political set-up and its continuation; however, at the same time he may wish it translate into the realistic availability of the fundamental rights for each and every individual. As the Supreme Court has observed (August 22): If the protesters are exercising their rights; other citizens’ too have their rights, which must not be encroached by them.

Now, it may be summed up that Charter of Democracy is half the Truth for the individual citizens; the other half of the Truth lies in another charter, a charter of individual citizen’s fundamental rights. It was this spirit in which I responded to the Charter of Democracy, and wrote a Charter of Liberty in September 2007, which sought to present a solution to the myriad problems and unimaginable sufferings faced by the ordinary people of Pakistan. The Charter of Liberty presented not only a critique of the Charter of Democracy but also offered an independent Charter of Liberty for individual citizens so that their personal freedom and fundamental rights may be secured.

In contrast to The Charter of Democracy’s Political Spirit which has manifested itself now in a constitutional consensus across the political horizon, The Charter of Liberty tries to imbibe the Individual Spirit which permeates the fundamental rights and their daily formulations in various situations. The individual citizens must rise to the occasion so that they are able to secure their personal freedom and fundamental rights against the onslaught of the unruly political elements.

Here are some of the demands, the Charter of Individual Citizens’ Fundamental Rights includes: We the individual citizens of Pakistan hold: That of all freedoms, individual freedom is of foremost importance; and that without it, all freedoms, be they political, economic, religious, etc., are useless; That without individual freedom, Pakistan can never be transformed into a virtuous society since it is individual freedom that allows people to make choices on their own and thus to be responsible for their choices and their consequences also; That the above amounts to saying that every individual citizen is endowed with certain inalienable rights such as right to life and liberty; That every individual citizen is free to pursue a life of his choice and liking until and unless he trespasses on such freedom of other individual citizen/s; That in the case of any trespassing, the trespasser, be it a citizen or a group or a political party or an institution or government itself, is to be dealt in accordance with the law.

That the inalienable rights include among other things the freedom of speech and writing, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of professing and practicing any philosophy, ideology, religion etc. and freedom of propagating it by peaceful means only; That the inalienable rights include freedom of movement, freedom of trade, freedom of business, freedom of profession, etc. That amounts to saying that the only justified function of government is to protect its citizens life, their income and property, and their rights and freedoms from those who seek to usurp them be they are local or foreign individuals, groups of individuals, political parties, or institutions or government itself.

That, if there is no rule of law, and no independent judiciary, even a parliamentary government can never come up to the expectations of its citizens, i.e. cannot protect their life, liberty and property; and, That without an independent judiciary, justice can never be accessible to each individual citizen, and a just society can never be created. Thus, through this Charter the citizens’ Fundamental Rights not only in the political realm but in daily life situations, as is happening in Islamabad and elsewhere, may also be secured.

Note: This article was completed on August 25 and was originally posted in September 2014.