The President’s
wisdom
President
Mamnoon Hussain’s statements seldom merit more than cursory attention. But in a
departure from the norm, there was much stated (and unstated) in his speech on
December 15, 2017 at a seminar on the occasion of the birth anniversary of
Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The President called upon the country’s
political and non-political forces to respect the law and the ‘rules of the
game’ to find solutions to matters of national importance. These issues, the
President continued, include politics, the economy, society, religion and
administration (governance). He warned that this approach of unbridled rivalry
at the national level, if continued, could lead to chaos that would be
difficult to overcome. President Mamnoon advised adversaries to set aside their
differences, sit together and settle issues with unity, patriotism and
nationalism. He said the present state of affairs could also affect economic
stability and progress, the flagship policy of the PML-N government. His advice
to all segments of society, particularly the youth who comprise a weighty
majority of our populace, was to focus their energies on achieving the
objectives of prosperity and development and refrain from indulging in
political and non-political disputes, including ‘pointless’ discussions on the
working of government. President Mamnoon stressed the need for unity among all
ranks of the country and avoiding anarchy. He ended by pointing to the example
of Quaid-e-Azam as a role model.
On the face of
it, the President’s remarks seem exhortative towards an ‘ideal’ way to conduct
the affairs of state and society. However, upon closer examination, while they
allude to certain trends of late obliquely (e.g. the tendency to take issues to
the streets, which may be what the President meant by “anarchy”), they do not
seem in consonance with ground realities or even the conceptual framework
within which democratic societies conduct their affairs. Exhortations to ‘unity’
fly in the face of the reality that societies are composed of competing
interests that do not lend themselves easily to being subsumed within the ideal
of national unity. Real political, economic and social contradictions define
the warp and woof of any living society. Such contradictions cannot simply be
wished away or ignored through calls for unity. Then the question of who
defines the national interest is contested terrain. Non-political institutions
have throughout our history played an outsized role in our national life and
continue to do so. In this respect, they often define the ‘rules of the game’
themselves as they go along. Searching therefore for explicit, consensually
agreed rules of the game may well turn out to be chasing a will o’ the wisp. Nevertheless,
some implicit rules lie at the heart of any modern, civlised, democratic
system. These include civilian supremacy, governments chosen and changed
through the ballot, and adherence to the constitutional mandate of all state institutions
(more often than not practiced in the breach in our history). Politics,
especially democratic politics, is inherently a game of contention and rivalry.
However, this contention should be conducted within civilized norms and not allowed
to sink to the level of the gutter, a trend alarmingly in evidence here. ‘Anarchy’
includes within its fold the recent trend of taking issues to the streets, on
the logic that nuisance value is what gains attention, traction, redress of
grievances and acceptance of (even the most outlandish) demands. The PML-N
government, especially its former prime minister and reinstated party chief
Nawaz Sharif, is partly to blame for contributing to this state of affairs.
Ignoring the real fount of strength of any elected government, i.e. parliament,
to the extent of not even deigning to grace it with his presence, Nawaz Sharif
unwittingly dug a pit for himself. In the 2014 sit-in in Islamabad, parliament
and the opposition parties, particularly the PPP, rescued his government.
Instead of gratitude, they were affronted by what they charge was victimization
by the government. In 2017, these chickens came home to roost when the sit-in
at Faizabad produced an abject surrender because there was no one in parliament
willing to come to the government’s rescue. Alone, therefore, and battered by
what are alleged to be the machinations of the establishment, the PML-N government
has been reduced to a wobbly virtual lame duck, limping its way with difficulty
towards the goal post of completing its tenure. Lessons here for those who care
to learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment