Daily Times

The question that often vexed me was whether being a social liberal in Pakistan also translates into being a political liberal. The rise of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI) has answered my question. In the Pakistani context, a social liberal is a person who is often seen in the presence of non-mehram (unrelated) persons of the opposite sex, wears westernised clothes, which for women also means being seen in public without the head or face coverings, listens to music and is relatively tolerant towards people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds.
Watching the PTI’s public meetings on television and considering the participants it does suggest that most, if not all, PTI members subscribe to these points of view. However, listening to Imran Khan, the leader of the PTI, it is also clear that the PTI is definitely not a liberal political party, populist rhetoric notwithstanding. Perhaps Imran Khan is not the Taliban Khan as he has been called by his opponents. It is difficult to imagine Taliban types participating in his public gatherings.
So, for me, it is now clear that most social liberals at least of the PTI sort in Pakistan are about as far away from political liberalism as is possible. There are three major legs of modern political liberalism. First is the right of all citizens to be treated equally under the law irrespective of religion, sex, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Second is that the state will not enforce a particular religion on the people. Third, the state is responsible for a ‘safety net’ that ensures all citizens are provided economic support, including basic education and healthcare, a living minimum wage and adequate economic help for those who cannot work due to any reason.
Other than some sort of safety net, centre-right (pro-Islamist) political parties, including the PTI, do not subscribe to other ideas of liberal politics. When it comes to a safety net, there is a difference between the likes of Imran Khan and liberal ideas. Liberalism presumes that it is the responsibility of the state to assure the safety network and that it is the right of citizens to expect it. However, for people like Khan and other centre-right pro-Islamist parties like the PML-N, such help is a matter of ‘charity’. Charity is not a right but depends upon the largesse of the person providing such charity. Here a small aside: zakat (poor tax) is an Islamic innovation that is a compulsory tax, not a charitable contribution, and it might be considered an early attempt at the redistribution of wealth.
The next question is which political party in Pakistan, if any, can be called politically liberal. Here an interesting point: most conservative (read pro-Islamist) parties in Pakistan always concentrate on one perceived aspect of liberalism to counter it and that is the question of secularism, which they usually translate as the absence of religion. Of course, that is not the case but then that is a discussion for another day. According to its constitution, Pakistan is an Islamic republic and, as such, by definition can never be a secular state unless the constitution is amended drastically. And that is not going to happen anytime soon. However, it is interesting to note that Pakistan’s great friend, the People’s Republic of China, an avowedly communist state, at this time shows no evidence of its communist origins. And also that the UK, upon which our parliamentary system is based, has a sovereign that has to belong to the Church of England and is also the titular head of that church.
However, most liberals espouse the concept of pluralism. What that means is that the faith of any particular person is as valid to that person as that of any other and that the state must accept this reality. More importantly, whatever the personal beliefs of any citizen might be, he or she can expect equal treatment and protection under the law. That is what the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan assures all its citizens. So, if the constitution of Pakistan is not secular, it is definitely pluralistic. And therein lies the problem. Countries can write the best constitutions but it is only a document unless it is enforced.
Back to the question about what a true liberal or centre-left political party would be like in Pakistan. In my opinion, such a party has to support equal protection of all citizens under the law and that particularly includes different ethnic groups, women and all religious sub-sects and minorities. It must actively work to provide all aspects of the safety net mentioned above and should also work towards providing employment for all those who wish to work and protect their rights through trade unions and appropriate enforceable legislation. And it must make serious efforts to end poverty through progressive taxation and the redistribution of wealth.
As far as the privatisation of state-owned enterprises is concerned, I cannot understand why profitable entities should be sold off. As far as heavy industry and banking are concerned, if the army can run similar enterprises effectively, why can the government not do it too? And I believe strongly that the railways and the national airline carrier, PIA, the nation’s electrical grid as well as energy distribution networks for natural gas are all vital national assets that should remain under government control. Of course, if private enterprise wants to set up competing networks, including a national rail system or energy production and distribution system, that is fine, but let them invest their own money to do it and not feed in the trough of political largesse.
So, whichever political party supports all of these points of view, I as an old-fashioned centre-left liberal will support it. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) is where I started a lifetime ago but I do not know if that is where I belong anymore.

The writer has practiced and taught medicine in the US. He can be reached at smhmbbs70@yahoo.com