Daily Times

“Game over”, read the banners on Habib Bourguiba Avenue in Tunis two weeks ago. Game over for Ben Ali and his kleptomaniac family. Game over for a leader who had systematically pillaged and looted Tunisia for over two decades, while denying his people liberty and decent livelihood. Game over for the giant with clay feet, who collapsed and shamefully fled to this great, freedom-loving democracy known as Saudi Arabia, as the people took the streets of Tunis and other big cities of the country. The former colonial master, France, looked particularly stupid, having just offered the services of its riot police to their old friend Ben Ali; but so did other powers, such as the US, whose turnaround in favour of the street demonstrators was as sudden as it smacked of political opportunism. Game over, and other dictators in the region are rightfully trembling. Let us hope they too fall soon, and let us wish them many an insomniac night in the weeks to come.

“Game over”: what momentous news, and what unalloyed joy in this new year! 2011 had started off gloomily in Pakistan, what with Salmaan Taseer’s assassination, the earthquake in Balochistan, the cowardice of the PPP, the smirking arrogance of religious bigots, the continued economic collapse. And now, suddenly, ideas of equality, human rights and democracy show their power again. Religious conservatives in Pakistan like to belittle human rights and freedom as a “western” concept (as long as they enjoy them, of course. What would they do without their freedom of expression and freedom of association? But let us not dwell on yet another contradiction of theirs); but well, here you go. Thousands and thousands of Tunisians, born and bred in Tunisia, demanded their freedom and equality, and not because some western power engineered their revolt. No, it was spontaneous, once again proving (if more proof was needed) that justice, equality and democracy are a legitimate demand in any political community, whatever the cultural, social and historical background of the country. And they did it in style, with resilience, courage and humour. One would love to see the Pakistani people rising similarly to demand equality and justice, instead of leaving the streets to bloodthirsty mullahs, their faces wrung by hatred of anything resembling equality. Why does a popular revolution in Pakistan seem improbable at best?

In a celebrated article dating back to 1962, American sociologist James Davies listed the seven conditions which he saw as common features of every modern political revolution. First, revolutions happen in societies that have been prospering economically for a while, before meeting a sudden, crashing end. As Davies puts it, “Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal.” In such a situation, expectations of rising abilities and continued prosperity are dashed and met with frustration and anger. This condition is contiguous to the second one, economic and fiscal irresponsibility from the government, which leads to a daunting combination of economic downturn and mismanagement of the national economy to the point of indebtedness, bankruptcy and currency collapse. Third, a revolution is brought about when there is no longer any social cohesion, when the mutual trust between classes and disparate groups has been eroded, i.e. when the upper classes lose all sight of the common good and aim solely at their own benefit. Fourth, an active group of intellectuals, civil society or political leaders is required, who can articulate and formulate the inchoate aspirations of the disgruntled population. Fifth, a common thread in all revolutions is an incompetent government, either unwilling or unable to meet the demands of the people, or simply blind to its needs. Marie-Antoinette’s infamous “Let them eat cake” sums it all up. Sixth, Davies notes a general blindness in the ruling class concomitant with rapidly changing conditions in the regional or international environment: at a time where decisive leadership is most needed, the economic and political elites utterly fail to give a direction, and instead look inwards to protect their private interests, thus betraying the implicit contract between them and the general population. Seventh, and the final criterion for revolution, is an inept and inconsistent use of force. The government no longer exercises force in a way that can be either understood or deemed fair by the population. Its “monopoly of the legitimate use of force”, to use Max Weber’s term, is challenged from different sections of society, as is challenged the state’s use of force domestically. Unchecked police brutality, police corruption, discontinuous, inconsistent and unfair use of law enforcement is one of the most potent elements leading to a popular uprising.

While most of these conditions are met nowadays in Pakistan, a popular uprising does not appear likely (though we dearly hope to be wrong on that one). Perhaps a fundamental condition for any uprising to occur is a very deep claim to equality. The people must claim the “right to have rights”, in Hannah Arendt’s term. The have-nots must know that they are equal in dignity and in rights with the haves, and formulate the demand for the concrete fulfilment of this right to be an equal. Perhaps this is what is lacking in Pakistan for revolution to happen. The feudal set-up, reinforced over decades by the lack of any decent public education system, the growth of radical Islamic groups fundamentally adverse to equality, has embedded the idea that inequality and discrimination — against women, against minorities, against the poor — was not just acceptable, but the norm to be aspired to. Let us hope that the lesson of the proud Tunisians — democracy is possible, justice is achievable, equality is desirable — contaminates the minds of the much-beleaguered Pakistanis.

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at sikander.amani@gmail.com