Daily Times

Pakistan is facing political violence, terrorism, a hike in crime and terrible bloodshed. A lot of people harbour resentment against the state for its failure to protect the rights of its people. Some have labelled Pakistan a ‘failed state’. The Global Peace Index ranked Pakistan at second position on its terrorism list after Iraq. Terrorism is increasing day by day and the state, to date, has failed to take any step to counter terrorism and protect its citizens. The political elite, instead of providing free health, education and fundamental rights to its citizens, indulge in controversies over whether unmanned robotic strikes in the territories of Pakistan undermine the sovereignty of Pakistan or not.

The debate on drone strikes, I believe, is only to gather political opposition against the US and CIA — nothing more than that. The second issue to have gathered media attention is whether the trial of the ex-president — Musharraf — can be conducted for abrogating the constitution. It is not unreasonable here to say that the state has provided space to fundamentalists and extremists to be nurtured and get hold of its sovereignty. I feel the officials should actually consider whether there is a need to re-establish the state’s ‘social contract’ with the people and protect their human rights. In a discussion article, I shall be dwelling with the theory concerning the social contract. In the following paragraphs, discussion concerning this social contract from different perspectives will be brought to light.

At first glance, it is reasonable to understand what social contract theory actually is. The social contract theory was first introduced in the 17th century and social contract theorists refined their ideas in the early 18th century. John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Rousseau are among those theorists who actually introduced their different ideas on the social contract. The Lockian theory of the social contract is much clearer and appreciated in the world than that of Hobbes and Rousseau. In political theory, the social contract addresses the question of the legitimacy of a state over its individuals. Like I have mentioned above, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all had different ideas but the basic idea of the social contract is that individuals relinquish some of their freedoms and subject themselves to the rule of law in exchange for protection. Thus, under this concept, the state’s legitimacy largely depends on its success in protecting and safeguarding the lives of its people.

Patriots are irked when the state of Pakistan appears under the ‘failed states’ ranking but the state undermines or threatens its legitimacy when it fails to respect its commitments under the social contract. It is fair to say that the state of Pakistan becomes a conglomerate of its individuals taking matters into their hands. From addressing the electricity shortage through candles, generators and UPS systems, and meeting security through personal guards, all show a great deficit on the part of the state. It is worthwhile to mention that Pakistan is a place where the rich can create their own mini-states to protect themselves and fulfil their needs while the poor people are left to the state, which does not have the power or resources to manage and provide protection to its poor population.

The state has totally failed to fulfil the fundamental needs of its citizens. The government’s voice is for addressing the challenges of good governance and delivery of justice to all its citizens no matter the caste, creed and breed but, in reality, is only limited to conferences and dusty papers. To understand and find out how effective these conferences and policies made by the government are, one should ask the ordinary people on the street.

How can the state reclaim its legitimacy? By better planning and systematically addressing its problems. Better planning can be possible if the state prioritises the issues by allowing individuals to participate in decision making. While enacting laws, parliament should take the general public into confidence. The political parties can also play an effective role because political parties can easily change the opinion of the general public. The Economic Survey of Pakistan, released earlier this summer, chose to keep the financial losses from terrorism classified. However, for Pakistanis to own their own war against terrorism, it is incumbent upon the government to help them be clear about this and help create a counter-narrative.

Moreover, the government will need domestic confidence building measures for its citizens to regain the people’s trust. Better communication, transparency and accountability in governance processes will allow the people to understand them, and subsequently participate more. A positive move in this regard is the accessibility of elected officials. Political parties should also be more active on social media, allowing for more communication between citizens and their political representatives. Lastly, and most importantly, Pakistanis, as a nation, will have to cooperate with their government and give constant feedback to help improve the governance processes. Creating grassroots accountability and meeting their own responsibilities — whether through keeping the roads clean or paying bills on time or just being honest in their day to day lives — will go a long way in improving the overall state of affairs in the country.

Every citizen in Pakistan deserves the right to life, and to not live in conditions of constant fear and insecurity. It is about time that the government and people rebuild their social contract.

The writer is an advocate of the High Court and is lecturing in the Law of Succession. He can be reached at greenlaw123@hotmail.com