Ideology vs identity in politics
Politics of identity are full of troubles and tribulations
The writer is a political, economy and security analyst and a governance and public policy practitioner. He can be contacted at razapkhan@yahoo.com
Analysing different political struggles, movements and groups in Pakistan, the region and the world today, it is not difficult to decipher that the politics of identity are on ascendance while the politics of ideology are increasingly becoming irrelevant. For instance, in Afghanistan the issue of provision of computerised national identity cards (CNICs) and mentioning of the word ‘Afghan’ as the national identity of people has been vociferously contested by non-Pashtun citizens of Afghanistan. This has resulted in the reemergence of deep ethnic conflicts as Tajik, Uzbek, Turkmen and other ethnic groups of Afghanistan have refused to be referred to as ‘Afghan’ in the new CNICs. The issue has seriously affected the efforts of building a modern, developed country and has raised critical question marks on the statehood of Afghanistan.
In Pakistan, a group of parliamentarians of the ruling party, the PML-N, from the southern part of Punjab province have resigned and renewed the stalled efforts to create a Seraiki province in south Punjab. The parliamentarians are led by former prime minister Balkh Sher Mazari. The parliamentarians and the proponents of Seraiki province have complained of step-motherly treatment in resource allocation and development funding to the Seraiki-speaking south Punjab region. But noticeably it has been the Seraiki identity of the south Punjab which resulted in discrimination from the Punjabi-dominated federal and Punjab governments. Thus the movement for Seraiki province is fundamentally motivated by the politics of identity.
Then the recently emerged so-called Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement led by a firebrand young lad, Manzur Pashteen, is a typical example of politics of identity as the group thinks Pashtuns in Pakistan, particularly in the tribal areas, have been discriminated against due to their ethnic identity by the country’s establishment.
Even in Syria, the violent conflict between pro-Bashar Al Assad Shiite regime forces and opposition of mostly Sunni groups is fuelled by politics of identity, in this case sectarian in nature.
Many well-known political scientists today who contend contemporary politics in the national and international arena are dominated and driven by the politics of identity than the politics of ideology. Certain scholars argue that presently we are living in a ‘post-ideological’ world. Politics of ideology dominated the national life across countries as well as international sphere in the 19th and 20th centuries. Classical ideological political movements called for sacrificing the present for the attainment of the grand goals in the future in a “perfect” society.
The fall of Soviet Empire, as a symbol of socialism, in 1990 marked the end of ideological politics. This is evidently true as politics of ideology, which calls for the creation of a “perfect” or wholesome society and political-economic system, has failed to achieve its objectives. This is irrespective of the argument of the influential political scientist, Francis Fukayama, who believed that the collapse of Soviet Union proved the success of Western capitalism and liberal democracy, and as there was no rival ideology and political system to challenge them, therefore capitalism and liberal democracy are the ultimate fate of the world.
Ideology-based politics have been broader and more sweeping in their scope. Main features of liberalism, socialism, conservatism and other grand ideologies have had relatively general objectives. In case of liberalism the freedom of individual is the ultimate aim, whereas socialism aims at a classless and stateless society and conservatism wants to have a “stable” society which is beneficial for all.
Insofar as the meanings of politics of identity are concerned it is bound with ideas of dignity, recognition and authenticity. So the political life of contemporary “developed” societies, and perhaps worldwide, is dominated by a struggle for recognition and respect rather than creation of a perfect society. Against this backdrop Pakistani political arena is not an exception. A deeper look would reveal that politics of identity have overridden politics of ideology. In this context it would not be a misstatement that ideology has become obsolete in Pakistani politics, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. But the exponents and proponents of various political ideologies have themselves to blame for this state of affairs.
The aim of politics of identity is that one’s culture, religion and customs are provided accommodation and given respect, which is their due. Contemporary Pakistani political scene on the one hand is dominated by religious groups and on the other ethno-nationalist political parties. The confinement of the PPP, a formerly a countrywide political entity, to one province, Sindh, and the PML-N’s inability to establish a solid footprint in the rest of Pakistan, outside Punjab, evidently proves the demise of politics of ideology. The steady rise of the PTI, a party without an ideology, also corroborates the point that politics of identity have replaced politics of ideology. However, Pakistan’s case is somewhat different as even the so-called “national” parties hardly ever have had a vivid ideological foundation. For instance, the PPP, which rose as a leftist-revolutionary group in 1967, soon claimed to struggle for implementation of “Islamic socialism”, an ideological misnomer, in Pakistan. Today its leaders take pride in calling itself a “liberal” political force, while socialism and liberalism are polls apart. Identical is the case of the ANP, a Marxist-Leninist group, now calling itself a “secular-liberal” party. Thus ideology has never been a strong part of Pakistani political parties. Therefore only those political groups in Pakistan have any future which rise above the so-called politics of ideology and identity and build their capacity to promptly deliver on the basic issues of people and address their immediate needs.
Politics of identity are full of troubles and tribulations, therefore in Pakistan people should support those groups whose focus is not identity but issues and good governance.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 4th, 2018.
In Pakistan, a group of parliamentarians of the ruling party, the PML-N, from the southern part of Punjab province have resigned and renewed the stalled efforts to create a Seraiki province in south Punjab. The parliamentarians are led by former prime minister Balkh Sher Mazari. The parliamentarians and the proponents of Seraiki province have complained of step-motherly treatment in resource allocation and development funding to the Seraiki-speaking south Punjab region. But noticeably it has been the Seraiki identity of the south Punjab which resulted in discrimination from the Punjabi-dominated federal and Punjab governments. Thus the movement for Seraiki province is fundamentally motivated by the politics of identity.
Then the recently emerged so-called Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement led by a firebrand young lad, Manzur Pashteen, is a typical example of politics of identity as the group thinks Pashtuns in Pakistan, particularly in the tribal areas, have been discriminated against due to their ethnic identity by the country’s establishment.
Even in Syria, the violent conflict between pro-Bashar Al Assad Shiite regime forces and opposition of mostly Sunni groups is fuelled by politics of identity, in this case sectarian in nature.
Many well-known political scientists today who contend contemporary politics in the national and international arena are dominated and driven by the politics of identity than the politics of ideology. Certain scholars argue that presently we are living in a ‘post-ideological’ world. Politics of ideology dominated the national life across countries as well as international sphere in the 19th and 20th centuries. Classical ideological political movements called for sacrificing the present for the attainment of the grand goals in the future in a “perfect” society.
The fall of Soviet Empire, as a symbol of socialism, in 1990 marked the end of ideological politics. This is evidently true as politics of ideology, which calls for the creation of a “perfect” or wholesome society and political-economic system, has failed to achieve its objectives. This is irrespective of the argument of the influential political scientist, Francis Fukayama, who believed that the collapse of Soviet Union proved the success of Western capitalism and liberal democracy, and as there was no rival ideology and political system to challenge them, therefore capitalism and liberal democracy are the ultimate fate of the world.
Ideology-based politics have been broader and more sweeping in their scope. Main features of liberalism, socialism, conservatism and other grand ideologies have had relatively general objectives. In case of liberalism the freedom of individual is the ultimate aim, whereas socialism aims at a classless and stateless society and conservatism wants to have a “stable” society which is beneficial for all.
Insofar as the meanings of politics of identity are concerned it is bound with ideas of dignity, recognition and authenticity. So the political life of contemporary “developed” societies, and perhaps worldwide, is dominated by a struggle for recognition and respect rather than creation of a perfect society. Against this backdrop Pakistani political arena is not an exception. A deeper look would reveal that politics of identity have overridden politics of ideology. In this context it would not be a misstatement that ideology has become obsolete in Pakistani politics, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. But the exponents and proponents of various political ideologies have themselves to blame for this state of affairs.
The aim of politics of identity is that one’s culture, religion and customs are provided accommodation and given respect, which is their due. Contemporary Pakistani political scene on the one hand is dominated by religious groups and on the other ethno-nationalist political parties. The confinement of the PPP, a formerly a countrywide political entity, to one province, Sindh, and the PML-N’s inability to establish a solid footprint in the rest of Pakistan, outside Punjab, evidently proves the demise of politics of ideology. The steady rise of the PTI, a party without an ideology, also corroborates the point that politics of identity have replaced politics of ideology. However, Pakistan’s case is somewhat different as even the so-called “national” parties hardly ever have had a vivid ideological foundation. For instance, the PPP, which rose as a leftist-revolutionary group in 1967, soon claimed to struggle for implementation of “Islamic socialism”, an ideological misnomer, in Pakistan. Today its leaders take pride in calling itself a “liberal” political force, while socialism and liberalism are polls apart. Identical is the case of the ANP, a Marxist-Leninist group, now calling itself a “secular-liberal” party. Thus ideology has never been a strong part of Pakistani political parties. Therefore only those political groups in Pakistan have any future which rise above the so-called politics of ideology and identity and build their capacity to promptly deliver on the basic issues of people and address their immediate needs.
Politics of identity are full of troubles and tribulations, therefore in Pakistan people should support those groups whose focus is not identity but issues and good governance.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 4th, 2018.