The beginning —Muhammad Ahsan Yatu

Yesterday’s Vikings are today’s social democrats because of debate, knowledge, participatory politics and participatory economy. In contrast, Saudi Arabia and Iran, despite having infinite oil wealth, are still tribal and sectarian due to an absence of debate

About 321 years ago, some wise men sat and solved the crisis that their country England faced for centuries. They drew new outlines of the relationships among the rulers, and the rulers and the ruled. The beginning, the new relationships, was a revolution, and the years, decades and centuries after it saw more revolutions that refined further the functions of state, particularly the state-people relationship.

Before 1689, the English state had three main constituents: God, monarch and parliament. The monarch was blessed and accountable to God. In the new relationship, the monarch and parliament stayed, and two new governing essentials — till then not known — the standing army and annual budgeting were introduced. Since then there has been no looking back for the English, and for the others who followed in their footsteps.

The present day state is mostly constituted as per the improved English model of 1689. The monarch or president or prime minister is accountable to parliament. And parliament is accountable to the people. There are exceptions such as Saudi Arabia and Iran where the king or the state elders, being the custodian of faith-based laws, are blessed.

The resource-rich nations can live in their own world. The others, dependent and interdependent nations, need to determine their destiny by following the relevant models. Most among the others are doing what is required; they are ridding themselves of abstractions. They are becoming democratic. However, democratic Pakistan is an interesting example. Here every institution except parliament is on its own. Parliament is accountable to all, and among the ‘all’, the army, administration and the judiciary are sacred.

The essence of the English governing system is that a forward moving state is essentially an impartial, intellect-friendly and caring entity. It has no religion and it is managed through need-based laws that live in time and have wisdom relevant to environment. Time, environment and wisdom are interrelated and ever-changing. Change comes fine, and fast too if needed, because of debate and ensuing knowledge.

Richness achieved through natural resources does not ensure change. Yesterday’s Vikings are today’s social democrats because of debate, knowledge, participatory politics and participatory economy. In contrast, Saudi Arabia and Iran, despite having infinite oil wealth, are still tribal and sectarian due to an absence of debate.

The need-based laws can be revisited and revised, and debated and deleted. Pakistan cannot live in isolation; it is not rich nor is it entirely tribal. It is living with both, the religious and Western laws.

The reasons for adapting the mixed laws were external as well as internal. Internally, an economically weak Pakistan was surplus in bureaucratic and military might that controlled the state resources with the tacit support of the judiciary. The deprived masses were provided relief through heavy doses of political religion. The political religion was also the need of Pakistan’s allies, anti-communist/anti-Russia Westerners and Americans.

Radicalisation was introduced to justify opportunism, but with the passage of time it did not spare even its proponents; and it also affected a large section of Punjabi urbanites. Despite this, a big majority of the people of Pakistan, whenever they were given a chance, opted for need-based laws. They voted for non-religious or liberal parties. This is why Pakistan had an internal conflict in which the civil-military bureaucracy and judiciary were on one side and the people and politicians were on the other side.

Today, Pakistan has a parliament where liberals have a majority, a judiciary that is independent but radical, an army that is well aware but still wrapped in radical dynamism and an administration that is radical, ruthless, corrupt and incapable. In fact, in Pakistan’s permanent state structure since its inception, there has been no place for liberals, reformists and revolutionaries. The selection procedures have such sieves in place that separate the candidates having even traces of the traits of modernity. The PPP’s appointees were thrown out the moment it was out of government. And in the case of judicial appointments, the PPP faced embarrassment even during its own governments.

The parliamentarians are a bit perplexed. They have been elected by the people and they know, and rightly so, that they are answerable to the people, but they are being conveyed through one action or another that they are answerable to others. Among the others, the judiciary assumes that it is the most powerful, and so does the army.

The mixture of earthly and heavenly laws, state power in non-political hands and disconnect between the power-holders and the people cannot help the state to function smoothly. No wonder ours is a country where confusion, confrontation, concessions and cruelties are in abundance. Pakistan needs to change course.

Some 321 years ago, the wise men of England who determined where the state power must lie did not descend from the skies. They were not angels. Nor were they saints. Nor were they judges or generals. They were politicians.

The people of Pakistan know that only their elected representatives would rid them of their deprivations caused by the hold of non-elected state institutions over the affairs of the state. Our politicians, the parliamentarians, look perplexed, but they are doing their job in spite of massive obstacles that are being placed in their way on a daily basis.

We are not lucky like the English; we cannot hold meaningful debates and we also have a sacred opposition. Still, things are moving. The happenings — political reconciliation, vibrant democracy, regional reconciliation and de-radicalisation of the state — do make up the beginning of our beginning.

How long will it take our politicians to bring about the beginning? That no one can predict. It can happen fast. Time is on our side. The political leadership is determined. The sacred opposition is a hurdle but it is not that rough as it used to be in the past; and it knows where Pakistan stands today.

Externally, what appears is that the West and the US are now for peace and reconciliation in the region. Even if they are not, the sooner we befriend Afghanistan and India, the sooner Pakistan will change course.

The writer is a freelance columnist. He can be reached at ahsanyatu@gmail.com