The diversified federalist
Diversity should not be the weakness but the strength of a federation
The writer is a civil servant based in Quetta
Diversity is the beauty of a federation but until it reaches the extent of contrariety. Doubtlessly, Pakistan is a country of a myriad people. One reckons what could be the bonding force holding 220 million people together to make up a strong and progressive federation. Could it be language, race, religion, or division of power, or something else? There are major divides on this question.
The Khaldunian ethnocentrism may not fit in here conventionally. Religion could be attributed as central to this ethnocentrism but there is as much diversity in the religious segments as in anything else. Moreover, society is a complex entity where religious sentiments may form a part of the picture, but never the whole picture itself.
As far as the bonds of castes, races or languages are concerned, they too do not make up for bonding the people together in our case. Through this set of categories we could have a number of bondages but not a single mega bond, which is the sine qua non for keeping the people’s hearts and minds together for a strong federation. Diversity manipulates this region exceedingly.
Similarly, to some political pundits, the federation with a weak central government and strong units is the solution to this question of diversity. To them, it is the element of constitutional power which can hold people together when every provincial unit is less dependent on the central government. They put away the issue of diversity which lies more in the provinces than in the centre. How would they attend to the issues of diversity within a provincial unit and then how would all the units culminate into a national bond to cause national development and progress — they are clueless. The demand for democracy without tailoring it to our indigenous circumstances is like being caught up with an idea, incognizant of its actual fallouts. What we are necessarily forgetting here is that ideas are born out of a complex habitat having socio-cultural, economic, geo-historical and religious elements. An ideal democracy as prescribed in the Swiss Republic or by the platonic philosopher king may be a grand failure if it comes to us.
Ironically, ours has rapidly turned into a consumerist nation. This consumerism has iron-clad our indigenous intellect to ponder over indigenous solutions. We assumed that the central government had a lot of powers and we cut them down with the anticipation that this would accelerate our national development. The whole focus revolved around the pivot of “power” alone which was where we miscalculated our approach. Resultantly, ours is fast becoming a “loose federation” where no single national agenda of growth and development is set out. We are disagreeing on everything and agreeing on nothing while evolving into a democracy of disagreements.
Diversity should not be the weakness but the strength of a federation. To upgrade it, we need a strong central government for Pakistan, a country located in a sensitive geo-strategic region and comprising people speaking more than a dozen languages, and following similar belief systems while possessing numerous political ideas. This diversity would in fact lead our way to precipitated polarisation, ending up in base provincialism if not properly checked.
A strong central government would be able to set out a jointly agreed national agenda. This would be the elemental force to bind the people within our federation. This would structure the diversity in a synergised pattern and not compromise national interests at the expense of some whimsical designs of a victorious clan of elected representatives. It would be the end of a bookish democracy and the beginning of a progressive indigenous democracy, tuned to our needs.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 27th, 2019.
The Khaldunian ethnocentrism may not fit in here conventionally. Religion could be attributed as central to this ethnocentrism but there is as much diversity in the religious segments as in anything else. Moreover, society is a complex entity where religious sentiments may form a part of the picture, but never the whole picture itself.
As far as the bonds of castes, races or languages are concerned, they too do not make up for bonding the people together in our case. Through this set of categories we could have a number of bondages but not a single mega bond, which is the sine qua non for keeping the people’s hearts and minds together for a strong federation. Diversity manipulates this region exceedingly.
Similarly, to some political pundits, the federation with a weak central government and strong units is the solution to this question of diversity. To them, it is the element of constitutional power which can hold people together when every provincial unit is less dependent on the central government. They put away the issue of diversity which lies more in the provinces than in the centre. How would they attend to the issues of diversity within a provincial unit and then how would all the units culminate into a national bond to cause national development and progress — they are clueless. The demand for democracy without tailoring it to our indigenous circumstances is like being caught up with an idea, incognizant of its actual fallouts. What we are necessarily forgetting here is that ideas are born out of a complex habitat having socio-cultural, economic, geo-historical and religious elements. An ideal democracy as prescribed in the Swiss Republic or by the platonic philosopher king may be a grand failure if it comes to us.
Ironically, ours has rapidly turned into a consumerist nation. This consumerism has iron-clad our indigenous intellect to ponder over indigenous solutions. We assumed that the central government had a lot of powers and we cut them down with the anticipation that this would accelerate our national development. The whole focus revolved around the pivot of “power” alone which was where we miscalculated our approach. Resultantly, ours is fast becoming a “loose federation” where no single national agenda of growth and development is set out. We are disagreeing on everything and agreeing on nothing while evolving into a democracy of disagreements.
Diversity should not be the weakness but the strength of a federation. To upgrade it, we need a strong central government for Pakistan, a country located in a sensitive geo-strategic region and comprising people speaking more than a dozen languages, and following similar belief systems while possessing numerous political ideas. This diversity would in fact lead our way to precipitated polarisation, ending up in base provincialism if not properly checked.
A strong central government would be able to set out a jointly agreed national agenda. This would be the elemental force to bind the people within our federation. This would structure the diversity in a synergised pattern and not compromise national interests at the expense of some whimsical designs of a victorious clan of elected representatives. It would be the end of a bookish democracy and the beginning of a progressive indigenous democracy, tuned to our needs.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 27th, 2019.