I quite like what’s happening. Politicians, bureaucrats (civil and military), businessmen, journalists, the whole lot of them caught with their pants down. The conmen have turned upon each other and have begun to consume themselves. That’s a plus.
The minus, or at least that which remains unknown and uncertain, is whether this show will help establish some rules of the game. Exploitation and extraction can never be fully eradicated. Until Man retains the desire to create surplus, the cycle shall go on, resulting, sometimes, in works of art and other times in chicaneries and vulgarities. But rules of the game help in preventing the undesirable from getting out of hand. When you get caught, you pay for it.
Quite frankly, I am not interested in which father or son did what. What has come to the fore like much else that still needs to, has been known or partially known for a long time. Nothing new in the fact that we have been ruled, as is the case in many other states, by an exploitative elite. What is new, and encouraging, is that the warts now come to the surface. That can only be good.
Economists Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson have recently published a big book Why Nations Fail (2012). Their main argument has two strands: economic growth depends on institutions and the nature and efficacy (or otherwise) of institutions depends on the political actors in any society. In other words, whether the institutions are good or bad will depend on the interests of the political actors. Like all institutional economists, Acemoglu and Robinson define institutions as rules of the game according to which organisations function and interact with each other.
Good institutions allow for a larger spread of the gains. To use the authors’ terminology, they are “inclusive”. Bad ones, on the other hand, are “extractive”. They are perpetuated by political actors for private gains, which are almost always at the expense of the broad society. So, it’s not that the actors, or the extractive elite, do not know what’s good or bad but they have no incentive to change the template because it works fine for them. The onus of responsibility for the change is, therefore, on those who are being exploited, not those who are exploiting.
There are many problems with Acemoglu and Robinson’s work as identified by recent reviews by Francis Fukuyama and Jared Diamond. Those critical insights are important. But without getting into the debate on how exactly to define ‘inclusive’ and ‘extractive’ or even whether ‘democracy’, ‘modern state’ and ‘rule of law’ are necessarily and sufficiently allied concepts — Fukuyama has a problem with standalone ‘democracy’ as a panacea and I agree — one thing we can agree on: unless there is some kind of pressure on the extractive elite to change the rules of the game, they will not.
Pressure itself, historically, has had two models: the good, old English gradualness and social revolutions, those great upheavals that transform the social and political structures in a mutually reinforcing fashion. Both models are rooted in different and differing socioeconomic, historical and political experiences and trajectories. My own preference is for gradual transitions, multiple ones leading to a big transformation. I held the same view during the second phase of the lawyers’ movement, drawing the ire of many, some of whom I am happy to report have since come round, though without once offering a mea culpa.
It is from this perspective that I find the current happenings rather promising. Organisations fighting turf battles in a fractured entity is always messy. When states and societies have developed such fissures, the battles are never neat, nor the battle-lines clearly drawn. Yet, it is easier to put up with obnoxious attacks and insinuations in a courtroom or in the pages of newspapers, on the idiot box or in blogosphere than by the use of the guillotine.
Lest anyone get his hopes high, it’s not going to change big time anytime soon. Many a bound there are still to go. But the direction seems right. Nor will it be linear. Take an example: the army’s political role in this country is on the decline. That is good. But this decline, helped in great measure by some exogenous factors, has come under the rule of a party whose five years may acquire legendary status in the history of Pakistan for dysfunctionality. So, how would we judge it? It depends on where one stands and what one ascribes a higher value to: army’s decline or utter lack of governance.
The point is that in sociopolitical and economic evolutions, one cannot hope to look for patterns that are always all good. Much good can come out of what is seemingly bad and vice versa. The historian who has the privilege of being removed from the immediate also has the luxury, not afforded to us, of looking at the cumulative impact after things have shaped up — for good or bad. He will see the wood where we see a lot of trees.
Finally, and this links up with Fukuyama’s critique of Acemoglu and Robinsons’ work, rule of law is more important in developing a modern state than a standalone democracy. Predictably, he cites Samuel Huntington’s argument in Political Order in Changing Societies (1968) that “expanded political participation may destabilise societies (and thereby hurt growth) if there is a failure of political institutions to develop in tandem”. Huntington himself was beholden to De Tocqueville for the sharp insight about the “art of associating” as the most important prerequisite for a democracy to work.
What we see through court cases and debates in the media — mainstream and social — is the attempt to resolve some of those nettlesome issues that have continued to hamstring this society. That even the most powerful have to submit to the law, even when they might still retain the ability to manipulate it, offers the hope that we may be headed towards developing institutions. The interim will of course be chaotic and much would also depend on external factors and threats that we are not counting in here.
Published In The Express Tribune, June 13th, 2012.
COMMENTS (28)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@ayesha_khan: I was talking about democratic government.
@elelmentary: "Five years is enough time to atleast get the rules of the game right" Did Zia get them right in 11 years? Did Musharraf in 9 years? What about Ayub/Yahya period? Did the army get it right then?
Five years is enough time to atleast get the rules of the game right ; time and again our political elite ,with their moral corruptness and cognitive incompetence have let the people down: And this is the crucial factor in our civil-military imbalance of power.
You can't beg for your rights or act like a cry baby holding up your victim placard,;you will have to show some strenght,insight and performance,get the people to support you (real democracy) and only then can you hope to topple the 'real' rulers.
@Khan jr: Brilliant comment !
I'm still trying to wrap my head around whether this is an op-ed or a pretentiously written series of book reviews. If I want to read about Huntington, Jared Diamond etc., I would not be here.
@khan Jr. Very rightly said.
A very good analysis. I would just add two points:
Where we are, it is not clear that things will necessarily get better either. They might, but it's also possible that we might go further down hill as we have done over the last few decades.
Trying to look at the events of today in a bigger picture and separating the trees from the forest is indeed tricky as the author points out. That said, it is still clear enough that the CJ and the current judiciary, despite their imperfections, are pushing for a more inclusive and accountable system whereas the PPP, the armed forces and the likes of Malik Riaz are standing for the status quo. If the judiciary is demolished and Malik Riaz wins, it will be a huge set back for attempts to reform Pakistan. Hence when the battle lines are drawn, we have to stand on the side of the judiciary.
EH excellent article as usual from you!
Your view is also supported by Ian Bremmer and his work regarding "The J-curve" that nascent democracies tend to follow. Kudos on finding reason for optimism where many find very little of it.
As expected Ejaz, a very good read...enjoyed it thoroughly, and really liked this, "So, how would we judge it? It depends on where one stands and what one ascribes a higher value to: army’s decline or utter lack of governance?"..Very well written.
And on a personal note, i think, any form of governance which can provide the basic necessities of life, and has a more or less balanced system of law, and does not threaten the life and livelihood of a citizen, qualifies to goverm, that is the economic reality of today and the future, how long will we take to understand that, will decide the course ahead for Pakistan.
Any democracy devoid of governance should be thrown out and never to be expereinced again.
@Khan jr:
If you want some credibility, rely on truth or sophistry!
Army's decline, definiltely. Utter lawllessness is simply a consequence of army rule and institutional destruction.
Good institutions allow for a larger spread of the gains. To use the authors’ terminology, they are “inclusive”. Bad ones, on the other hand, are “extractive”.
So,In throwing its wealth around, was Bahria being 'inclusive' or was it falling prey to 'extractive' designs of some other 'institutions'?
That even the most powerful have to submit to the law, even when they might still retain the ability to manipulate it, offers the hope that we may be headed towards developing institutions.
Are the most powerful actually submitting to the law? The summoning of a middling power and the mere hint of summoning the power that be, led to the airing of Bahriagate. The portents tell us that some of the powerful, at least, have no intentions of submitting to any one.
@Khan jr. A little unfair. The guy has been catching up on some reading, and it was a nice summary, although he should know Huntingdon's thesis of opting for stability instead of development (because it suited the US at the time), has been a cause for the distorted political situations in many countries, including Pakistan and the Middle East.
The writer is correct in saying that it may not change 'big time' soon enough. It is difficult to hope otherwise. This is a quarrel among the elite for share of power and privilege. the common will not benefit regardless of who wins.We are nowhere becoming an inclusive society. Nor will the powerful share so easily. As for it being a good thing. Agreed, good that it is out in the open. But do we have to be this way?
Story of game and rule is not like that of a chicken and egg. In this case games come first and then the rules follow. People playing the game are much smarter than people making the rule. Like it has always been, the players will hoodwink all the rules. Rules are nothing but a very distant hazy shadow of games.
@faraz: I agree with you 100%. Pakistan has been plundered by its armed forces for the better part of its history. They are the biggest burden on the economy and a hurdle in the progress of we the people. Once there are 2-3 consecutive elections and govts change the sieving process would improve the governance. Let us give democracy the same time (over 3 decades) that we have given to usurpers and traitors. Thanks and regards, Mirza
'Professor' Ejaz Haider has done it again. Could someone please tell him that this a newspaper column and not a journal for the pretentious-wanabee-academic. No doubt Mr Haider is of that ilk which prefers calling a shovel 'a manual implement for excavating soil'. Perhaps he should go and do just that... A PhD on shovels...
"..Lest anyone get his hopes high, it’s not going to change big time anytime soon.." Dear Mr. Haider i disagree. Once imran khan and PTI's 'sonami' comes to power, there will be a big time change in just ninety days
@thinktank:
You missed the point of the article. The change comes but it comes gradually. What we have today is perhaps the start of it where you find some, if not most, power holders feeling the heat. Some out-rightly resisting it. What you are referring to (weeding out top actors) is the destination when the "exploitative elite" will come (or be forced to come) under the rule of law. And only the historian, as EH put it, will see the wood where we see a lot of trees. We, unfortunately, has to go through the process and only our children will find out whether we headed the right way or the wrong way (army’s decline or utter lack of governance).
Thought provoking piece EH - Thanks.
Very well said. Some times it has to get worse before it gets better. While some might argue that we are seeing the worst part of our history as a nation but at the least we can all agree that this heralds the coming of dawn.
The basic fallacy, that quoting a 1000 books and philosophers cannot mask, is that Pakistan is a unique state. Its different from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Iran, Mexico, Switzerland and Germany. So do not exterpolate the history and politics of any other state to conclude what is going to happen in Pakistan.
Simply Brilliant. I was feeling very hopeless before reading your article. Thanks for that
Pakistan state itself does not play fair in the community of nations. I don't have to remind double game and bad faith actions of the state right from 1948 when it used FATA tribal to attack Kashmir to the protection extended to some terrorist groups.
There is a saying in India, "yatha raja tatha prajaa" mean "As is the ruler, so is the subject"
What has decline in the role of army got to do with bad governance? And you convincingly forgot the role of strategic assets nurtured by the army that have cost us 100 billion dollars economic loss and led us to global isolation
Yes, we need to change our mindset. The problem is not only in our politicians. It's in our society. The politicians are from within us. If we gradually improve the the whole society, our leader will improve automatically. A revolution would be good, but a gradual change would be better.
EH, What you say is true if all the actors in the game play by certain ground rules. In pakistan's case, the very prime minister( highest office) has chosen to ignore Supreme court's decision and cling on to power. Dont tell me that this is a part of evolution.. It can very well be the start of anarchy and path goes downhill from there.
Exploitations and extractions will get weeded out only if the top actors behave ethically and are sincere towards their work....not if they themselves exploit and extract !!!
In my view the situation in Pakistan is very simple. We look at our leaders and also we are waiting for the miracle to change our lives and our society. My all friends lie, cheat and do corruption and whenever they discuss something throwing abuses at each other is norm. We all talk behind the back of others and make fun of each and in our society respect for the Poor in non existent. We are searching for Messiah sometimes in the form of Imran Khan or sometimes in any other personality to change our own destiny and our own Behavior. But it will never happen like that. Just change yourself and try to change the people around you and you will see with Individual responsibility our Society can change dramatically. The issue of CJ's Son and Malik Riaz is a non issue as I am sure if most of the Pakistanis will be given a chance including me then we will be doing the same but i am happy that atleast someone is pointing out the ills in our soceity and this could change the outlook of the people in the coming future.