Circa November 2, 2016
We return to the predicament: who builds the new system? And who decides who the builder is?
Does this date signify something far deeper than Imran Khan and Nawaz Sharif can ever imagine?
Dread is in the air as clocks ticks down to the newest D-Day in Pakistani politics. But this isn’t pure unalloyed dread. Mixed in with it is a potent dose of expectancy and hope. Hope?
Those converging on to Islamabad like an invading army are armed with anger, passion and hope. There is hope for holding the Prime Minister accountable and perhaps getting him to step down. There is hope for a change of government leading to the PTI coming to power. There is hope for things changing for the better and Pakistan waking up to a glorious future painted bright in the colours of a rainbow.
There is also the other hope that pertains to, shall we say, more mundane matters — like coming to power. Like every other politician, Imran Khan hungers for power. So does Jehangir Tareen. And Shah Mehmood Qureshi. And perhaps Faisal Javed too. All of them and their ilk may want this power for different reasons, but they feel now is the time to make that final lunge towards the Holy Grail. They too are coming to Islamabad with hope springing eternal from their hearts.
And yet their hope-filled yatra to Islamabad could turn out to be more than just another round of power-politics by other means.
Peel away the layers and you get a sneak peek into the deep faultlines within the governance structure of Pakistan. Why is Khan hurtling towards a head-on collision with Sharif? Because Sharif has refused to acknowledge or address the questions dredged up by the Panama Leaks? Why is Sharif refusing to do so? Because he has no compulsion to answer these very valid questions. Why is he under no compulsion? Because the institutions of the State that are mandated to ask these questions and dig out the answers have not been allowed the independence and authority to question those in power? Why have they not been given this authority? Because the functioning of these institutions have always been determined by those in power, and no rational person in power will undercut his own power unless he is forced to do so through institutional checks and balances. How can this change so that institutions that are meant to hold people accountable can do so? By genuine political and structural reform that firmly establishes a rule of the law without any exceptions. Who will bring about this reform?
Here’s where we hit a roadblock.
If we know what needs to be fixed and why it needs to be fixed and even how it needs to be fixed, then why do we not fix it? Because Person A or Person B does not want it fixed? In an autocratic system this may hold true, but isn’t the whole point of a representative system to ensure no one enjoys absolute power over decision-making? If that be so, and we are in fact living under such a system, then what do we do if the system — as represented by the people in power (not just in government) — refuses to fix all those things that are broken in plain sight?
November 2 is an acknowledgement of this deficiency. It is an acknowledgement that the representative system is failing to heal its own wounds; that the practitioners and beneficiaries of this pluralistic system are unwilling to do what is required in order for the system to benefit the entire populace. November 2 is an acknowledgement also of all the reforms that should have been done but have not — of the millions of children that should have been in school but are not; of the supremacy of law and merit that should have been applied across the board but is not; of the revamping of the electoral system so it truly represents the will of the people but does not; and of the genuinely legislated and officially implemented respect for the fundamental rights of every man, woman and child that is nowhere near the civilised level it should be at.
The real significance of November 2 is then perhaps far wider than what PTI has envisaged. But it is also an acknowledgement of the predicament that is eating away at our vitals: Fix the system through the system or wreck the system and build a new one?
What is clear after repeated attempts over the last six decades is that wrecking the system and then trying to build the same system only to wreck it has taken us nowhere. It also defines the apex of stupidity. If November 2 is aimed at bringing down the Prime Minister or the government and bringing in a hybrid or an interim set up for another round of elections to be won by one of the existing parties only to be challenged by the other ones and ultimately to be brought down again through various precedents that have so glaringly been set, then — yes most emphatically then — November 2 is nothing short of idiocy.
Can it be more than just this?
In essence then, November 2 reminds us that we have got to decide: do we need a democratic set-up whereby the people’s mandate is reflected through an electoral process, or we want some other way to rule ourselves, or be ruled. If we opt for the system that we have, then in this system we cannot monkey around at will, breaking and rebuilding and breaking again till there is very little to build or break. The set-up we have is begging for reform. A pluralistic democratic system reforms itself through pulls and pushes of all stakeholders i.e. including the four pillars of the state plus media, civil society (and in Pakistan’s case the armed forces). There are no written down formulas and set recipes; there are no quick fix solutions and ready-to-make prescriptions. It takes patience and time and often few guarantees of genuinely swift success.
And then there is the alternative: throw everything out by force and build something new from the ground up. In this new structure, go ahead and remove all the failings of the old one and imbue merit and law and delivery and accountability and all the other reforms that we need. But sadly, we return to the predicament: who builds the new system? And who decides who the builder is? And who holds that builder to account? And why is that builder the most suitable to build the new building?
On circa November 2, 2016 many will go to Islamabad looking for answers. Instead they will find themselves being chased by questions far more potent than their answers ever can be.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 30th, 2016.
Dread is in the air as clocks ticks down to the newest D-Day in Pakistani politics. But this isn’t pure unalloyed dread. Mixed in with it is a potent dose of expectancy and hope. Hope?
Those converging on to Islamabad like an invading army are armed with anger, passion and hope. There is hope for holding the Prime Minister accountable and perhaps getting him to step down. There is hope for a change of government leading to the PTI coming to power. There is hope for things changing for the better and Pakistan waking up to a glorious future painted bright in the colours of a rainbow.
There is also the other hope that pertains to, shall we say, more mundane matters — like coming to power. Like every other politician, Imran Khan hungers for power. So does Jehangir Tareen. And Shah Mehmood Qureshi. And perhaps Faisal Javed too. All of them and their ilk may want this power for different reasons, but they feel now is the time to make that final lunge towards the Holy Grail. They too are coming to Islamabad with hope springing eternal from their hearts.
And yet their hope-filled yatra to Islamabad could turn out to be more than just another round of power-politics by other means.
Peel away the layers and you get a sneak peek into the deep faultlines within the governance structure of Pakistan. Why is Khan hurtling towards a head-on collision with Sharif? Because Sharif has refused to acknowledge or address the questions dredged up by the Panama Leaks? Why is Sharif refusing to do so? Because he has no compulsion to answer these very valid questions. Why is he under no compulsion? Because the institutions of the State that are mandated to ask these questions and dig out the answers have not been allowed the independence and authority to question those in power? Why have they not been given this authority? Because the functioning of these institutions have always been determined by those in power, and no rational person in power will undercut his own power unless he is forced to do so through institutional checks and balances. How can this change so that institutions that are meant to hold people accountable can do so? By genuine political and structural reform that firmly establishes a rule of the law without any exceptions. Who will bring about this reform?
Here’s where we hit a roadblock.
If we know what needs to be fixed and why it needs to be fixed and even how it needs to be fixed, then why do we not fix it? Because Person A or Person B does not want it fixed? In an autocratic system this may hold true, but isn’t the whole point of a representative system to ensure no one enjoys absolute power over decision-making? If that be so, and we are in fact living under such a system, then what do we do if the system — as represented by the people in power (not just in government) — refuses to fix all those things that are broken in plain sight?
November 2 is an acknowledgement of this deficiency. It is an acknowledgement that the representative system is failing to heal its own wounds; that the practitioners and beneficiaries of this pluralistic system are unwilling to do what is required in order for the system to benefit the entire populace. November 2 is an acknowledgement also of all the reforms that should have been done but have not — of the millions of children that should have been in school but are not; of the supremacy of law and merit that should have been applied across the board but is not; of the revamping of the electoral system so it truly represents the will of the people but does not; and of the genuinely legislated and officially implemented respect for the fundamental rights of every man, woman and child that is nowhere near the civilised level it should be at.
The real significance of November 2 is then perhaps far wider than what PTI has envisaged. But it is also an acknowledgement of the predicament that is eating away at our vitals: Fix the system through the system or wreck the system and build a new one?
What is clear after repeated attempts over the last six decades is that wrecking the system and then trying to build the same system only to wreck it has taken us nowhere. It also defines the apex of stupidity. If November 2 is aimed at bringing down the Prime Minister or the government and bringing in a hybrid or an interim set up for another round of elections to be won by one of the existing parties only to be challenged by the other ones and ultimately to be brought down again through various precedents that have so glaringly been set, then — yes most emphatically then — November 2 is nothing short of idiocy.
Can it be more than just this?
In essence then, November 2 reminds us that we have got to decide: do we need a democratic set-up whereby the people’s mandate is reflected through an electoral process, or we want some other way to rule ourselves, or be ruled. If we opt for the system that we have, then in this system we cannot monkey around at will, breaking and rebuilding and breaking again till there is very little to build or break. The set-up we have is begging for reform. A pluralistic democratic system reforms itself through pulls and pushes of all stakeholders i.e. including the four pillars of the state plus media, civil society (and in Pakistan’s case the armed forces). There are no written down formulas and set recipes; there are no quick fix solutions and ready-to-make prescriptions. It takes patience and time and often few guarantees of genuinely swift success.
And then there is the alternative: throw everything out by force and build something new from the ground up. In this new structure, go ahead and remove all the failings of the old one and imbue merit and law and delivery and accountability and all the other reforms that we need. But sadly, we return to the predicament: who builds the new system? And who decides who the builder is? And who holds that builder to account? And why is that builder the most suitable to build the new building?
On circa November 2, 2016 many will go to Islamabad looking for answers. Instead they will find themselves being chased by questions far more potent than their answers ever can be.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 30th, 2016.