A Rhyme for Fools -- 2

The author has good intentions and cares for Pakistan. Unfortunately his diagnoses are fataly flawed.

for example he writes .......
``Political institutions, which exist in societies, where there is a high level of illiteracy and where there is a tradition of political instability, tend to be more authoritarian and less democratic``.

If that is the case, how come Indian citizens even the illiterate vote in democratic elections and change rulers? 136 million Indians voted last week, roughly 30-40% are not educated, there is peaceful change of rulers.

The bitter truth which no one from Pakistan is admitting is this:
For 60 yrs ALL you have lived for are Islam, Islamic glory, mythical Ummah, standing up to the Hindu India, teaching lessons to India, etc, etc. No one has worked for a positive self-image for the nation, all live for Islamic valor for a warrior nation.

There should be one and ONLY GOAL for Pakistan for it to survive, and that is economic development and improvment in the living standards of the people living in the territory currently possessed by it. There is no evidence that such a realization has happened and no evidence that there has been a genuine change of heart.

Re: # 24

You did not answer the question, as much as you repeated the same old jaded garbage.

My article was not about offering a solution. ;)

Ciao

Author, among the four primary agents of socialization, nothing can replace the parents. Most individuals follow role models from within their close circles. Education is a poor second or perhaps third - follow by the community and then the media. Still, emotionalism is quite universal. Average voters generally can get emotional or at least swayed and become captives of the moment, no matter what country. During times of war, even the USA becomes united like never before. It has happened in India too. The Chinese invasion saw a fleeting such moment of spontaneous unity in India. That was the first such experience. It has been repeated most lately in case of the Kargil conflict. Such spontaneity can have its flip sides - Rajiv`s elevation to national office was one such moment, so was Modi’s to a regional office. Education as commonly understood is really not a panacea. It does not provide the enlightenment that you ascribe to it. A lot of such enlightenment can come from simple common sense and gut feelings. People`s built-in prejudices usually do not undergo transformation because of education - people simply are able to articulate those same views more clearly and sometimes (for willing ears) more convincingly. Education is useful for many things but certainly is no substitute for common sense - sometimes it even gets in the way. The reconstitution of the Pakistani psyche at the most fundamental of levels that you allude to is nearly impossible - and it is equally impractical for most other populations, too. In my view, because of the protracted primaries, the US electorate gets to deliberate a lot more about individual candidates than many other countries. All militaries are an appendage of the country - a vital part but just a part - they exist to serve the interest of the body. When this growth of the body starts putting its own interest above that of the whole, it takes on the role of a cancerous growth - then it must be somehow treated or it will destroy the host body. One can only hope and pray for an understanding of this most elemental concept by some military minds. Without such understanding, all constructs are worthless.

EDUCATION IS THE KEY. THE ENTIRE THEME CAME TO FORE PER TIGER EDUCATION POLICY a la Ata Ur Rehman.

Feroz:

“The question is how do we move the military`s influence?”

Always the golden question. To which your article presents nothing. Earlier you’d stated that the people have to convince the military that its in their best interest to leave politics. If I were the fauji and saw that I still have 10 times the room to grow into the fabric of this country, making tons more money in the process, isn’t that more in my interest.

If anything, the ONLY convincing argument for the faujiz is that institutions are supreme. Constitution is supreme. There is nothing short of this that’s even worth entertaining.

You also mention 1971. 1971 was nothing but the result of a breakdown of institutions and utter disregard for any constitutional framework. 1971 was merely the outcome of the past 25 years. Rulers need to be more aware of this than the people.

Mush has consistently forgone the opportunities to settle matters via something like a truth and reconciliation commission with the leading politicians. Let bygones by bygones. Politicians give Mush amnesty for committing treason. Mush allows everyone to contest polls freely. Hard pill to swallow. But that’s the workable solution. Constitutional ‘stepping stones’ are a joke as no politician will accept it. If NS the establishment child of the faujiz couldn’t accept article 58-2(b), then it’s very naïve to assume another such injunction would work.

Pakistan unlike other archaic states has all the institutional framework – it needs to be allowed to work. Trying to present ‘let’s preach to them’ option to remove the faujiz is at best an entertaining option. The military in Pakistan only leaves when it has practically failed. This government has failed quite convincingly as even after 7 years, the most popular leaders are still those who are the military shunned. Unfortunately with this failure, Pakistan has to start all over again.

But again, you base your article on undermining the constitutions and stating that Pakistanis are inherently against institution-building. Both of which are notoriously garbage points as shown to you via living examples.

threat of a revolt by non-Punjabi groups is the only thing that will force the military to handover power to civillian counterparts. this is assuming that civillian politicians from Punjab are not too chavunistic

re: Rozaiba

First of all, the National Assembly cannot be rightfully called an ``educated parliament`` because there is more to education than just owning a degree and the mannner in which most of the MNAs got their degrees, leaves a lot to be desired.

Rozaiba, the solution you mention of allowing the institutions to grow without the military`s influence has a minor problem (sarcasm intended) with it. In order to make any institution grow, as you have suggested, would imply the removal of the military`s influence from politics. The question is how do we move the military`s influence?

Pakistan is not yet at the stage, where institutions can evolve, because in order to achieve that aim, we will have to completely remove the military from politics. The challenge is how to do this peacefully and constitutionally. The military is not simply going to say, ``Rozaiba, you are right and we are all bad; now we will go back to our barracks``. The military is not going to pack up its bags and leave just because we think that it should head back to the barracks.

Again, the question, which you have not answered, is how to remove the military`s influence from politics before the institutions can be allowed to evolve in Pakistan?

I have had this debate with you for a long time and in all of that time, you have correctly identified the problem but have never offered a solutiuon to the problem. Your idea of having the institutions ``grow`` without the military`s influence is a good idea, in theory, but once more the question becomes as to how to realize this theoretical concept into a practical reality.

If you would have read my article carefully, you would have noted that I stated that all military rule in Pakistan has been based as a result of the compliance of the Pakistani people in appeasing the military rule. The people of Pakistan are to be blamed for allowing the military to rule. This is the basic character flaw in our nation, which needs to be corrected because as long, for what ever reasons, we continue to appease military rule, no institutions will ``grow independently`` in Pakistan as you wish.

What is your remedy, if you have any solution, for removing the military`s influence from Pakistani politics?

I think, you too have been skipping around the bush by stating that military needs to be evicted from politics, but have not offered a workable solution to the problem - yet. :)

This is the question facing Pakistan today:

How can we remove the military`s influence from Pakistani politics against its wish and without fighting a potential civil war, with it over the issue?

Remember, we have already fought one civil war over this issue in 1971.

The other alternative is a constitutional method and we accept the reality of our dilemma and then work from there to create constitutional ``stepping stones`` to end the military`s influence in our society.

Which opition would you favor?

Ciao

I forgot to complete the train of thought: ``I make sure to pull over if a MP signals me to stop outside Sahiwal. If a non-MP policeman tried to stop me outside of Sahiwal, I`d know that a robbery is in effect. ``

Feroz:

``The look at the quality of the human element in the MP versus the ordinary police force. The MP cop is more educated and better paid than a common cop and as result his actions reflect well on the institution he serves. Hence, it all boils down to the quality of the person in the institution, which makes or break the institution. Institutions do not make make a nation; nations make institutions. The quality of the people in a nation greatly influences any institution.``

People respect the MP not because they are more educated or even slightly educated. They respect it ONLY because the MP apply the same rules for everyone. That is the ONLY reason.

The parliament is now filled with BA degree holders (minimum). Why haven`t the educated parliamentarians or Local Bodies governments become scintallating examples of institutions? Institutions are ONLY formed when given indepenedence to grow. Education is a good thing to have. But it`s not necessary.

Farmers of Pakistan are familiar with the institution of water distribution. It works independently and has worked for decades. Everyone knows what time which fieldowner will get what amount of water. It`s one of the most efficient institutions in the country. Run by a bunch of people who may well be 100% ILLITERATE!

``Pakistani nature is against institutionalism and institutionalism is not against Pakisani nature as you seem to have misunderstood.``

I did not misunderstand and so would like to clarify. Pakistani nature is NOT against institutionalism. Motorway Police is a fine example. There are a set of rules for all. If they are the same for all, everyone respects them. I make sure to pull over if a MP signals me to stop outside Sahiwal.

``it is futile to state that people will respect the constitution because we think that they will``

It is not futile. People will respect the law when it is not a different law for the fauji and a different one for you and I. The motorway police are a fine example. Pakistanis when moving abroad respect foreign laws because they are the same for all.

re: Rozaiba # 16

Thanks for my my point!

You said, and I quote:

``Institutions in Pakistan have been successful when allowed to function independently. LUMS is of course a private institution. But the Motorway Police are not. How does one react when getting caught by the MP versus getting caught by the regular traffic cop``

The look at the quality of the human element in the MP versus the ordinary police force. The MP cop is more educated and better paid than a common cop and as result his actions reflect well on the institution he serves. Hence, it all boils down to the quality of the person in the institution, which makes or break the institution. Institutions do not make make a nation; nations make institutions. The quality of the people in a nation greatly influences any institution.

Yes; the constitution is above all else, but it is futile to state that people will respect the constitution because we think that they will; wishful thinkings never have solved any problem in the world.

The tragedy is that no one is respecting the limits and in a very brutal and realistic sense, it does not make a whit of the difference what the limits were if they are not obeyed. A non-compliance of limits is as good as a non-existence of the limits.

In theory, there might be limits and they might be consensual, but in reality they do not exist and we have to deal with the reality of our situation and not in an utopian sense.

Ciao

Raozaiba,
Justy like his suicide note, I feel the totle itself, ``a Rhyme of a Fool`` suggests, its a blinder by the author.

Khurram,
Please read my essay `Civil Society and Pakistan` for my detail views on the subject.

Cheerios

Re: Rozaiba # 16

You stated, ``so your claim that institutionalism is against the Pakistani nature is again a garbage analysis.``

You seem to be confused, because you understood the statement in the opposite sense.

Pakistani nature is against institutionalism and institutionalism is not against Pakisani nature as you seem to have misunderstood.

Institutions and constitutions may wither and may alter, but it is the people who endure and it is the people and their set of values, which gives a national character to any constitution and institution.

As to the article being written as a joke, I think that you read it as a joke.

re: ijaz-gul # 12

Yes, the need to make a paradigm shift is the problem and yes, I do agree with you on the difficulty of the task.

re: Raw_Dust # 15 & 16

This is the problem, because in many ways the people of Pakistan have not decided what kind of a system they want in this nation. It has been in the experimentation of the last 60 years, which has created the problems we face today. Realistically and sadly speaking, we as a nation are coming to a Rubicon, where we have to decide once and for all, what we wish. We can no longer delay the final settlement of this debate and the more we delay the answer to this debate, our own contradictionbs become more glaringly visible and more intractable.

Ciao

FerozK wrote:
``As long as this nation and its people are not willing to put their a limit on their self-interests, ``

I think you wrote this article as a joke feroz. What are the agreed to limits of the self-interests of the entities of the nation state? In 1973, the limits were set.

You cannot put anything above the constitution. It`s supremacy even you`ve acknowledged in the above quote but (I feel) purely for the heck of creating a nonesensical article, have stated so otherwise :)

Institutions in Pakistan have been successful when allowed to function independently. LUMS is of course a private institution. But the Motorway Police are not. How does one react when getting caught by the MP versus getting caught by the regular traffic cop?

MP aren`t perfect. Now and then you hear of the rich getting away. But when I`ve been stopped, or when I`ve seen others get stopped, we listen, we accept the fines, we accept the rules. Even when they would stop you for not wearing a seat belt while driving on Multan Road (a section under the MP), we`d accept the enforcement of the rules and be sure to put that belt on. A standard is set for all to follow, and therefore, we know it`s in the best interest of all. That`s why we respect them - the institution, the rules.

So your claim that institutionalism is against the Pakistani nature is again a garbage analysis.

If you let the institutions work under a constitutional framework - a consensus framework I bet 45 out of the 52 Muslims states do not even have - this place will be all right.

re: ferozek:
``There is no peaceful or legal or constitutional or institutional way left to remove the influence and dominace of the military from the non-military spheres of Pakistan and one option, which is left suggests that there has to be a final solution.``

actually, one of those local maxima (pardon my high school calculus metaphor) came in 1971 when Pakistan was destroyed and along went the raison d`etre. Indira Gandhi was spot on about TNT. Kudos to Bangali people who rose up and kicked the brown guys from west pakistan with colonial pretensions out of their land. The same has to happen in future. I agree with your final solution bit.

Re#11
ferozk sir:
i consider pakistan like castro`s cuba. problem of pakistan is trivial, it`s all have to do with tearing the state apart, what you call the fabric. just like as long as castro is there to oppress and opposition to cuban state can be on principle, it is the same for pakistan too. pakistani state doesnt represent pakistan and hence it deserves contempt and bad publicity around the world as much as possible so that the whole facade could be brought down.
whether the so-called pakistan exists or not is an irrelevant question cos pakistani people doesnt invest in that state and has no stake in it. once, this state is defeated only then the question of what kinda system people wants can be formulated. it is like debating the nuances of what-would-be independent india`s legislatue in 1920 while brits were still the colonial masters.

Re #12 Ijaz_gul,

``the state apparatus occupies too much space and leaves no room for others to function``

You have hit the nail on the head here.

Can the state be rolled back? Is it happening? Why is it so dominant in the first place?

Please discuss.