Struggle between State & Society

By Syed Mohibullah Shah

WAS the struggle for independence from colonialism meant to change the character of governance or merely the race or religion of the rulers? State and society have been at loggerheads with each other in most Muslim majority countries (including Pakistan) that emerged as sovereign states after long periods under colonialism.

The tug of war between them is a recurring tragedy that wastes the potential of countries and holds them down despite the vast human and physical resources at their disposal.

This dichotomy is acute in cases where the state got independence from colonial rule while the social and political institutions of society were too weak to assert their rights and act as watchdogs to ensure that the state worked to serve the interests of society.The two World Wars of the 20th century had wreaked devastation on the European colonial powers. These wars, also dubbed ‘civil wars of Europe’, had killed millions of young and skilled people and crippled their economies. The human and financial cost of direct control over far-flung colonies was no more feasible since their left-over resources were badly needed for reconstruction of their own countries.

The unflattering fact is that the independence of states came to some countries less because of the strength of their social and political institutions and more because of weakness of the colonial powers devastated by these wars.

Decolonisation was also helped by the leadership provided by the US which was in crucial post-war periods headed by men like Woodrow Wilson, F.D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman who believed in independence and development of the peoples of these colonies and wanted them to become full and respected members of the international community. Imagine the fate of the colonies if instead of these reformers the US was then headed by someone like George W Bush.

The concept of sovereign nation-states, as against empires — whether based on religion or conquest — travelled from Europe largely as part of liberal social and political education by the missionaries. In a way, the missionaries were undoing the work of their empire builders — the commercial and military interests — that had arrived to conquer and exploit the resources of colonies.

But the concept of sovereign nation-states also came with that of sovereign people in these nation-states. Both concepts — sovereignty of the nation-state and that of the people — have a common philosophical foundation. If we deny one, we are ipso facto in denial of the other. The principle of sovereignty of people makes conquests and empires illegal enterprises — whether based on race, religion or language. It requires that people determine who should rule them and how the resources of society should be deployed and for what purposes.

Colonialism was bad not because of the race or religion of its rulers but because it violated this principle of sovereignty of the nation-state. That is why the Catholic and Spanish-speaking people of Latin America fought wars of independence against Catholic Spain. That is also why the Arabs rebelled against fellow Muslim Ottoman Turks.

And that is the reason why our fellow citizens in East Pakistan rebelled against West Pakistan, the glue of a common faith being unable to contain their perceptions of being ruled under a colonial-style dispensation.

As for the ‘development’ argument, let’s not forget that the British also brought new technologies, undertook irrigation networks and other development projects in their colonies.

The continuing problems of governance in Pakistan emanate from this paradox: while the state became sovereign, the people were not. When independence came, only one part of the bargain was implemented. The state enjoyed the privileges of being sovereign and independent, but its people were denied their rights as sovereign citizens because society was too weak to enforce the rights of its members.

This weakness would have been overcome and not become a lingering problem except for the fact that the social and political reforms needed to implement the second part of the bargain of national independence were often blocked by new rulers of state — themselves the beneficiaries of the first part.

Ever since, the struggle between state and society in Pakistan — and indeed in several OIC countries — has continued as the state refuses to submit to members of society under one pretext or another. Let’s not forget that in mediaeval governance, the ruler — whether king, conqueror, caliph or holder of any other title — was not only the head of the executive but also the lawgiver as well as the ultimate judge. Many rulers of these new nation-states, nostalgic about the bad old days, still want to have unity of command over all institutions and are trying to turn the clock back.

It is here that the current battle between state and society in Muslim countries acquires some characteristics of a second struggle for independence; because the mediaeval style is akin to the colonial style of governance. Both held conquests and empires to be legal enterprises and both are in denial of the sovereign right of the people to choose and change the mode of governance.

Although this struggle between state and society is being waged throughout the Muslim world, it is more acute in Pakistan where social and political forces outside the state apparatus — specially the media and the middle class — have grown in strength and are refusing to allow a free hand to the state. Pakistan is different in several ways from some Middle Eastern countries and the Pakistan of the 21st century is also different from what it was in the early days of independence.

Its society has now overcome — against the heavy odds frequently placed in its path — the weaknesses of half a century ago and is insisting that the unfinished business of struggle for national independence be completed. National independence is not complete merely by giving independence to the state while denying the fruits of independence to members of society. Sovereignty of the nation-state is not complete without respecting the sovereignty of the people in that nation-state.

Within this larger struggle between state and society, however, another struggle is also raging in the Muslim world. The leadership of the first struggle for independence of the state was firmly in the hands of ‘friendly’ forces. For internal and external reasons, the national and democratic forces of change have been weakened. Increasingly now, mediaeval values of governance are staking their claim to leadership in this second struggle

Which way the struggle is going is not clear. What is clear, however, is that the state cannot escape the logic of history. It is inevitable that as society matures in its social, professional, economic and political dimensions, the state has to surrender more space to it. If the anachronistic apparatus ruling these states does not accommodate moderate and democratic forces of change, it will have to surrender to a mediaeval society with whom many among them share common values of unacceptable governance.

Today’s Pakistan encapsulates both struggles simultaneously taking place in Islamabad around the Chief Justice and the Hafsa madressah. The difference in the treatment of both struggles by the state apparatus is also becoming clearer by the day.The symptoms may change, the tactics and locale may vary but the real battle being fought in the Muslim world remains one between the state and society and not the various concoctions marketed from time to time to divert attention from the real issue.The state would have to surrender space to one or the other face of society. Each is calling upon the state to deliver the second part of the bargain according to its understanding and complete the unfinished business of national independence.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/04/19/op.htm#2