Hubris inevitably leads to nemesis
Our politicians have been no paragons of virtue, but they can't be accused of disastrous policies pursued by...
The writer was Pakistan’s ambassador to the EU from 2001-2004 and to the US in 1999 tariq.fatemi@tribune.com.pk
It may have been the Greeks who gave us the concept of hubris, defining it as overweening pride and a loss of contact with reality, but it is the Holy Quran which recognises this common human failing, admonishing humans to be aware of its grave consequences, in this world and the next.
In Pakistan, we have had more than our share of people suffering from this weakness, which has brought their inevitable fall, but only after they have done immense damage to the federation, both physically and emotionally. This explains why the former military strongman’s pronouncement that he had returned to “save” the country has been treated with the contempt that it deserves.
Admittedly, given the track record of the government over the past five years, there is an urgent need to focus on remedial measures to ensure recovery from its many failures and shortcomings. However, the military dictator’s arrogance borders on delusion, which is why his return has added another notch to the national barometer of worry and concern. In fact, many of his former colleagues and associates have publicly expressed concern that his entry into the national political scene could upset the delicately poised political power structure especially at a time when the country is preparing for the upcoming general elections and attempting to ensure the first ever peaceful political transition that will, hopefully, set it firmly on the path of democratic dispensation.
Not surprisingly, therefore, this has raised — once again — the question of what it is about generals that makes them itch to ride into town on a white charger seeking to “save” the nation? Do they not know that so many of our self-fancied Mansteins and Guderians ended up causing the country great grief and sorrow? Are they not aware of the fact that the legacy of all our four military rulers has been less than exemplary? They first engaged in a 10-year long policy of willful neglect and discrimination that sowed the seeds of anger and alienation in the eastern wing. This flowered into an insatiable thirst for separation that was further intensified by the genocidal policies of his successor and quenched only after military intervention by a neighbour long waiting for such an opportunity. The third left us with the legacy of extremism and militancy, as well as a deep scar on our national psyche by sending an elected prime minister to the gallows. And finally, our latest incarnation of the “saviour” undertook an ill-advised and unauthorised military adventure that not only resulted in the death of hundreds of our brave soldiers, but also brought the region to the brink of nuclear conflagration. And yet, notwithstanding his commando pretensions, he succumbed to a single phone call, happily agreeing to humiliating concessions.
Though our politicians have been no paragons of virtue, at least none of them can be accused of coming close to the disastrous policies pursued by the authoritarian rulers — in particular, the commando-general. But even if one were to set aside these transgressions for a moment, what does one make of the violations — not once, but twice, of the Constitution? The impunity with which sacred oaths were dishonoured, the judiciary humiliated, the chief justice physically assaulted, the politicians hounded out of the country and the media and civil society thrashed is still fresh in our memories, while the country is still in the early stages of recovery from the ravages of those eight years. If our “saviour” does have any love for this country’s tormented souls, he would seek their forgiveness and leave for greener pastures to enjoy his not inconsiderable wealth. It may have taken the Argentinians a decade, but Augusto Pinochet’s fate should be a warning that nemesis inevitably follows hubris, as surely as night follows day.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 27th, 2013.
In Pakistan, we have had more than our share of people suffering from this weakness, which has brought their inevitable fall, but only after they have done immense damage to the federation, both physically and emotionally. This explains why the former military strongman’s pronouncement that he had returned to “save” the country has been treated with the contempt that it deserves.
Admittedly, given the track record of the government over the past five years, there is an urgent need to focus on remedial measures to ensure recovery from its many failures and shortcomings. However, the military dictator’s arrogance borders on delusion, which is why his return has added another notch to the national barometer of worry and concern. In fact, many of his former colleagues and associates have publicly expressed concern that his entry into the national political scene could upset the delicately poised political power structure especially at a time when the country is preparing for the upcoming general elections and attempting to ensure the first ever peaceful political transition that will, hopefully, set it firmly on the path of democratic dispensation.
Not surprisingly, therefore, this has raised — once again — the question of what it is about generals that makes them itch to ride into town on a white charger seeking to “save” the nation? Do they not know that so many of our self-fancied Mansteins and Guderians ended up causing the country great grief and sorrow? Are they not aware of the fact that the legacy of all our four military rulers has been less than exemplary? They first engaged in a 10-year long policy of willful neglect and discrimination that sowed the seeds of anger and alienation in the eastern wing. This flowered into an insatiable thirst for separation that was further intensified by the genocidal policies of his successor and quenched only after military intervention by a neighbour long waiting for such an opportunity. The third left us with the legacy of extremism and militancy, as well as a deep scar on our national psyche by sending an elected prime minister to the gallows. And finally, our latest incarnation of the “saviour” undertook an ill-advised and unauthorised military adventure that not only resulted in the death of hundreds of our brave soldiers, but also brought the region to the brink of nuclear conflagration. And yet, notwithstanding his commando pretensions, he succumbed to a single phone call, happily agreeing to humiliating concessions.
Though our politicians have been no paragons of virtue, at least none of them can be accused of coming close to the disastrous policies pursued by the authoritarian rulers — in particular, the commando-general. But even if one were to set aside these transgressions for a moment, what does one make of the violations — not once, but twice, of the Constitution? The impunity with which sacred oaths were dishonoured, the judiciary humiliated, the chief justice physically assaulted, the politicians hounded out of the country and the media and civil society thrashed is still fresh in our memories, while the country is still in the early stages of recovery from the ravages of those eight years. If our “saviour” does have any love for this country’s tormented souls, he would seek their forgiveness and leave for greener pastures to enjoy his not inconsiderable wealth. It may have taken the Argentinians a decade, but Augusto Pinochet’s fate should be a warning that nemesis inevitably follows hubris, as surely as night follows day.
Published in The Express Tribune, March 27th, 2013.