Politics in Demand

Columnist MASOOD ANWAR says that with the advent of democracy politics has come back to centre stage.

Our assessment of politics is guilty of inaccuracy on account of judgment and valuation. Politics is over estimated but is under valued. We have our reasons. Look at the behaviour, it is highly unpredictable. If it is quality, it is not well placed, if it is credibility it is running short and if it is health it is ailing. Time and again it requires surgery and who could be better equipped than the military to perform this task. The military has performed this task with enthusiasm and finesse but in doing so has over performed creating anxiety and apprehensions, which indeed need careful addressing. Whatever might have been done by the military, the players of politics have not been prudent either. They are ever ready to make compromises, strike deals, often untimely, mostly in an unorthodox fashion and least of all intellectual. Spontaneity always having let them down, they never could take advantage of their otherwise sharp vision and their well-developed sense of humour. The only sense they ever used in excess is the sixth sense. Some say it is good they used only the sixth sense, had they used other senses as excessively as the sixth sense, they would have made a greater mess of things. Nonetheless, to be fair to them, one might say that politics has not been provided with a level playing field. Pitched against the military it has always remained confused differentiating sensitivities from sensibilities.
The military has remained an active player in politics. Politics has given the military a tough time because military always treated politics sentimentally and emotionally rather than sensibly. One thing that the military hardly ever realized was that the sensory character of politics would keep it emotionally engaged in the affairs of politics. Having passed the point of no return, the military has now come up with the theory that to keep the military out of active politics is to let it play actively in matters of governance, with the argument that it shall remain mindful of its relationship with the civil. Often over reacting though, it ends up not minding its own business. This has kept the relationship under stress. Fortunately the military generally keeps its mind closed, otherwise every business would be the business of the military.
Following a break of three years politics is back on stage though missing its usual flair and arrogance. This time it looks subdued and appears to have submitted to the military’s ideology of “Consensus and Continuity”. The military, as always, has rewritten the rules of the game. Conversions, defections all have been welcomed in the hope of a qualitative change in the culture of politics and in the people representing politics. Many differ with the approach of the military and feel that such changes are non-starters and that it will not bring any shift in either the outlook or the behaviour of politics. The critics are of the view that politics cannot be tamed. Politics could be made more gentlemanly and for that looking towards gentle or gentlemanly persons is not the right approach. Politics needs people with vision and initiative, people who are capable of handling conflicts and controversies.
The quality of politics of a country reflects the state of the civil society and thereafter its subsequent growth. While on this subject, three key factors are important to consider besides rationalizing the influence politics has on the behaviour of these factors. The first and the foremost is the nature of the relationship between the group of people representing the traditional and the ideological view in the society and the group representing the liberal or say the secularist view in the society. This relationship is of much significance in the light of the role it plays in achieving social unanimity, and the influence the relationship has on the behaviour of individuals, notable in civility, reasonableness and predictability. The second relates to the globalization of economics and the arterial effects on the socio-political outlook of the society. The agenda also covers the role of individual states in achieving the objectives of globalization on economic agenda. The third factor relates to security and matters related to security and safety with particular reference to countries, regions and the effect at the global level. The challenges are daunting. Inflexibilities are growing, positions are hardening, national interests are easily set aside when global interests are considered to be under threat. Sovereignty, democracy have lost their meaning. The world indeed is not the same.
The question of security raises more basic questions of country-specific roles. Security threats in our case are viewed from three angles.
Territorial threat. Strategically the threat is military by design, and in containing this threat emphasis on strong defence has been central to our national policy. We accorded the highest priority to conventional and strategic weapon systems.
Economic threat. This threat is un-assuming is often miscalculated and therefore, misrepresented. Unfortunately, Pakistan has fallen victim to erroneous perceptions. Economic threat was never evaluated that minutely. Land, water, human resource were not put to profitable use. Over 50 years it seems we had our priorities mixed up. Major portion of national resources have gone towards the Defence of the country. Some argue that this sector has been over invested. The establishment has grown so big that major chunk of the national income goes towards maintaining the infrastructure. One school of thought is of the view that strategic planning had to be circumspect. Our problems are of the nature that nothing short of this could have worked. The other school of thought is of the view that perceptions dictated the actions. Our planning was not contemplative it was situational.
Ideological threat. Ideology has always been jealously guarded. The solidarity of the country remains indebted to preserving the ideology defined in the Islamic concept of statehood. Our value systems based on the teachings of Islam and the forces dedicated to protecting these value systems have been like a fortress against any form of threat to the ideology. Individuals, groups, parties, Establishment all have contributed individually and collectively towards building a formidable defence against threats to the Ideology. No restrictions were imposed on the ways and means and methods. No clear directions provided until the undesirable effects started to appear. Conservatism is now being read as fundamentalism resulting in our society falling out of step with the rest of the world. Fatalistic behaviour has become a liability, it is now being feared as potential danger to security in general.
The world has changed after 9/11. There are additional demands placed on the Third World countries by the developed world. Religion and beliefs are becoming a point of departure. Racial profiling and discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs is not hidden anymore. Pakistan is under watch. Changes appearing on the horizon need our immediate attention. We should re-evaluate the nature and the character of various types of threats. Threats have undergone a civilizational change. We must reconsider the methodology of the territorial threat since it is receiving the greatest of attentions. We should not ignore the fact that the concept of man-to-man and inch-by-inch defence has lost its relevance. Conventional forces are now as much a burden on the exchequer as strategic weapons are a liability. Territorial integrity and political sovereignty is viewed in relation to economic strength, while Ideological frontiers are defended by strong institutions drawing strength from incorruptible value systems. What we need to do is to free our industry from the hold of managerial capitalism by giving free hand to entrepreneurship. Innovation and creativity be allowed the freedom it requires. Ideology be kept free from controversies. Most of all our existence now depends on how easy we make for the system to accept us as a useful member.
Most of what I have tried to discuss above relates to politics. Therefore, unless politics is freed from the clutches of authoritarian control, neither will politics develop a positive behaviour nor will the civil society develop on the right lines. We must learn to honour the demands of the civil society, which are least situational. The demands of the civil society are prospective and contemplative. The nation should be made ready to live among conflicts. There cannot be a military solution to every conflict. Conflicts and controversies have a definite role in politics.