In the new federal cabinet the title of prime minister and the foreign affairs and defence portfolios are with Nawaz Sharif; the finance minister is a family intimate and the chief minister of Punjab, arguably a more important post than that of prime minister after the 18th Amendment, is another relative.
This is not really surprising considering the family is the source of all power in Pakistan and the real foundation of the prevailing political order. It is within the family that the individual finds consolation, help, advice, allies and accomplices to aid him in his pursuits. The state and its laws function only if they do not directly interfere with the family’s supreme interests.
And that’s not because it’s only natural for people to find refuge among blood relatives in a dangerous, unruly and unpredictable country like ours. There are other countries too, more peaceful and developed, where the family extracts everybody’s first loyalty and where it is believed that the family must be made powerful and enriched by all means, legitimate or illegitimate. Take Italy, for instance, where loyalty to the family – exemplified by the Mafia and the concept (code) of Cosa Nostra – still exists.
The Chinese also held the cult of the family more praiseworthy than love of the country, which is why Mao tried to extinguish it, recognising it as the most powerful opponent of his version of communism. A lot of Chinese apparatchiks are in jail or in their graves today because they gave priority to family fortunes over that of the state. However, this is not to suggest that Mao was even remotely successful. The current Chinese elite, many of whose forebears marched with Mao, and who now occupy the top offices in the land are in reality beneficiaries of their fathers’ favours – further evidence of Mao’s failure to do away with nepotism.
While the strength of the family is a bulwark against disorder, it is also one of its principal reasons – by making impossible the development of strong political institutions and often thereby fomenting chaos.
The question often asked is: do political institutions flourish only where the family is weak or is it the other way around?
In our case the question is irrelevant because political institutions have never existed in the Subcontinent. All we’ve ever experienced is Mughal tyranny followed by colonial rule. So all we knew is to be subjects or virtual slaves. Hence when we found ourselves with a homeland, we had to import readymade political institutions from other countries. The constitution, Westminster-type parliamentary system, liberalism, socialism, democracy – ‘basic’, ‘guided’ or ‘sham’ – are all foreign imports.
Sure, we tinkered with them to suit our peculiar requirements but obviously not enough because they don’t work. And if some believe they work in India that’s an illusion. The number of the absolute poor in India remains as great a percentage of the population today as it did at the time of independence. All that shines in ‘shining’ India is the perspiration on the backs of the poor as they strive to eke out a living.
Actually no ‘ism’ – except ‘familyism’ – works here and probably will not for another century until the state takes on the role of a carer rather than an exploiter, the family structure is revamped and our preference for double standards abandoned.
Consider, we follow one code valid within the family, with relatives and honorary relatives, intimate friends and close associates, while there is another code for regulating life outside. Within the family we demonstrate honesty, discipline, bravery and self-sacrifice. These are all so glaringly absent in our dealings with the outside world where, in order to cope with the chaos and disorder of society, we employ the wiles of underground fighters in enemy-occupied territory.
For us family loyalty is true patriotism. Hence, even in war a soldier will no doubt fight but only enough so that when he comes home he will be well-received. But in peacetime he will risk unbearable dangers, including death, to protect the family because he believes he is under an obligation to provide for the family.
In the circumstances it is only natural to give relatives a leg up whenever the opportunity occurs. Viewed thus nepotism acquires a different meaning and, if you study it without malevolence, it’s understandable.
Consider: a prime minister or a president usually reaches that office at a more mature, older age. He has to be in a hurry. He must do for his kinsman all he can before it is too late. He discovers that his relations – being poor, obscure and provincial – need practically everything. He also knows that once he departs nobody will bother about his relatives so it would be foolish to let the opportunity slip.
The public understands this phenomenon and isn’t especially bothered by it. No one took to the streets because Ayub Khan made his sons rich, or Gilani his brood; or Raja Rental emptied the nation’s coffers on his relatives in Gujjar Khan; or Zardari...They didn’t object because they would have done the same thing. And, if politicians get punished for nepotism, the public won’t be especially happy. No heavens will fall on the guilty or their families. They will not lose a single friend or risk being shamed by society. Their fate will be blamed on bad luck; strange English laws, a quirky judge, etc, and of course, being stupid enough to get caught.
Viewed thus, there’s nothing surprising about Nawaz Sharif hogging the key posts for himself and the family. Perhaps the only strong objection is that if it had to be from within the family why not a merit-based selection? The best and bravest politician in the family, who singlehandedly led the charge against the Commando during Nawaz’s exile/imprisonment, is Kulsoom Nawaz. Why, therefore, was she overlooked? And so too Nawaz’s very intelligent daughter, Mariam Nawaz for the job of minister of state for foreign affairs.
Modern life is eroding the splendid solidity of the family. In the industrialised world the transformation is being spurred on by the gradual spread of affluence. Sons and daughters live away from parents and visit infrequently. They are also far more independent. That may not be a good thing for, if the family weakens, will anarchy prevail?
Luckily, that too should not bother us. Arranged marriages thrive and continue to provide a solid bulwark against the impermanence of things. As long as marriage is considered to have absolutely nothing to do with the couple’s happiness (a desirable but not indispensable condition) but rather the foundation of a new family and the reinforcement of existing ones, the family’s undimmed power even in an affluent milieu will continue. There will, in other words, always be a Sharif, a Bhutto, a Sherpao or a Qureshi clan to lead us (astray).
If that’s a dreadful prospect for some, well that’s too bad. The fact is that the family is the only institution in Pakistan that works even if, in the words of the British monarch, families like hers “also have their share of eccentrics and impetuous and wayward youngsters” and our (spurious) ‘royals’ never cease acquiring these failings from youth to old age.
Email: charles123it@hotmail.com

http://e.thenews.com.pk/6-20-2013/page7.asp#;