April 11 , 2008

The Hijab of Democracy

Pakistan is a land of striking contrasts. Occasionally, the few who are overly sensitive may end up taking their own lives. Reasons vary: unemployment, terminal illness, humiliation after failure at school, jilted or forbidden love, the slights and grind of daily drudgery, and social insignificance. And, sometimes, those who are ‘lucky’ enough to be shame-proof land up (and cling on) as emperors of the domain. 
Ask those nameless and faceless, confined and forgotten in dungeons, or often pressed like sardines in overcrowded jail cells, why they are where they are. Some may well answer that they don’t have a rich Uncle or a Prince as a pal to bail them out. Their biggest crime may be the lack of a Godfather patron. 
This also holds true in the realm of international relations, in that honest discussions on terrorism are rare. The focus is on individual or group terror. State terrorism is considered outside the scope of inquiry, unless the state in question happens to fall within the ‘Axis of Evil’. 
A common social malady is getting dizzy with the scent of power. Before some balloon into self-congratulatory euphoria, and lapse into selective amnesia, it may be useful to contextualize as to who appointed the one viewed as the alleged architect of the present mess, and who hailed the events of October 1999 with fireworks and sweets. Surely, not all of the above was done out of sheer love for the ‘national interest’. 
The present is a direct consequence of the past. Both the presidency and the politicos need to thank each other. The presidency owes its initial enthronement and subsequent empowerment to the litany of errors made by coalition partners during the past decade. And the politicos owe their political rebirth to the presidency for its miscalculations stemming from a combination of hubris and fear. 
Politics only reflects society. A social set-up which over-emphasizes pragmatism is in dire need of re-calculating its moral direction. The greatest beneficiaries of Pakistan are its lotus-eating elites whose favorite pastime is Pakistan-bashing. Had it not been for Partition, in undivided India, this lot would have remained a docile underclass of Brahmin Raj.
With respect to the independence of judiciary, there has been little proportional outcry when cases were dismissed with domino effect to apparently ingratiate favorites. Was it underpinned by juridical principles or was it swayed by the prevailing political breeze? Arguably, the dismissals may imply that the cases were not justiciable to begin with. If so, should not then a cause lie for malicious prosecution against the prosecuting authorities? Unless, of course, the underlying allegations were legally tenable and factually accurate. Is it not a mockery of the equal application of law, or is law merely a maid-servant of politics? 
Pity the teachers and parents in Pakistan who are trying to instill in sons and daughters the values of honesty and hard work. They would be hard-pressed to find role models for the youth to emulate. 
The current coalition is an artificial marriage of convenience, bound together by mutual dislike for the presidency. When the object of hate is no longer there, would this union last, or would there be a nasty divorce?
While accommodation is sometimes necessary in politics, over-accommodation seldom works. 
It is easy to be carried away by the euphoria of new beginnings. But the real test is whether these beginnings can yield to productive outcomes for the public – the least desirable being the routine pursuit of revenge and riches, which has been the undoing of past regimes. The appearance may be new but the approach may yet remain old. Similar mistakes produce similar results. Thus far, there is insufficient evidence of a consensus or commitment to tackle the unavoidable issues of governance. 
The plight of the presidency and its partisans highlights the thin line separating public elevation from public humiliation. 
The hijab of democracy hides a lot of sins.