The writer is a columnist. He is also a former editor of the Mumbai-based English newspaper Mid Day and the Gujarati paper Divya Bhaskar
aakar.patel@tribune.com.pk
We should see the demand by Tahirul Qadri to have more moral politicians in Pakistan as part of a sequence.
The charismatic religious scholar wants leaders to pass the test of Article 62 of the Constitution. It requires of a legislator that:
“(d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic Injunctions;
(e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins;
(f) he is sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen.”
This isn’t the sort of thing other nations seek, but the idea of Pakistan is utopian. The seed of this is in its creation. Whether one sees it as a homeland for Muslims escaping oppression by Hindus or as a fortress for Islam, this aspect, creating a perfect society, is common.
This search for perfection usually expresses itself through rejecting what is available because it isn’t up to the standard.
Ayub Khan abrogated the 1956 Constitution (“not suited to the genius of Pakistan”) and invented indirect democracy. Samuel Huntington thought Ayub was the right man for Pakistan and likened him to the Greek lawgiver Solon. Alas, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto abrogated Ayub’s laws and had his laws, in turn, mauled by Zia, because none of it seemed right. The decade of the 1990s saw the ejection of elected leaders who went not because they were voted out but because of their moral flaws or unsuitable character. Benazir Bhutto was corrupt, secular and nepotistic; Nawaz Sharif was independent of the army and soft on India.
Pakistan’s system has swung from dictatorial (Ayub and Yahya) to presidential (Zia and Ghulam Ishaq Khan) to prime ministerial (Bhutto, Benazir and Sharif). One theme has persisted: the suspicion that whatever is current, whether law or leader, is not right and must be replaced.
Pervez Musharraf thought it was the British bureaucrat-based district administration that was undemocratic. No matter that it is the backbone of administration in India. The system was all wrong and unsuited to the genius of Pakistan. Uprooting it was the solution and so he went to grassroots democracy like Ayub.
Today, it’s difficult to understand what the system of Pakistan’s government is even for those who have been studying it for some time.
Under Asif Ali Zardari, we now appear to be back in presidential mode, though nobody can be sure. What is constitutionally a parliamentary democracy looks like a triumvirate, with executive power being shared by the president, the army chief and the judiciary, which is increasingly writing law and executing it.
On January 9 , my friend Bilal Minto, representing what remains of the communists in Pakistan, asked the Supreme Court to consider restricting the amount of money spent on elections. The Court took this up while hearing a matter on electoral reform. Personally, I think it wrong that Bilal and others should take to the courts what is essentially a legislative function. However, it’s sensible to have this law. Chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry did not think so and said it would be difficult to implement. Instead, he’s asked for compulsory voting, something with which I see no benefit coming to Pakistan. I mention this point because this idea of compulsory voting is also utopian. It assumes that press-ganging everyone into polling stations will produce true democracy. It won’t, of course.
Pakistan has the same problems as India — poverty, illiteracy and corruption (in that order). We can add perhaps two additional ones, a lack of religious diversity in society that inclines it towards extremism and, because of this, a lack of pluralism in law. The outsider suspects it is a mess that is actually internal and cultural, not one that is soluble in new systems or more moral politicians.
Whether or not that is correct, it is likely that my three-volume Constitutional Law of Pakistan, not that old but already out of date, will keep expanding. The search for Utopia will continue in Pakistan. Thomas More wrote about the ideal society and called this magical nation ‘Utopia’, a word derived from ‘no place’ in Greek.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 20th, 2013.
COMMENTS (19)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@abhi Again, you seem to be misunderstanding me. I specifically said that Dr. Qadri added more religious overtones than we needed. Morality doesn't need to conform to one religion to be correct, it is a universally understood concept. The qualities of being just and truthful predate Islam and should come first no matter what. I'm sorry if that sounds like a tall order to you, but many countries around the world have managed to maintain a moral code to some degree or another, at least in terms of governance. Pakistan needs to do the same. The only reason our detractors insist that it can't happen in Pakistan is because they really, really, really want to claim that Islam is the root of all evil. Personally, I think I would really like to show the world how awesome a country can be while still upholding it's right to call itself a Muslim country. But then, I like to rise to big challenges and beat the odds.
Pakistan is utopia. The whole world knows that since 1947. The ones who do not know, are the ones who do not know the meaning of utopia.
@Nothing wrong with Idealism
I agree that you didn't mention about purity but what you call a moral leader is something similar, and even that morality is tightly bound with Islam which makes it more exclusive.
"-----add perhaps two additional ones, a lack of religious diversity in society that inclines it towards extremism and, because of this, a lack of pluralism in law. _"
Call a spade a spade . It is undiluted,self righteous , bigoted, religious intolerance.
Very brillant piece of convincing article!
@abhi How cryptic. When did I mention purity? I didn't even say we would achieve perfection, just that we should continue to aim for it.
@Yoghurt lover:
Ignoring the insults in your post, friend. The crux of what you have written above is that the unjust, untruthful and cowardly people derail social progress. The straight conclusion is that the power-holders of society being unjust, immoral, dishonest and extravagant would punish society many times more. You are in fact agreeing to my opinion that only the people of high moral character are worthy of running regimes, not crooks and liars. This is a universal thought. If it is there in Islamic guideline or Pakistan's Constitution too, does it make it less applicable for you? You should ask yourself.
@Nothing wrong with Idealism There is a difference between perfection and purity. You cannot make ornaments with pure gold.
@Diggvijay Singh:
"Pakistan’s problem is of good leadership. A leader who is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate and honest could change the destiny of a nation."
Pakistan's problem is PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF. In other words 180 million failures like yourself.
You, first of all do not know your own history and when you know you learn lies.
So, what does a man like you who learns lies do? tell lies, do unjust and put the blame on politicians and cry victim.
Grow some spine and do the right thing. See how the society changes slowly.
"Pakistan has the same problems as India — poverty, illiteracy and corruption (in that order). We can add perhaps two additional ones, a lack of religious diversity in society that inclines it towards extremism and, because of this, a lack of pluralism in law. The outsider suspects it is a mess that is actually internal and cultural, not one that is soluble in new systems or more moral politicians."
The above paragraph excellently throws light on the fundamental problems facing Pakistan. Anyone who want to understand how Pakistan fell into the abysmal trap of terrorism, extremism and socio-economic stagnation must read and understand its true meaning.
Mr.Patel its not the divinci code, we simply want leaders who are moral and not corrupt. We want leaders who put the nation before themselves(an islamic act) , we want them to be held accountable to the nation, are you saying all of this is a big ask??.
The reason Dr.Qadri made these specific points is because our current crop of politicians don't even come close to morality. Infact forget their morality for just a secound, their not even serious about legislation or the law and order situation in the country...in a way their taking us back to the law of the feudals. We are not searching for "Utopia", were searching simply for a better country consistantly and there's nothing wrong with that!.
Good Job AP, we need more Pak bashers, as if Pak doesnt have enough of its own.... "No place" happens to be Pakistan and it neighbors with India in case you didnt know. Oh wait, your Indian, that must be "some place"!
Pakistan's problem is of good leadership. A leader who is sagacious, righteous, non-profligate and honest could change the destiny of a nation. Take the example of Emperor Akbar or Emperor Aurangzeb from recent history. Hindustan was at its strongest point with the largest expanse under these sagacious and righteous rulers. An even better example is the righteous rule of the first four grand caliphs of the Golden Period of Islamic history. Poverty and illiteracy would not survive when the right education policy is implemented and leakage of funds meant for public good stopped. And there is no problem within Islam or the two-nation theory either which actually hurts Pakistan's progress. It's economic well-being under the reign of Ayub Khan and Musharraf shows not all times have been bad for the nation. Other Muslim nations like Turkey, Malayasia and Indonesia too have taken great leaps in living standard. The current crisis is transient brought upon by American interventionist policy. It's just a question of giving time and finding the right leadership with appropriate attributes mentioned in Article 62, which the author has quoted.
This pursuit of 'utopia' creates an all powerful religious state - self righteous and fit for only the Islamists and bigots. It allows one to deny and blame others.
Article 62 & 63 introduced into the constitution through coercion and manipulation by an army general a la dictator Ameer ul Momineen Zia ul Haq. Sad part of this story is the inability of our politicians to do the right thing and amend the constitution.
@Kazan Khan:
Every province in Pakistan will welcome the idea except Punjab for obvious reasons. This is exactly what Eastern wing wanted prior to 1971.
The search for utopia is exactly what we want. We want to continue searching, because as we shun the reality and aspire towards something unattainable, it allows us not to take any responsibility for our own actions, blaming everyone else for everything that is wrong.
We can introduce Presidential System to end political blackmailing and corruption of coalition partners. In such Presidential System, Center should hold only four subjects namely Defence, Foreign Affairs, Currency and Communication and other departments should be transferred to the provinces which will ensure strong federation with strong elected government without any political blackmailing coming from collision partner. All political parties should be allowed to field their candidate with any candidate winning more than 51% of cast votes, should be declared the President of Pakistan for next 4 years. In case no candidate is able to secure 51% votes, then run-off elections, between winner and runner-up, should be held after 10 days of first round of elections. Here, the one gets the most votes, should be declared the President of Pakistan for next four years. The President should not be elected more than twice for four years term. In Senate, every province would have 50 members each, with 20 seats each reserved for women and minority. The Senate should only concentrate on law making. For elections of Provincial Governor and District Mayor, the same procedure of electing the Federation President should be applied. The Province should also have Provincial Senate with every district has two members each . At the district level, there should be District Council which would have two members each from every Tehsil . The voting age should be reduced from 18 to 16.In both above mentioned reforms, there should be no place for so-called unelectedGuardian Council of Elders or National Security Council of Generals to control elected government—we have already seen what has happened to our country and other countries where Generals and Clerks calling the shots in politics. There is nothing wrong with democracy, all we need to do is to make the system more direct and easy for people so that they could ensure that honest and fresh recruitment take place to the top Political Offices. However, to reform the system, we do not need long march but exchange of views and ideas between different political parties in a democratic way so that the country is saved from falling into unelected people hands which could be a very destructive shortcut for a heterogeneous countrylike Pakistan with former East Pakistan’s painful separation experience is yet to vanish from our minds.