Been there, done that

I voted for PPP, but not for Bilawal, and I most certainly did not vote for the multiple offsprings of Gilani.

To the extent Pakistanis are aware of the Arab Spring, the normal reaction here has been a shrug. Yes, Arabs from Tunisia to Egypt have deposed dictators over the past year. But we did all of that in 2007 and 2008. In other words, ‘been there, done that’.

But have we really? Tom Friedman recently wrote about how the common factor connecting the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Syria with the unrest in Russia was the feeling amongst people that they were not just mere ‘chickens’ to be handed down by dictators to their offspring. In short, the revolution in Libya was not just against Qaddafi personally but against all the Qaddafis.

This sentiment certainly seems to have passed by Pakistan. With the solitary exception of Imran Khan, politics here is a family business in which different dynasties fight it out like competing franchises in the world of fizzy drinks. Please can I have a Bhutto? Sorry, we’re all out of original flavour Bhuttos. Ok, in that case, I’ll take a diet Zardari and a cherry-flavoured Bilawal.

I don’t mean to rag on the Bhuttos exclusively. The Sharifs are just as bad. You get to pick from regular Sharif (Nawaz), diet Sharif (Shahbaz) or zero calorie (the rhetorically-challenged son-in-law recently eviscerated on television by my friend, Chaudhry Fawad).

Look, I don’t have a problem with the fact that Asif Ali Zardari is president of Pakistan. I voted for the PPP in 2008 and while I may be ruing my choice, I am willing to live with the consequences of that selection. I did not, however, vote for Bilawal Bhutto Zardari and I most certainly did not vote for all the multiple offsprings of Yousaf Raza Gilani.

I mention all of this because of the widely publicised picture showing two sons of the prime minister calling on the son of the president. Given that this picture was visible in not just one but several newspapers, its release was obviously planned. More importantly, the picture was released during the time when speculation over the reasons behind Asif Zardari’s mysterious departure for Dubai was at its peak. The gentleman responsible for the picture’s circulation was, therefore, obviously trying to convey the message to the worried people of Pakistan that they should not fret about the absence and illness of their beloved president since there was a new generation of leaders ready and willing to take over the reigns of power.

I don’t know which bright spark was responsible for this stroke of genius but I hope that he spills hot coffee over his happy parts. Repeatedly.

As a Pakistani, I am confronted every day with the reality that the leaders whom fate has seen fit to bestow upon us are less than ideal. I choose to accept this unhappy fact because I also choose to believe in the concept of democracy. I do not want to be told that my moment of electoral stupidity has resulted in permanent enslavement to one or more families. And if you — Mr PR Man — insist on shoving that fact down my throat then I will insist on shoving my opinion into places where it (hopefully) causes severe haemorrhoidal pain to sycophantic flacks.

Let us now try and elevate this discourse for a minute. Max Weber, the great social scientist, proposed that there were three ‘pure types’ of authority.

The first model proposed by Weber was historical, i.e. the argument that things should be done in a particular way because they have always been done in that way. The second model proposed by Weber was that of charismatic leadership; in other words, that things should be done in a particular way because somebody seen as having special power or special knowledge had directed things to be done in that particular way. Finally, there is ‘rational-legal’ authority in which power earns legitimacy by virtue of its congruence with a generally accepted system of rules.

Weber’s argument — in simple terms — was that modernity in the West was linked with a gradual move from traditional and charismatic modes of authority (rule by kings) to rational-legal authority (constitutional democracies). His further argument was that this process of ‘rationalisation’ was inevitable and that all societies would eventually move away from historical and charismatic forms of authority and towards rational-legal authority norms.

Weber didn’t exactly come up with a timeline as to when all of this rationalisation was going to happen (nor was he entirely thrilled by modernity). The point to note though is that democracy and dynasties don’t exactly go hand in hand. Democracy assumes that the people of a country are willing and able to make a free and informed choice as to who their representatives ought to be. The more people are brainwashed into believing that they should be voting for a particular person because of reasons entirely distinct from the person’s political competence, the further away we are from democracy and the closer we get to a thinly disguised oligarchy.

This is the point where grumpy old men continue on to conclude that ‘real democracy’ has no chance of succeeding in Pakistan and that we should immediately hand over all power to some well-meaning group of people who can immediately fix all that is wrong with this country. Sorry, but ‘been there, done that’. Repeatedly.

I may not like what my democratically elected rulers are doing to this country but I will defend to the death (well, at least to the significant discomfort) their right to be complete idiots. Our people may well be brainwashed and delusional about the charisma of their leaders. But the only way we will ever learn from our mistakes is if we are first allowed to make them.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 20^th, 2011.