The ‘change’ conspiracy

all these change-mongers believe in one thing — that somehow, a miraculous system emerges which will solve everything.

Everyone in Pakistan seems to be seeking change these days. From Imran Khan to the recent Tahirul Qadri, everyone seems convinced that only radical change can save Pakistan. Let me posit that Pakistan does not need the radical changes these gentlemen are proposing and that attempt at such changes is one of the root causes of instability in Pakistan.

From its inception, Pakistan has been mired by what is really a ‘change’ conspiracy. Everyone wants to change the system to something ‘better’ (which always remains ambiguous and ephemeral) and in the way destroys what the country already had. Even with its faults, the system Pakistan inherited — a strong bureaucracy, limited democracy and strong military — used to deliver on several fronts. Since most of the country was rural, the powerful bureaucrat (who needed to be of a good moral fibre) could be fair and just at a very local level. Democracy was slowly being expanded, just as in Britain during its formative phase, as people understood not only the rights but also the responsibilities of the system. Finally, the military guarded the volatile boundaries of the country. Much was, of course, at fault here and needed to be corrected, but not through a wholesale change of the system.

Right from the start, both Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan hinted that they wanted a change in the system. While Jinnah could only articulate some broad principles in his short period as governor general, Liaquat was firmly of the opinion that a ‘third way’ between capitalism and communism needed to be found. Speaking in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, Liaquat spoke of Pakistan as a laboratory where Islamic principles and Western models shall be experimented. Trying to achieve a synthesis of a system based on the will of God and another based on the will of the people for the first time in history was not a simple task and led to Pakistan creating a rather hodgepodge system of governance in the 1956 Constitution. Liaquat’s Objectives Resolution of 1949 clearly manifests this ‘change’ theory together with a perfect recipe for disaster with its mingling of many different principles and ideas.

Following Liaquat, Iskandar Mirza and Ayub Khan thought Pakistan unfit for democratic government and tried to thwart Pakistan becoming a democratic nation. Mirza, as the first president, postponed the long-awaited general elections, dismissed the assembly, abrogated the Constitution and imposed martial law, while Ayub Khan simply brought in a new system of basic democracies — a system of indirect election ultimately dominated by the bureaucrats. After Ayub, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s attempt at making a new federal constitution in 1973 meant that Pakistan was even less federal than under the 1935 Act (Pakistan’s first working constitution), while Ziaul Haq perpetually confused the legal and legislative systems of the country through his Islamic provisions. All rulers also always ‘restructured’ the bureaucracy which meant that it progressively became inefficient, corrupt and incoherent. All this was done in the name of radical ‘change.’

Now, again, we have the harbingers of change at centre stage. Right-wing or left-wing, all these change-mongers believe in one thing — that somehow, a miraculous system will emerge which will solve everything. Apologies for pointing out the obvious but such miracles do not happen in the real world and such expectations are mere wishful musings. For example, Tahirul Qadri argues that having a lavish lifestyle is not really Islamic. True — yet, except for the Taliban, not even the most conservative of Muslim governments follow this quite simply because in the modern world, there are certain expectations of governmental grandeur, ceremony and stature which need to be maintained. Without it, international relations will not work properly.

Pakistan can only move ahead and succeed if its strange fascination with radical ‘change’ is abandoned. Work with what you have and try to make it better. Laboratories are for science experiments, not for continual experimentation with the lives of people.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 1^st, 2013.