View Single Post
  #51  
Old Thursday, May 31, 2007
mtgondal's Avatar
mtgondal mtgondal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On earth
Posts: 552
Thanks: 123
Thanked 56 Times in 42 Posts
mtgondal will become famous soon enough
Default

A semi-failed state

By Mir Adnan Aziz

When called a failed state we are irked and cry hoarse that we are not one. One step down follows the semi failed state defined as a country whose government maintains all the trappings and appearances of power, legitimacy, and control. Its army and police are integral and operative (not so in Karachi on that fateful and tragic May 12). Its institutions function. Its government and parliament promulgate laws and its courts enforce them. It is not challenged by any competing military structures within its recognised borders (unfortunately we are).

Yet, the semi--failed state -- while going through the motions -- is dead on its feet. It is a political and societal zombie. It doesn't function mainly due to inertia and lack of better or clear alternatives. Its population is disgruntled, hostile, and suspicious. Other countries regard it with derision, fear, and abhorrence. It is rotting from the inside and doomed to implode. In a semi--failed state, high crime rates and rampant venality, nepotism, and cronyism affect the government's ability to enforce laws and implement programmes. It reacts by adding layers of intransigent and opaque bureaucracy to an already unwieldy mammoth. The institutions of the semi--failed state are hopelessly politicised and, thus, biased, distrusted, and compromised. Its judiciary is in a state of decrepit decline.

The utter and insidious institutional failure that typifies the semi--failed state is usually exposed with the total disarray that follows, the latest being the quixotic foray against the judiciary and the tragic blood spattered May 12 in Karachi, conveniently forgetting what Augustine said: "Take away justice, and what are governments but great confederacies of robbers?" To deflect criticism and in a vain attempt to reunite its fracturing populace, the semi--failed state often embarks on grandiose claims and adventures cloaked as geopolitical necessities. In all honesty does all this not hold true of the imbroglio that Pakistan is in today?

We should look at different facets of this paradox that we have made Pakistan into, review noteworthy incidents and cases, and critique the apparent lack of effort to develop and strengthen national state institutions and responsibilities. Without being unduly pessimistic, we are foolishly heading towards a needless and serious risk of extinction as a country and nation. Social justice prevails when government acts and legislates in accordance with what people are and what they should be able to do, but all we see today is the powers to be renouncing all the principles of authority, and bent upon the destruction of all the securities of our lives and liberties.

The most important aspect of any government effort should be institution building, not just nation--building. This is where our ruling behemoths have failed so utterly in just about everything they have done. To build a nation without transfusing vital institutions is to build a house of cards ready to collapse. What we have today is gloom amongst the masses but trumpeting of utopian heroic optimism by the rulers. What stands in the way of most utopias is not pestilence and drought but human behaviour. So utopians have to think of ways to control behaviour, and when propaganda doesn't do the trick, more emphatic techniques as in vogue today are tried. Flashing a military salute generally doesn't work.

In Pakistan what we have today is a self appointed "enlightened" and so called "benevolent dictator", a more modern version of the classical "authoritarian despot". One who legitimised himself through an utterly dubious referendum and is "benevolent" enough to allow for some democratic decision making (of his liking) to exist. The democratic creed has become so universal that no dictator wishes to be seen as violating it. What typically happens is that a strong man gets into power. Sometimes or quite often as in Pakistan this is by an overt coup d'etat, but many times they are "elected". Once in office they use the legal trappings to cement their power. Frequent steps are, changing the laws on term limits, outlawing rival parties, or arresting opponents using newly crafted laws and when necessary, election fraud. Whatever techniques are used they go to great lengths to proclaim that their state is still democratic because it holds "free and fair elections".

Modern dictators always attempt to disguise their actions within a "democratic" framework. Voting is the backbone of this effort or rewriting the laws so that they can stay in office beyond their present term. The threat is not from an individual, but from a permanent shadow government which has arisen over the past sixty years. The names of the players change, but those pulling the strings continue to come from the same group. What we have now is the predominant assumption that with the opening of the economy to international investors and businesses, Pakistan as a whole will prosper. As such, the democratic opposition movement as well as its "exiled" leaders will be marginalised.

This role is also in conflict with the military's primary role, namely, professionalism. The greatest danger is that the self--seeking role could sow dissensions within the rank and file of the military establishment itself. The conflict of interests among themselves could lead to rift and instability. This discord could grow as the democratic opposition weakens or the threat of the contending forces subsides. Under the arrangement in which the military maintains total control over almost all spheres of state power it will and has participated or influenced all three branches of government. The decisive power resting with the military may provide "stability" and continuity but its side--effects will be, as is so obviously evident, disastrous.

Within this overall context, Pakistan has to carve out its distinctive economic role and national existence for the future. It will have to hitch on to the rising tide of growth in the region and make the best out of its comparative advantage based on its natural wealth, human resources and capabilities and its own unique geographic position.

In this new mission, national consensus, reconciliation, and an early agreement among all contending forces for the future course of action is a must for both national survival and renewal. All parties must be convinced that their interests can be served by working together, not against each other. Just as there is a need for a national leader who can marshal overwhelming support to carry out national reforms in a non--contentious way. Our military should strive to be professionally capable of defending our vital interests in the twenty--first century. What the ordinary Pakistani, tired of armed conflict, uncertain status, and impoverished conditions wants is the rule of law and a genuinely representative government with ultimate authority descending from the people and a dignified and definite place within this homeland of ours. This is the most opportune moment for national reconciliation and reconstruction and hence giving to the people the most elaborate social edifice ever. It is our duty to demand and work toward the restoration of a government: of, by, and for the people.



The writer is a freelance columnist. Email: mir_adnan_aziz@hotmail.com
__________________
Time is like a river.
You cannot touch the same water twice,
because the flow that has passed will never pass again.
Enjoy every moment of life.

I have learnt silence from the talkative, toleration from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to these teachers.
Reply With Quote