The system of authoritarian socialism

Selfishness is not in the idea of living your life the way you want to live; selfishness is more in the way that we want others to think in the same way and hold the same opinion. Authoritarian socialism is a concept that deprives a society of its liberties, and a country that is subjected to this kind of socialism experiences continued societal depravity and fights a long and hard battle against despotism and its ability to civilise. Selfishness and use of force, I consider, are the two cardinal principles for implementation of authoritarian socialism. The practice of unselfishness by the state results in creating variety as people are allowed to freely make their choices and live their lives as they like and without any interference. Authoritarian socialism breeds state selfishness that seeks in creating uniformity. Let me use the metaphor of a rose to explain the concept. A red rose is not selfish because it wants to be a red rose, it will be selfish if it wanted all the flowers in the garden to be red and roses. The second principle of an authoritarian socialism is the use of force. State uses force as a form of argument, but is using force a form of argument? The answer to this question depends entirely on what a state wants to achieve by employing and deploying force.

There is no doubt that most problems in the history in the past few centuries have been solved by means of physical force but everything changed when the world understood the meaning and benefits of being civilised. This was when the world realised that the pen was mightier than the sword and when this happened the overall global perception about the idea of authoritarian socialism changed. Not in Pakistan. Here the system of authoritarian socialism flourishes and even many journalists and media persons bowed down and conceded in front of this system. Those who did that allowed themselves to be developed, rewarded, nourished and thus became well-paid servants to the system. If media is the fourth pillar of the state then it should never be allowed to get cracked.

In the system of authoritarian socialism, people are frustrated, worried, wounded, maimed and in danger. This system obliges people to rebel which is very bad. Why should the men of authority battle against the men of resistance? Why should society be forced to waste its strength in friction? If such battles never intensify strength but exaggerate our weaknesses, why should such battles ever be fought? The problem with the system of authoritarian socialism is that for every Gilgamesh an Enkidu takes birth and for every ambition a counter ambition emerges. In this system not committing sin but showing dissent becomes a crime. Sins are born in a deprived society but the absolute absence of dissent is something that is patronised and inculcated in a society. There is a lot of loyalty that one can attribute to the idea of showing dissent but not in a system of authoritarian socialism.

All artists including writers produce a work of art that results from their unique mindset, mentality and temperament. The beauty of a writer's work comes from the fact that the writer is who he is. The moment a journalist or a writer starts producing what the system of authoritarian socialism demands, he starts supplying the demand and thus ceases to be a writer or a journalist. He ceases the claim to be admired as someone who created something honest, meaningful and reformative. He, in fact, reinforces and helps in sustaining the system by contributing towards the building of the public opinion in the support of such a system.

The system needs a remedy as people under this system suffer. The right question that comes to mind is: should one sympathise with the suffering people or should one sympathise with the thought that supports and nourishes this system? No remedies that this system comes up with have ever offered any cure. As long as the system of authoritarian socialism functions and flourishes, it can only prolong the disease. That's why one is inclined to sympathise with the thought that fails to understand that without changing the lives of the poor people, we will never advance towards civilisation or become part of the civilised world.

So, if we want to reconstruct our society, can we continue to afford to bank on this system? The tyranny of want that this system has amplified and the many people it has pushed under the line of poverty has only forced people to live more miserable lives. A man who is poor in this system is of absolutely no importance. The seeds of discontentment that this system sowed over a period of time are now sprouting. That is the reason that people agitate and protest more and more. Those that uphold this system must realise that the poor people have too long been grateful to the crumbs that have fallen from the rich man's hand, but now the access to social media and the resultant awareness lead people to make individual and community judgement calls. Many of them use social media to post their displeasure and discontent. The system responds and instead of hearing and understanding the voice of the people, the system judges them as few infiltrators in the system that can be controlled and handled.

Leadership in our country thinks that the most important thing is to have and hardly ever considers that the most important thing is to be. A true leader is not judged on the basis of what he has but what he is. By now, our leaders have even stopped pretending and people also know who is who. Being somebody is still fashionable in our politics; it is when doing something will come in fashion that the iron curtain of authoritarian socialism may finally be lifted in our society. A curtain that deprives people of their liberties and instead of creating a spirit of national enthusiasm creates a spirit of revolt. Is it the leadership or is it the people who are at fault?