Earlier
in the post, The Rise of State Aristocracy in Pakistan, the following was stated:
“.
. . the author thinks that humanity is entering a new Age of Rules, superseding
the Age of Ideologies, and the present book (The Rise of State Aristocracy in
Pakistan) derives its inspiration from the same enlightenment.”
Here
is one article (written in May this year) where I tried to formulate this
thesis of mine:
At
the Confluence of Two Ages
Today
humanity is standing at the confluence of two Ages. The one has tenaciously
flown from the past, and is trying hard to persist through the present into the
future. The other one also emerged in the past - not so distant, though. It seems
strong and teeming with hope for the salvation of humanity, but is still unable
to withstand the unceasing reincarnation of the symptomatically dying Age.
The
dying Age manifests itself in ideologies. Ideologies of innumerable hues and
shades, basing on worship of ethnic, religious, sectarian, spiritual, cultural,
geographical, political entities or gods; aspired / promised rule of this or
that class or community or section of society; dominance of this or that
religion, race, culture, language; and like that. Examples range from
Alexander’s venture of conquering the world; expansion of various Muslim empires;
Crusades; rule of the Church; rule of the mercantilist class; rule of this or
that kind of aristocracy; rule of the landlords / feudal lords; and in recent
past, dictatorship of the proletariat or communist parties; and last but not
least, today’s rise of the violent political Islam.
The
essence of the Age of Ideologies is to vie for controlling the human world –
better said, its resources including human beings, in an open competition. The
ancient world presented a kaleidoscopic image of such an arena where persons,
communities, cultures, civilizations, religions, and faiths, formulating and
justifying their ideologies and charters of conquest, fought relentlessly till
the defeat of this or that entity.
But
somehow it must have been stricken the imagination of ideologues or warriors,
or men of intellect, that this may not be the fate of beings of flesh and
thought, that human life is about something else also. That impulse must have
translated into an impetus of great consequence: making of rules and agreeing
of involved parties to abide by them. These rules covered wars, issues of
territories, resources, and peaceful coexistence between principalities and
kingdoms. That was the real dawn of human civilization.
Side
by side, there would have been another conflict playing between this or that
class and community’s interests throughout the human society. That was again to
be fought under the banner of Ideologies. Both scenarios signify a fierce
contest between, as we know, Might and Right. The making of the Rules started
resolving the life and death struggle of Interests and Ideologies. Somehow here
and there, Rules supported Right, and made Might retreat. That brought
Ideologies to follow the Rules, so to say.
With
the advent of Rules, came another great controversy to occupy the intellectual
and physical arena, where battles were waged to prove the Right-ness of this or
that set of rules derived from this or that ideology. That blocked the progress
of humanity again. It was especially in John Locke (1632-1704) that this
impasse seemed to be overcome, and person and property of man were argued to be
the cornerstone of a society’s system of governance.
This
resolution of the Age of Ideologies into the Age of Rules found its most
effective and pronounced expression in the 1776 US Declaration of Independence,
where the Unalienable Rights of individual persons were practically recognized
as the touchstone of any Rules made to rule a country. That was the emergence
of the Age of Rules, in tangible terms. It strengthened such Rules
philosophically as well as lawfully. The Bill of Rights, along with the
Declaration, captured the essence of the Age of Rules. Add to it, the Magna
Carta of 1215 as the precursor of this Age.
The
Age of Rules tried to establish the sovereignty of individual persons. It
turned the rule of ideologies and ideologues into subservience to individuals’
rights and freedoms. That the replacing of ideological apparatus with rules
protecting individual’s rights and freedoms may be evidenced in the constitutions
and laws of many of the countries of the world is a sign of this war half won.
However,
the real Age of Rules, in the form of conspicuous protections, is far from
extending to every individual citizen of this or that part of the world. Even the
countries which claim to be flag-bearer of the Age of Rules, such as the USA
especially, or the European nations, are retreating, in the face of violent
political ideologies, including Al-Qaeda and Taliban Islam, to ideological back
foot.
In
the developing world, the ruling elites are bent upon using every form of
ideologies to defy the Rule of the Rules. They are arming the local or
foreign-based ideologies and ideologues to keep their own citizenry under their
ideological subjugation. They not only deny citizens their due rights and
freedoms given under rules and laws, but use them as the fuel of their
ideological wars. That keeps the Age of Ideologies surviving, instead of withering
away, and the Age of Rules from taking roots. That should warrant those
countries professedly espousing the Age of Rules to devise such internal and
external policies which could strengthen such an environment in each and every
country of the world where individual persons could enjoy “Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness” as agents free from the yoke of ideologies.
