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.

Ferozk,
In many respects you have revealed your contradictions within, qouting the half eaten cake.
Over 80% people of this country are not empowered to play a meanigful role in the national polity. Yet you dwell in a sweeping statement blaming all.

To the contrary, the state apparatus occupies too much space and leaves no room for others to function.

As for discussion, I have already given an explanation based on the trinitarianism. It involves a paradigm shift and as a scholar, you know how difficult it is.

Cheerios

Re: # 5

Raw_Dust, the intent of the article was to offer a reason, why the military will never ``get out of the driving seat`` in Pakistan.

The military has ingrained itself so deeply into the Pakistani national fabric that there is no solution left, short of tearing the fabric itself in order to remove the stain, which blights Pakistan.

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. In the paraphrased words of Abraham Lincoln, this nation cannot continue to exist half civilian and half military and sooner rather than later, the issue will have to be decided.

A time for a hard choice is fast approaching and this nation will have to decide what it wants, because it can no longer postpone the envitable.

Ciao

Re: # 3

Please, lets discuss!

Please make a hyopthesis, and lets see where we go from there.

Ciao

Re: # 1

I think, you must be reading from a Pakistani history text, because you seemed to be misformed!

Pakistan is nearly 60 years and not 67 years old! ROFL

Ciao

Re: # 6

Mantolives, there is no cart or horse in Pakistan; the cart is broken and a wreck and the horse is dead - has been for a long time!

There is no money to buy a new horse, because all the money has been stolen!

Those, who had the skills to repair the cart, had the good sense to migrate out of Pakistan with their skills and the those left, are too unskilled to know how to repair the cart!

Ciao

Re: # 4

Even though I am in a holistic agreement with your suggestions, I would have to disagree with them, and you, in principle.

The overall situation in Pakistan is too paradoxical to be neatly and effortlessly placed within any given solution. The basic nature of the problem in Pakistan is the lack of a civic commitment, by the people of this nation, towards the betterment and welfare of this nation itself. The people of Pakistan do not want, and they do not favor, any form of an organized accountability, which can prevent them from being above the law. This is a nation of people, who relish and exult with unmasked pride in breaking the law and feel socially ashamed, when they obey the law.

The existence of a law; any law or an institution in Pakistan is seen by the Pakistani society as a threat to its own interests and these interest groups cover the entire gambit of social, political and cultural spectrums in Pakistan. Hence, there is a national consensus in Pakistan, within all interest groups, to make certain that any organized or institutionalized accountability will be a failure in Pakistan.

The problem in Pakistan is not a lack of independent institutions and neither is it a problem of a non-implementation of any constitutionalism. The problem in Pakistan is the character of the Pakistani people. Institutions in any nation reflect the people who administer them and therefore, no institution will succeed in Pakistan, regardless of how independent it is, because the Pakistanis who will administer them will be generally corrupt themselves and hence, they will corrupt the institutions in order to seek the perpetuation of their own self-interests over any institutional or national interest in Pakistan.

The weakest link in any independent institutional chain in Pakistan, is and, will remain the Pakistani people and unless, the Pakistanis develop a respect for institutionalism, no independent institution – no matter how pious or excellent, will ever succeed in Pakistan. Therefore, the problem in Pakistan is much deeper than merely wishing that an independent institution or working within a dysfunctional constitutional legalism and seeking to improve it, will solve the problem; because it will not solve the problem.

The question before us is not how to create and sustain an independent institution or how to agree on a set of constitutional rules that everyone agrees upon but how to remove our common national faults, whose existence for last sixty years has contributed towards the development of a flawed Pakistani national character. The final and ultimate reform of Pakistan has to start with its people and any reform or idea, which ignores this reality, is destined for a spectacular disaster. As long as this nation and its people are not willing to put their a limit on their self-interests, they will not agree on anything which does not cater to their own sense of individual avarice and they will not agree on anything; constitution or LFO or an independent election commission.

The fault, my dear Rozaiba, is not in our stars but in ours selves and again; the words of the Greeks remind us – physician, heal thy self!

Ciao


P.S.:

Allow me to share an antidote of Pakistani respect for others’ rights with you. There was a cake in the fridge, with a note asking people not to eat as it was for some one’s birthday, and when a person went to get the cake out of the fridge, the person discovered the cake half eaten, with the note still present and untouched!

A nation in which a simple cake is not safe from our self-interest, what makes you think that a people of a nation, who steal a simple cake, will respect any independent election commission or any thing else for that matter?

Independent in Pakistan means self-interest and everything and everyone here is independent! ROFL

Feroz,

While I agree with Rozaiba that you are beginning to sound more and more like an establishmentarian of the Ayub Khan mindset who puts the cart before the horse... there is some logic to what you say... after all representative democracy has its own evolution and it is a process. Each passing military dictatorship has to make new concessions to civil society, press etc... each passing military dictatorship is forced to seek more legitimacy from the people and constitutional gymnastics instead of the gun.

in a few years, military will go back to barracks, ``analysts`` who are too hung up over their own bs and in love with the word Pakistan(``pakistan`` word count here is > 100) will trip over to find the lamest metaphors to hype the whole thing then a few years later military will do a couple of operation midnight jackals, a few kargils here and there and got itself back into the driving seat. a new general will revitalize a new muslim league to authenticate quaid`s ML and his various oxymoronic farmoodaats.

rhyme of fools? circus of jackasses posing as analysts and intellectuals is more like it.

Feroz:

this sounds more like another rhyme of beating around the bush...

there is this and a thousand other academic arguments. at the end everyone comes down to the same thing: what rules will we all agree to follow. Be it any rule. Constitution of 1973 is one set of rules. The mutation of it in 1999 is another set of rules. Further mutations of it are the LFO.

Select one set of rules, any rules- unless the faujiz do not accept a set of rules they too have to follow, all this education first, or economic development first is garbage.

An agreement that everyone abides by the same set of rules, with an independent election commission and judiciary is something everyone agrees to - other than the Faujiz.

To dismiss it simply because it is not 100% `foolproof` was quite a childish argument. What`s even more childish is to imply that institutions like the judiciary or election commission are `developing` and maturing. Institutions are never perfect, but through error develop self-correcting mechanisms. These mechanisms reflect maturity. When you change the rules every other day as per the men in uniform, there is no chance for the self-correcting mechanisms to develop.

Military interventions in Pakistan are a well researched subject. Some of the scholars who have done a painstaking job are Dr Askari, Bilal Hashmi, Sayyed Ali (late), David Oldlinger, Morritz Jannowitz, Stephen P Cohen and Amos Perlmettur.

I disagree with this hypothesis on the pretext, that democracy in India has worked from day one, where pockets of poverty are more widespread than Pakistan. Also it is recent that new genre of educated people have begun to contest elections in India and that introduction of BA in Pakistran should have brought better results.

The paradigm of praetorianism in Pakistan revolves around the three elites. Political, Bureaucratic and Military. The political were right there even in 1913 to write off Sir Salim Ullah. The controlled the political process in cahoots with the bureaucrats and later the military. The bureaucrats learned to behave like the Brown Sahibs. The military intervened not to safegaurd its economic corparate interests but rather to fill vacuums on the beck and call of politicians and behind the scene manouvering of the bureaucracy. Over time all acquired a taste of their own.

So what we need a paradigm shift.

How? We could discuss

A very important article that exposes the reasons why the army is so entrenched in the economy of PAkistan.

- use their clout to determine the direction of liberalization and align themselves with private corporations to stifle competition and create entry conditions for their favourites. take the cuts in Swiss accounts.
- use the new economic opportunities in stock trading to push their dirty laundry into the stock exchage. We need to see the recent KSE rallies with great concern.
- keep the financial resources in their hands and milk the country.
- change the Commerce and Taxation policies in connivance with the favourites and their relatives in the industry.
- get as much aid as possible and divert the aid amounts elsewhere by fudging the accounts.

It is all about money........and Army knows how to make it when in power...............now there is no possibility of any civilian government coming back since the army has tasted the big kickback bucks...............

``The evolutionary process of democracy suggests that once the civilian political institutions are strong enough, they will challenge the primacy of the military’s interests in Pakistan, which are not so much political as they are corporatist``(author)

my dear FR Khan if I may be excused for saying this -- yours is a banal chicken-egg statement as to who came first --

how ``the evolutionary process of democracy`` will grow from a sapling in 1947 to a mature healthy strong tree in 2006 in Pakistan (like it did in neighboring India) if the process is interrupted almost every 5 years by the Pakistan army dictators --

no Prime minister has been ALLOWED to complete his or her tenure -- except that pathetic Shujaat`s bizarre 3 months -- in the almost 67 years history of turmoil in Pakistan.

this army of yours is 100% political -- and like politicians, 100% corrupt -- like no other army in this civilian ruled world -- except may be Indonesia`s Suharto or those monkey Generals of Burmese Jungle.....

.....that through the CORRUPTION of grabbing the civilian governments every so often -- and then installing all its army cronies retired or unretired in all positions civilian -- it has looted Pakistan treasury repeatedly -- and FATTEND itself into a monopolistic corporatist eagle...

.....holding all aspects of Pakistani life hostage in its TALONS.

I am sure you are NOT -- but at times you do sound in a round about way like a verbose apologist -- for Musharraf and Musharraf`s army......