"THE CLASH OF THE SYSTEMS" My article in the World Times

CLASH OF THE SYSTEMS (PUBLISHED IN WORLD TIMES NOV. 2010)

Kashif Rehman Khan,

 Senior English Teacher and Controller of Exams,

Divisional Public School and Inter College, Lahore

Presently, Pakistan is at such a critical juncture in its national history that those who think, and think well in favour of Pakistan, have started questioning the systems that we have designed and employed in our national affairs. The current national scenario is leading towards total anarchy rapidly and somehow each act of bad decision making and governance is speeding up our journey towards total chaos. Under circumstances where we have failed as a state and a nation in all spheres of national life, may that be economy, politics, justice or governance, it becomes emphatically compulsory for us to assess and evaluate whatever systems we had devised for ourselves as a nation in the past.

The first poser that challenges us on the way to self-discovery and rectification is about the system of governance that we have chosen for ourselves. It is evident as broad daylight that the contemporary system and, for that matter, all other deviations and experimentations in the past have either failed to deliver or have been laid  offerings at the altar of vested interests and unskilled leadership. We dream of democracy but avoid facing the realities that it has to offer. As a nation, we are a conservative lot of people who are so much in love with liberty that we demand complete freedom to exert our complete authority on all others. Our quest for liberty has actually led us to be outrageously dogmatic so much so that we exert coercion and extremism even in our personal and social lives, let alone the birth of this tendency in the political arena. However, this is the way we mortals are! Professors of liberty but disciples of authority! God has composed man from conflicting materials and in his person, he cannot be split apart, as many philosophers have experimented, into just one of the two major chunks of his psyche, liberalism or conservative.

Democracy, by the way is a product of liberalism. It was idealized by philosophers like Democritus and misrepresented by thinkers like Plato on polarities that were created by the simple fact that they were trying to apply it on people who were liberal and conservative at the same time. Liberalism gives birth to empiricism which advocates that knowledge can only be acquired through observation, experimentation and experience and that it has no divine origins. It negates all revelation and instinct. Hence, its brainchild, democracy, has been defined as the government of the people, for the people and by the people. It ignores the link of the people with divinity or religion, which the people, being weak, require as shoulders to cry on. Resultantly, democracy gives birth to materialism and utilitarianism. In Bertrand Russell’s words, it ignores what opinions are held, it only concentrates on how they are held. It is this utilitarian perspective of democracy that enforces a capitalistic economy, end oriented means, social disparities, stratification and ironically the people themselves are neglected in this government of the people. Just romancing the idea is one thing but employing it accordingly is another, the verification and proof of which we have been denied by history because even democratic states have practically esteemed theological orders and have employed socialistic measures at the time of need, with a well pronounced measure of authority, as in the case of U.K. and U.S.A respectively. The former still holds monarchy respectfully and the later employees the government to support the private sector rather than the private sector supporting the government as capitalism promises.

On the other hand, systems like despotism, authoritarianism and theological governance are the off shoots of conservatism. Conservatism enjoys its existence in dogmatic doctrines and exercise of coercion. The right of government belongs to divinity and as the king, the despot or the regime have been bestowed the right to govern, their obedience is in fact religious obedience in the name of virtue, something we all hope to attain someday despite our opposite natural tendencies. In such governments, the clergy eventually assumes a powerful status leading the system gradually towards extremism and anarchy. We remember the days of Gen. Zia ul Haq when religion was exploited as a source of coercion for earning public obedience. We also remember that it had brought militancy and Kalashnikov culture to our ranks that finally ended up defending drug mafias in Afghanistan and NWFP. It was this new creed that evolved into modern terrorism, Al Qaieda and Taliban. Frankly, our local brand of fanatics is still nestled close to the illegal mafias that have grown in stature since then. After Zia, we underwent a roller coaster ride through an extremely chaotic and badly administered rein of political dilemma in the name of democracy and that, too, eventually ended in one of the democratically elected leaders having tendencies to assume a divine role of leadership in the theological domain. General Musharraf was a peach of a guy who out of sheer innocence tried to administer liberalism into veins of a practically conservative society through meticulous, surgical incisions using the blunt blades of “Moderate Enlightenment.” I wonder if he ever knew what he was up to because his “operation” of liberal attitudes actually made the dividing line between fanaticism and sanity more prominent than ever before. Hence, the interestingly natural blend of democracy and authority created a political cocktail that was a bit too kicky for general taste. Moreover, when the authoritative part of his regime, he himself, was removed from the scene, it was followed by an ill disciplined, law ignorant, unskillful show of bad governance where hundreds of tribes are holding their distinct ritual dances around the same fire at the same time…..shadows of the darkness, for the darkness created by the darkness and darkness is this case is representative of unawareness and uncertainty. We are usually considered unaware and uncertain when we are too deeply immersed in ourselves and tend to ignore everything else saying “Me first!”

As Shakespeare said, “To be or not to be….that is the question.” In my opinion, this tug of war between different political systems is representative of the clash that each man nurtures in the oblivion of his personality. Hence, I would be considered a conservative if I dare say that Islam is pretty liberal and dynamic in its structure and ideology. And I would not like being liberal enough to support the primitive sort of democracy that we see in practice today. My proposal is a logically crafted blend of authority and democracy in the footsteps of the act of creation itself. I do not go for the extremist regime that our fanatic clergy proposes. I also do not want to see my people suffer at the hands of anarchy, stratification and poverty. Hence I propose a liberal and modernized version of the Islamic system of governance….something that may actually bring an end to the clash of the systems. The concept of Majlis e Shoora in Islam appears to me to be closely related to the democratic institution of the Senate. If the Senate is properly empowered, it has the potential to serve as the system of checks and balances that we miss in the present system. It is better composed and more proportionate as compared to the National Assembly. Most importantly it comprises mainly of technocrats, experts of their relevant fields of interests, whose experience and skill can be utilized as asset by the state. With a little bit of adjustment, it can be formed into a policy making institution much similar to the western idea of “think tank”. Moreover, the Presidential System of government is more suited to our requirements at the moment provided that the president is elected directly by the people and endorsed by the Senate. This will provide us the unity of command that we seem to lack presently. I believe that as the state of Pakistan acknowledges the sovereignty of Allah and comprises of an overwhelming majority of Muslims living their lives with freedom of religious practice, it nothing but an Islamic State. Islamization of a state which is already Islamic appears to be an unnecessary act. If we are already Islamic, all we need to do is to restructure our systems accordingly. If the laws of state are acceptable to the people and are not on a direct collision course with the Quran and Sunah, they can be allowed to exist. What we must avoid is a majority of fanatic clerics in power. On the other hand, a majority of power thirsty feudal lords or that of opportunist businessmen making politics a profitable enterprise is also undesirable. As knowledge is the lifeline of all systems, we must ensure free quality education for our next generations. As far as economy is concerned, it can be designed on a controlled capitalistic model that may actually on the micro levels encourage socialistic approaches for erasing gaps among the social strata.

I agree that it is “a bit of this and a bit of that” recipe but I insist that it is the only one that may suit our national chemistry and taste. I would like to call it “Pakistanism” and hope that someday it becomes our core ideology, something that we cannot boast of having today.