The bonds that hold a nation together

Hain jazb-e-baahmi mein qaaim nizaam saare

Posheeda hai yeh nukta tarron ki zindagi mein

(All systems are sustained by mutual attraction; this truth is hidden in the life of the stars.)

The concluding couplet by Iqbal's poem, Bazm-e-Anjum, expresses a principle that extends far beyond astronomy. Whether it is the universe, a society or a state, no system can remain cohesive merely because its constituent parts continue to exist. It is the relationship between those parts - their mutual dependence, trust and shared purpose - that enables the whole to function.

This is precisely the point at which we need to reflect on the present state of our society.

Pakistan is a diverse country. Its people differ in language, culture, political opinion, economic circumstances and social outlook. Such diversity is neither unusual nor inherently undesirable. Indeed, a healthy democracy should accommodate differences and provide space for their expression. The real danger arises when diversity is allowed to degenerate into disunity, and when the interests that bind us together are increasingly subordinated to individual, institutional or political interests. One cannot help noticing how difficult it has become to imagine our society as a cohesive, united and inclusive entity.

From the common citizen to the highest policymaker, the pursuit of self-interest appears to have acquired an increasingly dominant place in our collective conduct. Those intangible bonds that keep society bound and make social cooperation possible - such as the traditional values of trust, respect, ethics, morality and honesty - seem to be eroding with alarming speed. Fraud, cheating, deception, dishonesty and corruption are no longer confined to isolated incidents or particular walks of life. They are increasingly becoming familiar features of our everyday experience. What is perhaps even more disturbing is the weakening of the moral and social restraints that once made such conduct unacceptable.

The consequences extend far beyond the immediate victims of wrongdoing. A society in which people cannot reasonably trust one another finds it increasingly difficult to cooperate. Business transactions become more complicated, public institutions lose credibility, and even ordinary social interactions acquire an element of suspicion. The cost is not merely financial. It is the gradual weakening of the very fiber of relationships that hold society together.

We are also caught in a particularly troubling contradiction. On the one hand, we frequently declare that the entire system has collapsed. On the other, we continue to operate the same system, often with little willingness to examine our own contribution to its dysfunction. We criticise institutions, political leaders and public officials, yet seldom ask whether our own conduct helps sustain the very practices we condemn. This is not to suggest that responsibility is equally distributed. Those entrusted with public authority undoubtedly bear a greater responsibility, and those who abuse that authority must be held accountable. But a system is not sustained by its rulers alone. It is sustained by the conduct of all those who participate in it. A society cannot permanently preserve its institutions while allowing the ethical foundations of those institutions to decay. The question, therefore, is not simply who is responsible for our present predicament. It is what kind of society and state do we wish to build, and what are we prepared to do to achieve it?

Perhaps the time has come for us to bury the hatchet, join forces, sit together, ponder our present state of affairs thoroughly and undertake a serious, detailed and dispassionate study of our national state of affairs. And then, we need to reconsider and redefine our national aims and objectives in clear achievable terms without rhetoric. We need to collectively decide achievable goals to be pursued over the short, medium and long term. What kind of governance we need, what type of economy do we want? What standards of education, health and public service should we aspire to? What institutional arrangements are necessary to achieve them?

What should be the relationship between the citizen and the state? And, above all, what standards of conduct must we expect from those who exercise public authority? These questions should not be left entirely to political parties to answer according to their own agendas. Political parties have an essential role in a democracy, but their principal distinction should lie in the strategies they propose, the priorities they assign and the means they offer to achieve agreed national objectives. As very rightly defined by Lee Kuan Yew, 'In a democracy, the aims and objectives of the nation need not be different from one political party to another. What should differ is the strategy for achieving them'. The electorate should therefore be given the opportunity to choose not merely between personalities or slogans, but between competing, credible and achievable strategies for advancing the national interest. The question should be less "Who will save the country?" and more "Who has the most convincing plan to move the country forward, and how will that plan be implemented and held accountable?" This also requires a clearer understanding of the role of state institutions. Institutions are not the personal servants of political leaders or political parties. They are the guardians of the national aims and objectives that transcend the tenure of any individual government.

Their legitimacy lies not in serving whoever happens to hold power, but in serving the constitutional order and the collective interests of the people. We may disagree on many things. We may have different political preferences, economic interests and social priorities. But we must be able to agree on certain fundamental principles: that dishonesty is unacceptable, that public office is a responsibility rather than a privilege, that institutions must serve the state rather than individuals, and that the national interest cannot be reduced to the interests of any particular group.

The stars, as Iqbal reminds us, offer a profound lesson. Their existence is not merely a matter of individual presence, but of the forces that bind them together. The same is true of nations. A country may possess territory, institutions, resources and a population, yet still remain fragile if the bonds of mutual trust, shared purpose and ethical conduct are allowed to weaken.