Man vs Office

I was once sitting inside a classroom with many other students at the University of Houston. The teacher at the time, who happened to be a lawyer as well, asked some interesting questions. She asked the class if anyone could name the US Defense Secretary at the time. No hands were raised. I was startled. The teacher reminded the class that America was fighting so many wars abroad and that knowing the name of the Defense Secretary is really important. I raised my hand and answered. Then she asked the name of the Secretary of State; the same result. Finally she decided to also ask the name of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Again, only I knew the answer. Not only was I proud and the American students embarrassed, but I also thought very little of those students. Many years later I'd realise that my thinking of them as little was nothing but just little thinking.

That was many years ago. At the time I was very new in America. Looking back, I can today understand that those students weren't actually dull or dumb but because they grew up in a political culture that was distinctly different from the political culture in which I grew up in Pakistan. I answered all those questions because I had come from a culture where the individuals valued above the system. What decisions would be made didn't depend on the guidelines provided in the constitution but rather who the individual was in charge of calling the shots. As a Pakistani, I was in the habit of learning the names of the chiefs of the pillars of government and as Americans they had learnt how those pillars operated instead of knowing who headed them. Because individuals come and go but the system stays. In Pakistan, the system comes and goes just when the individual comes and goes.

The name of the chief justice or the army chief is a household name in Pakistan but not in America because who the chief justice or the army chief is doesn't matter so much in knowing what decisions they'd make. Laws would be deemed unconstitutional regardless of the name of the justices on the US Supreme Court. The American army chief is a man that the majority of the Americans can't name. The chief of the US armed forces has to follow the laws and the constitution and obey the orders of the elected civilian president. That is all there is to his existence and job description. The American political culture isn't perfect and individualism plays a role over here too but not so deeply and aggressively as it does in Pakistan. The term army chief has a certain feel to it in Pakistan. The phrase isn't just an office, it actually tells a story.

Right now there is a lot of noise over the appointment of the new chief justice. It's quite thought provoking to realise that the departing one was a stark contrast to the earlier chief justice Saqib Nisar. It is as if they were chief justices of two different countries or of the same countries but from totally different eras. Why one chief justice sentenced Pakistan's most corrupt politician and even made him ineligible from running for office while the other completely overturned all that, thereby sanitising this filthy politician, speaks volumes about how the rulebook is nothing but a stubborn illusion. And how Pakistanis as a nation have to know the name and personality of the next man in black robes and white wig, speaks volumes about how we've gladly embraced this culture where mind control might have graduated to the next level. The man in the office matters more than the office. That's why we have proud politicians who'd never make their bed and never travel a mile without an entourage instead of going the extra mile to ensure that all people would have a bed and a roof.