Daily Times

Those who waged the struggle for independence and created Pakistan expected that in time its people would become progressive, creative, and tolerant of one another’s differences. This for the most part has not happened. Since the beginning of Ziaul Haq’s rule, passion, fanaticism, and intolerance of the dissident have been on the rise. These developments are owed largely to his Islamisation campaign and his doctrine that secularism and liberalism are snakes in the grass that must be terminated. He has been gone for nearly a quarter of a century but his legacy lingers.

An authoritarian disposition and intolerance of the dissident are closely related attitudes of mind. Tolerance is more likely to be found in a democratic environment, which authorises the majority to rule. It assumes the presence of a minority whom it assigns the role of an opposition, which is to keep an eye on the government’s performance and expose its failings. Whether the current Pakistani political system is to be regarded as a democracy is open to debate. Democracy requires the existence of an institutionalised opposition and we do have one.

In the more commonly accepted version, political parties do not practice internal democracy, which makes them systems of one-man rule. They do have their consultative councils and executive committees, which meet periodically and discuss issues placed before them. Differences of opinion may surface. The head of the party may then sum up the debate and give his own view of the way they should go. The matter may or may not be put to a vote. Rare indeed would be the case in which his advice is rejected. Our political culture recognises two dimensions of interaction, namely superior and subordinate. A landowner in a village will defer to a bigger landlord; if he doesn’t, the latter will send a bunch of goons to lift his cattle and burn down his crop. Neither of them knows how to treat an equal.

We may now ask if our people have become more liberal during the last few decades. Liberalism is a multi-dimensional set of persuasions. Recognition of a citizen’s right to be himself even if that is different from the way others are is one of its essential characteristics. In another dimension it may be equated with individualism. The individual has primacy over the community. He is self-reliant and self-sufficient to the maximum possible extent. Men living in close proximity will have to have some interaction and inter-dependence. They will have to make arrangements to pursue and attain their common interests. The result will be a collectivity called government, which must remain within prescribed bounds.

In one of its extreme versions, expounded by Henry David Thoreau, an individual is not obligated to obey laws in the making of which he has not personally participated. This is a prescription for anarchy more than it may be for any kind of a social order. In the conservative as well as the Islamic tradition, the interest and inclinations of the individual must be subordinated to those of the community. Speaking theoretically, it is the same way in Pakistan. In actual fact the writ of the state does not travel very far, with the result that in far too many instances the individual can do whatever he wants and get away with it. Levels of tolerance vary from one individual or group to the next. In Pakistan, fanaticism and the inclination to act from passion and prejudice have been on the increase in recent years. Witness the rise of organisations given to ideologically motivated violence such as the Taliban, al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, among others.

The potential for creativity is tremendous. A craftsman will produce the likeness of a product that is complex in design and intricate in detail just by looking at its picture. I have not kept track of innovations that have surfaced in poetry, prose, the visual arts and sculpture, but I imagine they are doing well. Creativity and improvement will go together in politics and governance. They would mean that both rulers and their opponents are credible and dependable, and that they will say what they really intend, fulfill their promises, and subordinate their personal interests to the public good. They would also democratise political parties both within their internal organisations and within their public transactions. Regretfully, one has to say that none of this is happening in Pakistan. We have not come out of the mindset that is content with the tradition of one-man rule. Democratisation here is more an appearance than a hard reality.

There is no call for creativity or innovation as far as the formal arrangements for governance are concerned. Speaking theoretically and technically, the institutions we have in place are adequate. The problem is that the men and women who operate them are doing a poor job. An institution comes into being when a group of persons sharing common goals works together to achieve them according to certain designated procedures. In the absence of these procedures, this group is a mere combination of persons, even a mob, but it is not an institution. Institutionalisation is denial of one-man rule that may even be whimsical and capricious. Institutions in Pakistan fall short of expectations in their actual performance because their managers are not convinced of their indispensability.

There is reason for optimism. Political cultures are not rigidly fixed. They change even if the change is gradual and incremental. The political inclinations and behaviour of our people are not the same as they were 40 years ago. They are beginning to ask if the person they had elected to high public office has done his duty. If he hasn’t, they will be less inclined to support him when the next election comes along. This is not happening across the board but the trend has appeared and it will grow with time. Minor failings may still be ignored. Persistent violation of trust and neglect of duty will cost elected officials profitable careers. We may be moving steadily towards a stage in political development where politics will be possessed of civility, integrity, and public service orientation in a larger measure than ever before. This will be creativity at its best.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is currently a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at dranwar@lahoreschool.edu.pk