When I read this in the paper the other day, I immediately thought about posting it here on Take Back Pakistan.. so here it is..

As the lawyers’ protest against the removal of the chief justice continues to hyperboles into mass agitation seeking change of government, the debate, has once again moved to the very basic question of who should run the country and how it should be run.

In a normal country and under normal circumstances people would prefer familiar difficulties to the possible benefit of the unknown. They would rather try to solve problems within the existing framework than confront a new system and new chain of command. But in Pakistan’s political history this proclivity has been challenged over and over again. During the last nearly sixty years, the country has had civilian rule for exactly half of its life. The frequency of change of civilian set ups has been much faster than the period involving transition from military to civilian governments, which has averaged a healthy ten years cycle.

How can one diagnose this prolonged crisis of the state? It is indeed easy to jump on words like ‘feudalism’, ‘institutional failure’, ‘colonial mindset’, ‘army’ etc but then which country does not have a ruling elite? Where do institutions, sometimes big monopolies, not fail? Which country is devoid of any historical legacy and of strong armies? It is not just institutions that fail, it is the failing relationship between institutions which cause failures.

It is obvious that the relationship between institutions has to operate under a framework, known as the constitution. The quality of relationship among various institutions of the state is reflective of the intellectual and moral quality of the people responsible to manage affairs of the respective organs of the state. And among the people leading various organs of the state it is the executive who according to the constitution enjoys the larger share of the state power – hence it holds the bigger responsibility towards the people and the state.

Over the years, many factors have had direct bearing on the health of the constitutional structure of the country such as the over all socio-economic conditions of the people, ethnic and religious strife and the security environment around the country particularly its relation with India and Afghanistan. On the other hand, corruption, failure of political leaders, lack of commitment, vision and democratic culture, as well as disregard for rule of law has left deep scares on the eventual outlook of the country’s dispensation of governance.

Unfortunately, Pakistan’s political climate has always been polarized between various political and non-political groups competing for power, with the balance of political fortunes tilting in favor of one or the other, from time to time. In the process, the groups did not only cause irreparable damage to the constitution but also used Islam as a pretext to gain control of or perpetuate state power. Setting aside Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan, who made it clear that ‘religion has nothing to do with the business of the state’, both religious, mainstream parties and the military used the religious card as a convenient escape from difficult but important reforms needed to foster a state of law.

After independence, the interference or utility of the clergy in politics has been enhanced in many ways by the ruling elite on whom the responsibility of shaping Pakistan’s political future rested. The dichotomy can be judged by the fact that the other day when President Musharraf was warning the world that ‘Pakistan’s progress is being threatened by terrorism and extremism that may force the country to revert to backwardness, and that young people are being “misguided and brainwashed” to become bombers in violation of the teachings of Islam’, at around the same time Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain was striking a deal with the administrators of Lal Masjid, where armed brigades have been mocking the write of the state in the heart of the capital city.

There is no doubt that the military has become the most dominating and powerful institution overshadowing every other organ of the state, and given the state of polarization between religious and mainstream parties it is difficult to foresee a purely civilian government in Islamabad any soon. However, the intensity of public craving for rule of the law means that ultimately the military will have to abdicate a fair share of its power, if not all, in favor of the true interest and inspirations of the 160 million people.

Who should then govern the country, what should be the qualities of a ruler? One’s instant response to the question would be that he or she should be a good person. But what do we actually mean by a good ruler? Let us consult the world’s leading political scientists.

To Machiavelli, ‘the good ruler is the strong and unscrupulous despot who can attain and maintain national unity’; to Plato ‘it was the wise men, the philosopher king who knows better then others what ought to be done and how to do it’; to the religious clerics ‘the good ruler is the godly man, and his selection must be approved by the mosque or the church’; to the German Nazis ‘he is the natural leader who survived and forged his way to the top in the competitive struggle to which all men are subjected to’; and to the democrat a ‘good ruler is the one who best serves the interest of the majority of the people to whom he is responsible’.

Nonetheless, at the end the key to prosperous and stable Pakistan lies in redefining the relationship between citizens and the state and developing institutions that promote merit, justice and fair play. Institutions which produce leadership which shuns religious bigotry, ethnic factionalism, leaders who believe in intellectual and moral responsibility towards the masses — then, it will not matter who runs the country.

Taken from The News

Related posts:

1. Genesis of Talibanisation – Raza Rahman Khan Qazi In the first of a two part series, Dr Sarfaraz...
2. The New President and The Future of Democracy – Ayesha Ijaz Khan In November last year, as I tried to rally support...
3. Take It Back From Who? Having good faith in politics is not enough; it requires...