Scotland Referendum: An Eye-Witness Account & Lessons for Pakistan
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry
Pittsburg, CA
“Human life will never be understood unless its highest aspirations are taken into account. Growth, self-self-actualization, the striving toward health, the quest for identity and anatomy, the yearning for excellence….must by now be accepted beyond question as a widespread and perhaps universal human tendency …”
- Maslow, 1954, Motivation and Personality
I had attended a short Summer Course in 1978 at the University of Edinburgh, and had walked for hours on Edinburgh’s famous Princess Street. My memory was still fresh of the over-looking Edinburgh Castle, containing the relics of Tipu Sultan, famously his sword, and tiger-heads and his apparel and hood, placed next to the portrait of General Baird, to whom they were presented as a victory trophy, and Maj. General Campbell after whom the city of Campbellpur, now Attock, was named; its Mound with its famous Gardens and the Floral Clock whose moving hands and face get replanted with real flowers and ivy every year; its imposing marble statue of Allan Ramsay, the famous Scottish painter; its 200- feet high monument of Scotland’s Naseem Hijazi, Sir Walter Scott, who romanticized Scottish history, and produced works like Ivanhoe, Rob Roy and Lady of the Lake etc.; its most valued monument of Scotland’s most famous son, Adam Smith (1723-1790), the father of modern Economics, and of course at the corner, the presence of tall and beautiful Scottish Episcopal Church.
The over-riding motive for revisiting Edinburgh after 36 years, however, was not due to a fit of nostalgia; but it was of a different nature, and was for a different reason. Being sick and tired of watching the distorted face of democracy in Pakistan, and the theatrical moves and tactics of the political leaders, dharnasand the assemblage of zombie-like crowds as a mark of popularity and show of strength and without which they, somehow, tend to feel that democracy is incomplete, I was earnestly interested through this visit to Edinburgh to watch with my own eyes the reaction and response of the people of Great Britain at the time of the dismemberment of the country - a country where democracy was not born, but where it was nurtured and groomed.
As far back as in 1977, as a student at the University of Exeter, I had often wondered why one of my teachers, a Scot, in his lectures would invariably pass some subtle, bitter and suggestively negative remarks at the very mention of Westminster or London. For people like me, the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish, they all were of the same piece, or at least they appeared so. I always wondered, “What is the problem with the Scots?” Now I was close to getting the answer.
So on the 17 th of September, 2014, just a night before the famous Scotland Referendum, I was there along with my wife and a relative and his wife. Inwardly, I was scared because I thought it was not very wise of us to be here. Accustomed to witnessing road-blockades; dharnas, riots, leading to arsenal acts and looting, I apprehended a strong reaction in either case of the result of the referendum. The Scots could go crazy on winning independence after 307 years; and the English could go mad on seeing their Great Britain being divided under their watch. In either case, it is always the minority under such circumstances that bears the brunt of both: jubilation or anger. My relatives, both UK residents, assured me that no such thing was likely to happen. And it did not.
I saw democracy coming full circle there. Total 100% acceptance of results; a gracious step-down by the Scottish leader, Mr Alex Salmond. The referendum was, according to Mr James Cusick, a correspondent, “Mr Alex Salmon’s final battle. His shock resignation marks the career-end of one of Scotland and Britain’s most remarkable and committed politicians.” In Pakistan, politicians are found in great rush, first to go for elections, be it before time, and then to reject its results.
No one called Mr Alex Salmond a secessionist, a divider, a hate-monger, a “ghaddar”. A tinge of deeper pain, however, was visible as was apparent from his disappointment after months of soaring expectations. “It would have destroyed other would-be-kings”, but not in his case. He said, “Let us not dwell on the distance we have fallen short, let us dwell on the distance we have travelled and have confidence the movement is abroad in Scotland that will take this nation forward.” By nation he certainly meant, Scotland. Just a night before the referendum he was heard urging to decide “with a clear head and a clear conscience...”,and warning voters not to “let this opportunity slip through our fingers.” He reminded them, “We are the land of Adam Smith, who said that no society can flourish and be happy if too many of its people do not benefit from its wealth.”
Mr David Cameron, leaving out the emotional use of language said, “ I yield to no one in my patriotic pride of being Scottish,” insisting that no one should be condemned as less patriotic if they vote No. Somehow the theory of a “Dark Star” was brought in. Amusedly as a student of literature I relished its application for political purposes. A dark star is a sun so dense that its gravitational field overpowers light itself, sucking in every ray that attempts to escape its surface. Mr Alex Salmond, who was spearheading the movement for Independence for Scotland made effective use of it. He quoted a professor named Tony Travers, who had said, “London is the dark star of the economy, inexorably sucking in resources, people, and energy. Nobody quite knows how to control it.” This virtually supplied to me the answer why the Scots, if not all, but quite a few wanted independence.
The desire for an independent Scotland clearly lacked any feelings of “Scottishness”, patriotism, or narrow nationalism, the usual wherewithal. There were reasons of a different consideration. People in every country do not want to be left out, or disconnected. It is natural for them to have a say in the decisions that relate to them; they want some degree of control over their future and they demand that the principle of equality, stability, an equal chance to pursue ones dreams and to succeed is guaranteed to them by the State.
To an outsider like me, the Scots appeared to be enjoying more, or rather much more than was their due as per their population. Scotland has its own parliament, England does not; Scotland has power over environment; over education; over health-care, and after 2016 it would have the right to levy income taxes as well. Laws affecting England are enacted in the House of Commons in Westminster, which includes members from Scotland and North Ireland and Wales. Scotland has also been pledged in the last moment a promise of more autonomy through a controversial formula according to which Scotland will get 20% more than England. Already some in England, like Mr James Gray, a conservative member were heard saying, “It is like feeding an addiction… the rights of the 53 million people of England have been subordinated to the shouting of 5.3 million Scots”. And that is from where the real threat to the unity of the United Kingdom of Britain will emanate. Mr Cameron, soon after the result of the referendum, was found re-tracking himself and saying, “The millions of voices of England also must be heard.” But there was certainly a good amount of dignity, grace and respect, even when the politicians differed diametrically. The choice of language and words was a feast to the ears. They smiled and encountered each other.
David Cameron, the incumbent PM, even on the fall of his most formidable foe said, “Alex is a politician of huge talent and passion… while we disagree profoundly about his goal of a separated Scotland … I respect and admire his huge contribution to politics and public service.” That is true democracy. Alistair Darling, who headed the Better Together campaign, was quick to say, “Alex Salmond is a formidable political figure. He transformed SNP (Scotland National Party) into a party of government and delivered their referendum on independence which they had craved so long.” Ed Miliband described Mr Salmond as “formidable”, while Johann Lomont Labor’s Scottish leader, said, he was “an immense figure in Scottish political history.”
I heard very carefully chosen words by all the politicians before and after the referendum. Instantly, I was reminded of what was happening in Pakistan. 70-day dharnas by two politicians, blocking the way to the Supreme Court, to the Parliament, to the Cabinet Division, and engaged in a new genre of diction, which Hajrah Mumtaz, a Pakistan columnist, describes as “idioms of speech and behavior that cannot be called anything other than downright crass”. An Oxford alumni, Imran Khan, called the PM, “buzdil, besharam, and jhoota”, and a title-hungry Sheikh-ul-Islam just loads his address with threats and ultimatums. Hajrah Mumtaz is right when she says, “Pakistan has for a very long time, if not always, resembled more closely a bar-fight than a group of men and women working out the future course of a country.” “With every clod of mud, the quality of discourse worsens,” she writes.
During the campaign for the Union and for an independent Scotland, some wonderful exchange of phrases came to be heard. Mr Brown, the former PM and a Scot , himself said in Glasgow, “Be silent no more… this is our Scotland. Scotland does not belong to the Scottish National Party. It does not belong to the Yes campaign…. This is not their flag, their country, their culture, their streets…We fought and won a war against fascism together?. There is not a cemetery in Europe that does not have Scots, English, Welsh and Irish lined side by side”.
In order to save the Unity, David Cameron even went overboard in giving more cookies to the Scot s than they could anticipate. After the results in a column, Mr Mark Steel writes, “I bet David Cameron regrets panicking about what the result was going to be now. By 5am he (on Thursday, September 18), must have been screaming, “Oh s***, how much power have I offered them?” Just two days before the referendum it seemed he was about to say, “All right Scotland, you can have full independence, but only if you vote against independence.” Alistair Darling looked as if he would go on Channel 4 News to announce, “Look, vote NO and I’ll get you a puppy”. David Brown in the words of Mark Steel “blurted out promises of extra powers, with no thought behind them at all, such as, “Vote NO and if you like you can be part of Brazil.” So there was humor, and zest, but no character assassination, no meanness, no debasement of human beings. But the Scots decided in a very cool-headed manner when they rejected independence, may be for the time being, but they did nudge it towards a more decentralized, American-style democracy.
The Scottish economy is mainly sustained by whisky sales; tourism; financial services (major banks, insurance companies, and financial institutions are based there); but they are also pushed to go alone by another money-spinner, the North Sea Oil and Gas resources, which is very crucial to jobs and revenues. Scotland can remain thriving, vibrant and prosperous if oil and gas keep oozing out of the sea. After all, Russia, Venezuela and Norway, besides the Middle East and even Bahrain and Qatar all have oil-based prosperity. But how long? According to the BBC, 38% fall in oil revenues is expected by the year 2017-18, and this fall is consistent. In Sterling Pounds, now with the oil revenue, a Scot pockets 26,424 a year, without oil revenue, his income would fall to 20,571; while currently in England, a person takes home 22,336 pounds per year, and without oil income from Scotland, he would take home 20,873. This would severely impact their social programs, free or subsidized higher education, national health services; pensions and jobs.
Freedom is a cherished goal, but sometimes, its desire overrides all other considerations. In the past 20 years, only four countries have secured independence: Timor-Leste, Montenegro, Kosovo and South Sudan. More than 100 sub-national jurisdictions, including Scotland, Catalonia, Quebec, Palestine, Kashmir, are lined up. The case scenario is different in respect to each one of them. Quebecers voted No two times willingly; Scotland did that last month on 18 th of September. Palestinian State exists on paper but awaits recognition; Kashmiris remain unattended and unheard. The Kurds are getting close to having it. Full sovereignty comes with full responsibility, and it must be supported by resources. Some territories have set up independence commissions and have often rejected independence by huge margins. In other cases, a majority vote in favor of independence was secured, but not enough to overcome constitutional thresholds, such as in Nevis, points out Mr. Godfrey Baldacchino, a professor of Sociology at the University of Malta. People must be given a chance of self-determination. Suppression of this right is anathema to peace and prosperity.
The brand of democracy that Pakistan uses is unique, and it needs to be patented. Ashfaq Ahmed, the short-story writer, writes about a man who saw an elephant tethered to a shaky wooden peg. The huge animal, known for his ponderous strength and size, circled incessantly around this fragile peg, never ever trying to free itself. Annoyed at the elephant’s resignation to his state of slavishness and to a willing acceptance of bondage, this man approached the owner of the elephant, and asked him bluntly, “Why on earth this mass of flesh called elephant not make a tiny effort to break away from this unstable stake? Does he not love freedom?”. The owner replied, “It would never make such a silly effort, because it is tied and conditioned to an idea; the idea that he is forbidden to move away from this place”. “No rope or chain on earth can keep this animal in bondage except the strength of an idea”.
Islamabad during the last 70 days of dharnas witnessed the slavish bondage of hundreds and thousands of men and women. They stayed there in sunshine and rain because their leader/s had tied them to an ideology. Husbands brought their wives against their will to this place and kept them nailed to an ideology based on personality cult.” Today the Sheikh of Islam was heard, telling them , ”Now you are allowed to go home”. And they went home. Can democracy stand a chance of prospering in such a regimented and will-ness environment? I doubt.
The desire for freedom is, no doubt, innate because it is an integral part of human nature. Only a small portion of people get locked physically in prisons; most end up being locked in the mental prisons of their desires, dreams and wants and needs. That is the reason that whenever individuals or countries are asked to choose between staying together, or going alone more often than not, whatever the consequences, people or countries choose to go free.
Referendum is a crude way of deciding complex issues though a rhetorical question, entailing a Yes/No answer. Some call it, “The Direct Democracy”. General Zia tricked the nation in 1984 by phrasing a question vaguely. In the last 84 instances of referendum, about 62 have favored for freedom, and out of which some 49 countries now are members of the UN. The 18 th Amendment in Pakistan in 2010 transferred lots of powers and revenues to the provinces in order to transfer powers to the provinces, but were they able to handle and utilize those powers and revenues effectively is a big question mark.
140 people died in Punjab due to an adverse reaction to a lifesaving medicine given to patients by the Punjab Institute of Cardiology recently. According to one estimate, some 25,000 patients were given this medicine. The Chief Minister stated categorically that the registration of drugs and their pricing and licensing mechanisms were being controlled by the federal drug regulatory agency even after the enactment of the 18 th Amendment. The federal government, in turn, blamed the Punjab government for irresponsible behavior in handling patients at the cardiology institute. The case was closed because the blames were taken as valid arguments.
Thousands of people in Sindh, Tharparkar, died due to hunger and starvation though the food grain was there, lying locked up in the warehouses. Devolution in Pakistan is a ploy to having access to revenues, without sharing responsibility that ought to have come with it. Local body elections can never see the light of day in Pakistan because what then is left for the members of the National Assembly and of the Provincial Assembly to do. They are heard saying, “We do not get elected to supervise the construction of 'Naalis' and 'Streets'”. It is the Development Fund that matters. Prior to 1980, France was the most centralized country in the world, now it is not. Devolution comes with a price too. The movie, Braveheart, was made not in Scotland, though its theme related to it, but it was filmed in Ireland because Ireland provided some 1,700 soldiers to the maker of the movie on cheap rates. Rigid tax laws of Scotland, just as property rights in India become a big bottleneck in the way of the Federal government, and in the way of foreign investors when it comes to undertaking some projects. Pakistan cannot build any dam because it stands hijacked by the clueless and block-headed provincial and regional leaders. Modi in India will hear a lot of music as PM, because he would reap the “Karma” of state autonomy he enjoyed in Gujrat.
Devolution never works effectively in countries where the jurisdiction powers of the Central and of the States and Provinces are not made crystal clear to the members, or where the Federal Institutions, like the Judiciary, Army, Executive and the Parliament are not strong, and they cannot have their decisions implemented. America learnt it after the Civil War and after the loss of half a million lives. It, now, works clearly in all the fifty states. When the Federal comes, the States just watch. The bitterness among the Scot s came to surface more clearly during the rules of Margaret Thatcher, a conservative PM. The Scots by trend are liberal; and the English by nature are conservative. The Scots lost their industrial bases; their jobs shifted to other European countries due to globalization. Frustration thus emerged, and the SNP got a cause to extoll. In developing countries Devolution is thought of as a solution to appease the elite in states and provinces; or to dampen the regional, racial, ethnic or religious rifts, particularly in countries where multiethnic societies reside, such as Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India or Pakistan. It occurred in Finland, Spain, Italy and Canada, and it is working there to some extent. In countries like Pakistan, it would not because the quality of leaders at the provincial and even national level is very poor; because the spirit of accountability and responsibility is totally absent; because the judicial system is terribly flawed, is tedious and is ridden with corruption; because feudalism and elitism is prospering.
According to Acemoglu and Robinson as they lay out in their wonderful book, “Why Nations Fail?”, “Some nations fail and others succeed is not due to their economic policies, their geography, culture, or value systems, but rather due to Institutions, and more precisely the political Institutions that determine economic institutions”. Political institutions are of two kinds according to them: “Extractive” institutions in which a “small” group of individuals do their best to exploit ( such as in Pakistan), or the “Inclusive” institutions in which “many” people are included in the process of governing, hence the exploitation process is either attenuated or absent. According to them, “You cannot get your economics right if you don't get your politics right…” And they are not very wrong.
