Those who call for unity and uniformity also advocate the strengthening of democracy. The fact is that these two do not go well with democracy.WHEN calls for unity are issued, rival parties and factions may want to know what that grand and overriding objective — for which they should all give up the competitive pursuit of power and unite — actually is.
Short of national independence from foreign rule, for which they may all put the shoulder to the wheel (albeit without letting go of their separate identities), each one of them may have its own interpretation of the national interest and the means of achieving it.
Some analysts believe that in the case of Pakistan a compelling moment has arrived, but they do not have the same understanding of its nature and demands. I heard the host of a recent television talk show announce that the country faced some extremely grave crises. He called upon all political forces to forge unity to meet them. Then he proceeded to ask his panellists what they thought these crises were.
One of them, a distinguished jurist and political thinker, maintained that it had all along been (and still was) the absence of honest, sincere and insightful leadership. Another panellist thought it was the turmoil in Balochistan. The third gentleman on the panel asserted that terrorism and the resulting disruption of law and order was the gravest crisis Each of these interpretations has merit. Most observers and commentators on public affairs feel, however, that extremism and terrorism — currently personified by the Taliban — pose the greatest threat to this country’s integrity, security and order. Barring the Jamaat-i-Islami and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam, whose concurrence in this interpretation is muted, all mainstream political parties — the PPP, PML-N, PML-Q, ANP, MQM — appear united in the view that the Taliban are a menace that needs to be eradicated.
They are supportive of the army’s operation against the Taliban in South Waziristan. It is not clear what else they can do that would be called united action. They could conceivably raise volunteers, train and equip them, and then send them out to aid the army’s operation. But there has been no call for any such help.
Many political parties, organs of civil society and media persons agree that the National Reconciliation Ordinance was one of Gen Pervez Musharraf’s evil deeds. Individuals, including President Asif Zardari and several other political dignitaries are not ready to denounce the NRO and a national reconciliation bill has just been cleared by a National Assembly standing committee.
There is general agreement that the Baloch have valid grievances which should be addressed and removed. But there is no agreement regarding the parties in Balochistan with whom the redress of these grievances is to be negotiated and how much is to be yielded.
The Kerry-Lugar bill, which the US Congress recently passed to aid economic and social development projects in Pakistan, in addition to providing some military assistance, was extensively debated in TV talk shows and other forums. Many commentators, including Nawaz Sharif, thought some of its provisions militated against Pakistan’s sovereignty.
Others, including PPP leaders, contended that the bill would benefit Pakistan in a variety of ways. This is the way it should be. Expression of opposing views on the merits of this bill may have improved the listeners’ political understanding. There are scores of other issues that are not as critical as those mentioned above, but they too have to be looked at. The specifics of their resolution will not be self-evident. They will have to be debated and then settled. Not all the participants in the debate will agree to one single prescription. If action is to be taken, the majority’s view will have to prevail. Once again, this is the way it should be.
Those who call for unity and uniformity advocate, in the same breath, the strengthening of democracy in Pakistan. It does not seem to have occurred to them that unity and uniformity of opinion do not go well with democracy.
Democracy, in its normal working, assumes the existence of divisions and differences of opinion that will contend with one another in the course of debate in the house that makes decisions. There can be no debate if all are on the same side. If there are no differences, there is nothing to discuss. Democracy requires majority rule. The idea that there is a majority has no functional significance unless the presence of a contending minority is assumed.
Requirements of democracy apart, it should be understood that unity and uniformity make for stagnancy that results in rot. If Galileo had not disputed the Vatican’s authorised interpretation of the scriptures, we might still be acting on the assumption that it is the sun that revolves around the earth, and not the other way round. Closer to our own times if M.A. Jinnah had not disagreed with Jawaharlal Nehru and other Congress leaders on the status of Muslims in a post-British independent India, Pakistan would not have come into being.
All inquiry will cease if there are no differences of opinion. There will then be no extending of the frontiers of knowledge, no advance in arts and sciences, no innovation or invention, no improvement in the areas of social and economic organisation, no wholesome change in the patterns of human interaction. In sum, there will be no advance of civilisation. ¦ The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics.
Comments
Post a Comment