August 03, 2007

Quest for Integrity

The siege of the Lal Masjid, along with the case of the Chief Justice, may be over, but the salient issues surrounding the core moral crisis remain as is. It is entry now into the zone of consequences – the consequences of repeated compromises in the name of so-called pragmatism.
The lawyers’ movement was an expression of general disgust over the pervasive hypocrisy and lack of fairness in public life. It reflected the clamor for change and deeper quest for integrity. In doing so, the lawyers lent fresh luster to the legal profession, from which have emerged the luminaries of the Subcontinent, including but not limited to, Allama Iqbal, the Quaid, Pandit Nehru, and Mahatma Gandhi.
The shock and awe of big money has taken its toll, leaving a society with shifting moral qibla. It is a sad commentary on state and society when the most qualified are superseded by the most moneyed. There is a pragmatic consideration behind it. The moneyed classes – with more to lose – are often more malleable and, hence, less of a threat to the status quo. Predictably, the pliable are preferred to the capable.
Over-clever schemes produce over-compromise. Sometimes there is an alliance with the landed gentry; sometimes with industrialists; sometimes with obscurantists; and sometimes even with criminality.
Instead of consensus on key issues, there is a state of national disagreement which threatens to pull apart the national fabric.
Like it or not, the military is a key glue which holds the nation together. (Lest it be forgotten, India is only 15 miles away from the heart of Pakistan, that is, Lahore.) Here, capability is more important than intentions. When bullets fly, it is unlikely that the privileged beneficiaries of dynastic monopolies will be in the front lines manning the trenches.
But that glue won’t be a glue if it is continually subject to the arbitrary whims of an individual or a coterie. The in-house task of the military is to preserve that fundamental institutional integrity and to ensure that the personal agenda doesn’t overwhelm the national agenda.
Elections are often posited as an all-purpose remedy to the nation’s ills. But is it? Past record suggests otherwise. One election broke the country. One election precipitated the hanging of an elected prime minister. Other elections only helped oligarchies perpetuate themselves in power. Meritocracy and the middle classes remain excluded. The result: change without change. The easy willingness of civilian elites to yield to avarice may itself be a prescription for praetorian rule.
The façade of democracy, in effect, serves as a mask for kleptocracy. Those who – puffed up by affluence – appear giant-like from a distance will simply shrink to pygmy-size if their pockets are emptied from ill-gotten gains.
The rules apply to foes, who are made to bear the full weight of law, while the favorites remain exempt. Thus, as has been the case in the past, the political tradition continues of seeking fault in others, but not looking inwards. A system which can absolve plunder and murder is a system of closed minds and closed doors. There is a hunger, therefore, for speaking truth and exerting leadership.
The virus of zealotry is now seeping into the empty space created by a moral vacuum. It is partly being filled by parasitic segments of priesthood. Lessons can be drawn from the enormous damage done to Christianity by organized clergy.
For things to get substantively better, two key challenges have to be met. The first involves recognizing and acknowledging that the country is on the wrong track. The second involves changing course. This happened in the case of Allama Iqbal and the Quaid, who emerged from Indian nationalism to spearhead the movement for Muslim nationhood, thereby paving the passage to Pakistan.
Change has its own dynamic. If change is not done voluntarily, change is sometimes thrust. The fact that Islamabad became a bloody combat zone suggests that major flaws are embedded within the system itself. Then, too, poorly-vetted decisions taken in Islamabad sparked a nation-wide lawyers’ revolt. In the battle of perceptions, the former signaled that the country is at the hub of vengeful hate and violent dogma. The latter sent a message of an absolutist executive branch, trying to subordinate the judicial branch, and bent on imposing the rule of men over the rule of law.
In the moderate versus militant cleavage, the so-called moderates have not emerged with honor either, appearing spineless and unscrupulous. In the volatile climate of East-West polarization, the constant pandering to the West by the “moderates” has eroded their moral authority as well as that of the state apparatus. Policy actions are better digested by the public if they are believed to be driven more by domestic compulsions than by external pressures. If confrontation doesn’t work, neither does capitulation.
The language of extremism is the same, whether emanating from Washington or from Waziristan. Whereas extremism in the East is derided, extremism in the West often gets a free ride. Change, if it is to work, has to be two-way.
A new way is needed for looking at the issues of Pakistan. This requires fundamental re-thinking. Most importantly, it means that personal ambitions must not be put ahead of national good.