Plague of fear
Sind floods, Punjab dengue epidemic are incriminating for the elected govt. since these were expected disasters.
The French epigram, “the more it changes, the more it remains the same”, is as applicable to Pakistan as it has ever been. The periodic reoccurrence of the floods and dengue fever are particularly apt examples. Accompanying these catastrophes is the enduring disparagement that democracy has failed and maybe we need to explore other alternatives. It is always fascinating to see people attempting to couch this simple, rather crude argument in profundity. The sheer incompetence of both the Punjab and Sindh governments and the federal government is beyond question. The floods in Sindh and the dengue fever epidemic in Punjab are particularly incriminating because they were not unanticipated natural calamities but rather were predictable, expected disasters. And hence the political administration should be criticised for the abysmal failures.
Last year (November 9, 2010), I wrote an article on dengue fever in the Daily Times mentioning the narration of Athenian plague by Thucydides in 430 BCE. The consistency or the stagnation of our lives is such that I can plagiarise the entire article today without altering a single word, and it would remain as relevant as it was then. However, today, I would want to mention the Athenian plague for an additional reason also. The city state of Athens was hit by a plague in the second year of the Peloponnesian War (430 BCE). The plague exterminated about one-third of the Athenian population. Thucydides, one of the greatest historians of antiquity himself suffered the illness, and survived, and went on to describe the plague painfully vividly. Thucydides wrote that people ceased fearing the law since they felt they were already living under a death sentence. People started spending money irresponsibly as they believed that they would probably not live long enough to reap the benefits of the saving or considered investments. He also observed that people refused to behave honourably since people did not expect to live long enough to enjoy the rewards of a good name. Excruciatingly graphic is his description of the final moments of those afflicted. There was uncertainty about the contagiousness of the illness and it was perhaps falsely believed to be transmittable by human contact. Hence those who tended to be ill were believed to be the most vulnerable to catching the disease. This meant that people died alone because no one was willing to risk caring for them.
The primary purpose of highlighting the Athenian plague then was the symbolism that an epidemic entails in regards to the breakdown of the social fabric. That dimension remains relevant now and fear mongering and panic inducing yet irrelevant measures of the Punjab government are certainly not helping. However, the Athenian plague also illustrates the consequences on human action when people are not in something for the long haul. The unsaid considered opinion now seems to be that the question of the wrapping up of the democratic set-up is a question of “when” and not “if”. I admit that clarion calls by opinion writers are hardly going to influence the deliberative process of the GHQ, or increase its inherent contempt or scepticism of the very fallible governance by the “bloody civilians”. Neither do the opinion writers and academics have a particular responsibility to uphold or advocate democracy. Yet, it does signify that GHQ is not alone in its cynicism of the ability of the elected representatives to govern. As a result the elected governments, both provincial and federal, hence, are plagued by paranoia and the stinging realisation that the ride can come to an abrupt halt at any moment. This constant fear makes any attempt at serious long-term formulation extremely tedious. This is definitely not an excuse for corruption or ad-hocism, but it does make their choice a tiny bit easier — especially given their less than stellar records.
The argument made by Mr Nadir Hassan in his excellent piece, “The undemocratic democrats” (Express Tribune, September 22) that democratically elected governments should not be immune from criticism is unexceptionable. Democracy should ensure more debate, not less. However, our particular historical and political context cannot be ignored. In the more civilised world, the democratic system of governance is ordinarily not optional, and it is only the present incumbents and their performance which is under debate. We, however, are painfully aware that there remains institutional opposition to popular democracy by the military establishment and the deep state. This in no way means that anyone, elected or not should be immune to justified criticism. The second argument is that merely electing a government by democratic means is not sufficient. Again, the argument is hard to disagree with. Democracy also entails that the government be sent packing when the people deem fit, and hence, there are constitutional mechanisms installed to ensure that. There seems to be some conflation between “legitimacy” and “moral authority”. Whereas the present set up might be losing moral authority, there is no doubt in the legitimacy of the present regime. This may come across as an exceptionally formal view, but we have to make our peace with the fact that we have “chosen” to install a formal constitutional form of government.
The fact that certain educated people do not fancy President Zardari or Shahbaz Sharif (or many others) does not obscure the fact that a lot more people have actually voted for them. I am not an apologist for anyone of them and by all means send them home by democratic means. Corruption and incompetence can be fought in many ways and has to be fought consistently, but advocating demagogy is not one of them. Democracy is not a form of governance that everybody has to agree with, and there are many rational, sensible people who do not. Yet in that event the argument has to be made in clear, unequivocal terms and not by obfuscation and not restricting oneself to our present rulers. Since, otherwise it has a definite and nauseating ting of the same stale, evidently false argument that the previous political governments were somehow to be blamed for military dictators taking over.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 25th, 2011.
Last year (November 9, 2010), I wrote an article on dengue fever in the Daily Times mentioning the narration of Athenian plague by Thucydides in 430 BCE. The consistency or the stagnation of our lives is such that I can plagiarise the entire article today without altering a single word, and it would remain as relevant as it was then. However, today, I would want to mention the Athenian plague for an additional reason also. The city state of Athens was hit by a plague in the second year of the Peloponnesian War (430 BCE). The plague exterminated about one-third of the Athenian population. Thucydides, one of the greatest historians of antiquity himself suffered the illness, and survived, and went on to describe the plague painfully vividly. Thucydides wrote that people ceased fearing the law since they felt they were already living under a death sentence. People started spending money irresponsibly as they believed that they would probably not live long enough to reap the benefits of the saving or considered investments. He also observed that people refused to behave honourably since people did not expect to live long enough to enjoy the rewards of a good name. Excruciatingly graphic is his description of the final moments of those afflicted. There was uncertainty about the contagiousness of the illness and it was perhaps falsely believed to be transmittable by human contact. Hence those who tended to be ill were believed to be the most vulnerable to catching the disease. This meant that people died alone because no one was willing to risk caring for them.
The primary purpose of highlighting the Athenian plague then was the symbolism that an epidemic entails in regards to the breakdown of the social fabric. That dimension remains relevant now and fear mongering and panic inducing yet irrelevant measures of the Punjab government are certainly not helping. However, the Athenian plague also illustrates the consequences on human action when people are not in something for the long haul. The unsaid considered opinion now seems to be that the question of the wrapping up of the democratic set-up is a question of “when” and not “if”. I admit that clarion calls by opinion writers are hardly going to influence the deliberative process of the GHQ, or increase its inherent contempt or scepticism of the very fallible governance by the “bloody civilians”. Neither do the opinion writers and academics have a particular responsibility to uphold or advocate democracy. Yet, it does signify that GHQ is not alone in its cynicism of the ability of the elected representatives to govern. As a result the elected governments, both provincial and federal, hence, are plagued by paranoia and the stinging realisation that the ride can come to an abrupt halt at any moment. This constant fear makes any attempt at serious long-term formulation extremely tedious. This is definitely not an excuse for corruption or ad-hocism, but it does make their choice a tiny bit easier — especially given their less than stellar records.
The argument made by Mr Nadir Hassan in his excellent piece, “The undemocratic democrats” (Express Tribune, September 22) that democratically elected governments should not be immune from criticism is unexceptionable. Democracy should ensure more debate, not less. However, our particular historical and political context cannot be ignored. In the more civilised world, the democratic system of governance is ordinarily not optional, and it is only the present incumbents and their performance which is under debate. We, however, are painfully aware that there remains institutional opposition to popular democracy by the military establishment and the deep state. This in no way means that anyone, elected or not should be immune to justified criticism. The second argument is that merely electing a government by democratic means is not sufficient. Again, the argument is hard to disagree with. Democracy also entails that the government be sent packing when the people deem fit, and hence, there are constitutional mechanisms installed to ensure that. There seems to be some conflation between “legitimacy” and “moral authority”. Whereas the present set up might be losing moral authority, there is no doubt in the legitimacy of the present regime. This may come across as an exceptionally formal view, but we have to make our peace with the fact that we have “chosen” to install a formal constitutional form of government.
The fact that certain educated people do not fancy President Zardari or Shahbaz Sharif (or many others) does not obscure the fact that a lot more people have actually voted for them. I am not an apologist for anyone of them and by all means send them home by democratic means. Corruption and incompetence can be fought in many ways and has to be fought consistently, but advocating demagogy is not one of them. Democracy is not a form of governance that everybody has to agree with, and there are many rational, sensible people who do not. Yet in that event the argument has to be made in clear, unequivocal terms and not by obfuscation and not restricting oneself to our present rulers. Since, otherwise it has a definite and nauseating ting of the same stale, evidently false argument that the previous political governments were somehow to be blamed for military dictators taking over.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 25th, 2011.