Daily Times

Whether it is the energy crisis, political instability, ethnic violence, civil-military imbalance, institutional frictions, recurrent insurgencies, regional wars or international tensions, the root causes of our chronic ailments lie in the tripod on which the modern polity rests: legitimacy, authority and governance.

The trivet can sustain itself when one or even two of its legs are weaker, but at least one leg must be stout enough to make up for the lean ones. The Israeli state may not be ‘legitimate’ in the eyes of many, but its democratic dispensation (even for the benefit of the ‘Israeli citizens’) is keeping the state a going concern, for all the internal political and external security threats. On the other hand, the Palestinian Authority has neither good governance nor authority over Gaza and the West Bank; nevertheless, this tiny state derives legitimacy from the Palestinians’ historical right to statehood, which is recognised by the international community. Likewise, the Chinese polity may not match the majoritarian principle, but its efficient economic machinery, paradoxically wrought by the same ‘undemocratic’ system, is surely surging the country forward.

However, a state flounders when its legitimacy is questioned first internally, then externally its authority is challenged by sections of the citizenry, and bad governance erodes its administrative capacity. A handy example of such a floundering state is our western neighbour, Afghanistan, whose political stability and even territorial integrity are perennially imperiled by inter-ethnic, regional and global rivalries. And there are many other ‘hulks’ of states in the world. Unfortunately, our situation is not any better.

There is a counter argument to the legitimacy-authority-governance thesis that is equally robust: states being politico-legal species are always prone to responding to a host of social, cultural, economic, security and political imperatives, which cause them to grow, sometimes beyond the classical limitations — sovereignty, territorial integrity, land and citizenship. The European Union (EU) constitutes more than two dozen states that once waged wars against one another for national honour, territory, economic interests, thrones and colonies, but have now surrendered their sovereignty, territorial exclusivity and markets to the Union.

On the touchstone of legitimacy, authority and good governance, can we say we are not a floundering state? Of course, opinion is divided. There are those who believe we are ‘doomed’ or at least ‘on the brink’. They would point to the myriad secessionist and anti-state movements challenging the legitimacy of the state; to the powerful corporate, business and agricultural interests defying the state authority to levy and collect taxes and maintain law and order, and to governance that is infested with inefficiency and corruption, incessantly triggering economic, social and political crises. The doomsayers would also refer to other existential threats: recurring institutional fights, the ‘generational’ regional wars, the increasing global isolation, and state brinkmanship.

More ominously, they would raise the question whether we have a capable leadership that could deal with the root causes of these crises. Obviously, answering this question would become difficult. Much of our current leadership is pedagogic, opportunistic, power-hungry or fantasist. They lack the courage and devotion to uplift the poor and marginalised from the depth of dearth and ignorance, to renounce wars and the use of violence as a means of achieving internal or external political goals, and to bring the country at par with the fast developing economies. To counter this dark prognosis, there are voices of hope and promise. But many of them would draw their optimism less from empirical and scientific premises and more from abstract and obscurantist sources. For instance, the entire rightist political classes ascribe our state and societal maladies not to systemic, policy or leadership failures but to our ethical depravity and irreligiousness. Imran Khan is the recent entry to this predeterministic optimism. He trusts his guts and the ‘collective wisdom’ of people to stop the state and society from plunging into an abyss.

Luckily, there is another streak of optimism that oozes out from an analogy with many of the East Asian and Latin American states, which like ours, were also confronted with decades-long authoritarian rule, insurgencies, wars and mal-governance. Nevertheless, now they are democratic, stable and prosperous. These states have nurtured middle-class societies, which are underpinned by skilled workers, professionals, scientists, entrepreneurs, the intelligentsia and cultural icons; all those forces, which need peace and stability to thrive and realise their personal and collective potential. No wonder they are gradually but surely evolving a political system that caters to the reasonable, if not absolutely fair, distribution of pelf and power, and more importantly, to ensure a peaceful transfer of power through electoral and constitutional means.

To answer the question if we are a floundering state, it must be said that to escape such an eventuality, we must reinforce the tripod of legitimacy, authority and good governance. Legitimacy requires the state to ensure equality before the law that in turn makes the state a neutral empire among citizens and state organs. Authority is linked to the benefit theory of the state: people cherish a state that serves their interests. And good governance reduces the cost of running the state without compromising on its delivery of goods and services to society, and to the world. It goes without saying that such a state requires a capable, committed and accountable leadership.

But alas, we have a chronic dearth of quality leadership. The available ones are afflicted with blinkered national and world views. A case in point is the ongoing controversy regarding the reopening of NATO supplies. Toeing the extremist line taken by the Difa-e-Pakistan Council and shared in a slightly diluted form by Imran Khan, Mian Nawaz Sharif is also playing to the gallery, rather than helping rebuild Pakistan-US relations on rational and mutually beneficial grounds.

No, Mian Sahib, it’s time to deal with the roots of our crises — the state’s lack of legitimacy, authority and good governance — and that requires politicians to become statesmen or let the polity wither away.

The writer is a lawyer and academic. He can be reached at shahabusto@hotmail.com