History — first time a tragedy, second time a farce

Writing about history, Karl Marx says that it repeats itself twice — “the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce”. Most of the people in the global south will tend to agree with Marx’s assessment about history because most of the countries they live in experienced the tragedy of history when they were colonised. The second time, that is post-independence when these nations were in control of their own destinies most blundered and that is when they experienced history which is in the words of Marx — farcical. This farcical history is a gift of politics to these nations. I think it will be more appropriate to term it as the gift of the political players and political actors. Ironically, understanding the difference between a political player and political actor is essential because unless that is done, it is difficult to comprehend how the history of a given nation transforms from a tragedy to a farce.

For most political scientists both the terms basically mean one and the same thing but if we use chess as a metaphor, this categorisation of political players and political actors becomes clear, as players can be the one moving the chess pieces and the chess pieces are the actors being moved by the players. So, in both the political and military warfare those with influence and power and those that make the decisions are players and those that follow their directives and dictates are perhaps the actors.

Understanding history as a tragedy for the nations of global south is easy. The extended colonial rule, the enslavement of people, exploitation of resources and their lives, the resulting impoverishment and social stratification, the abuse of power by the colonists, handpicking players with feudal background as politicians and patronising them in return for loyalty and also ruthlessly punishing the voices of dissent and resistance to prolong state control and colonisation were all part of tragedy. These were the tragedies that people of global south suffered and paid a huge human and material cost before they finally got their independence.

To understand how history repeated itself second time around as farce for most of these nations, one needs to understand the absurdity of politics practised by the political players of most of these countries. Post-colonial governments in a post-independence environment did almost the same things that colonists did and in some cases at higher rates. Post-independence politics in global south remained centred around ensuring personal political survival by investment in consolidation of power. Promoting economic, political and social growth of the state was of secondary consideration. The leadership that the political players provided in the global south was characterised by two outstanding factors — patrimonial rule and consolidation of power by means of corruption. These ridiculous but dominating factors of the post-independence politics resulted in a ‘comedy of errors’ which put a negative spin on the political, social and economic lives of the people in these countries and in Marx words, history the second time around in these countries repeated itself as farce.

Examples of two countries, one from Latin America and another from Africa, explain the repetition of history as a tragedy and farce for the global south. Guatemala is the most populated country in Central America. Its post-independence politics is summarised by a study carried out by the Guatemalan sociologist Marta Casaus Arzu. She identified a core group of twenty-two families that had ties through marriage to another twenty-six families just outside the core. The political study of Marta suggested that these families have controlled economic and political power in Guatemala since 1531 and by 1990s these families represented only one per cent of Guatemalan population. The inference one draws from this example is that for almost five hundred years one per cent of elite from selected families ruled the country. The result: Guatemala is the poorest country in Latin America, a country for which history repeated itself twice — as a tragedy under Spanish occupation and as a farce under the rule of its own political players.

The second example is of Sierra Leone. Siaka Probyn Stevens was its ruler from 1967 to 1985 whose leadership was characterised by consolidation of power by means of corruption. Sierra Leone became independent in 1961. The British had built a railway from the north to the south of the country. When Stevens won the elections in 1967, Sierra Leone’s exports were doing well and it was transporting coffee, cocoa and diamonds; and the railway was acting as medium to reach to the outside world. But since Mendeland had voted hugely in favour of Stevens’ opponents in the 1967 elections, Stevens pulled up the railway line to Mendeland. He went further and sold off the tracks and the rolling stock to make sure that the damage he was inflicting on his own people was irreversible. The inference that one can draw from this example is that when Stevens as a political player faced a choice, he preferred to consolidate his power rather than encouraging the economic growth of his country. The result: Sierra Leone today is considered as a very unstable and dangerous country in the world. History repeated itself twice for it — once as a tragedy when it was colonised by Britain and now as a farce when the political players converted the country into a violent dictatorship which has impoverished much of the hinterland.

History is repeating itself twice for Pakistan as well. The first part of our history, the joint history that we share with India under the British colonial rule, was a tragedy but this repetition of history as a farce can be avoided. Power corrupts but Lord Acton was right when he said that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Political players in our country have to stop seeking absolute power and people of our country can act as the most influential actors to prevent this elite pursuit of accumulation of unlimited power. This is done in an electoral process through voting and this we must understand.

We don’t want unconstrained power in limited hands, in the hands of fewer people. As a country we need men with liberal ideals. If like the Guatemalan’s only one per cent of our population from same families continues to rule us then there will be no break in the status quo and no liberal ideas will be debated and implemented and history will continue to repeat itself for us as a farce.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 7^th, 2024.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.