Every country has an ideology, explicit or implicit. A country’s institutions get adapted to its ideology whether it accelerates or retards economic growth. Though Pakistan has to conform to an interest-based international economic system, it did take measures like redesignating “interest”, as “profit loss sharing”, and introducing Modarba, Mosharika, etc.
Karl Marx abhorred “ideology” as a tool to perpetuate domination of the proletariat by the classes. The USA’s ideology legalized slavery until abolition.
The way a politico-religious party, Tehrik Labbaik Pakistan, shook the formal law-and-order apparatus has stark lessons about ideology in Pakistan. A sit-in could paralyse a formal structure of government. It may have to give in to some demands willy- nilly. The legislature may become a pawn for a party that commands infinitesimal influence within Parliament but tremendous influence without.
What counts is not political power measured by numbers in Parliament but the number of hooligans on the street. Our prevailing climate is epitomized by Bodin’s dictum majesta est summa in civas ac subditoes legibusque salute potestas, ‘highest power over citizens and subjects unrestrained by law’. Bodin explained power resides with whosoever has ‘power to coerce’. It does not rest with the electorate, Parliament, the judiciary or even Constitution. In the past, our bureaucrats, judges, politicos, and even praetorian rulers fought tooth and nail to prove that power belonged to them.
Decades ago, ZA Bhutto was hanged. His supporters still call his hanging a judicial murder.This was though his party enjoyed grassroot support. But it lacked nerve to bring millions on the streets. Similarly, three-time prime minister Nawaz Sharif could not attract . In contrast, It was not the law, but street power that got Mujeebur Rehman acquitted.
When leaders like Bhutto and Sharif become irreverent to the masses, non-political or non-elected entities make them irrelevant. Bhuttos are hanged and Sharifs ousted or exiled Bhutto was a pseudo-democrat contemptuous of the vote. So, a million pseudo-supporters sat at home instead of coming on to the streets.
As such, it should not be surprising that a handful of TLP people could immobilize the government so easily.
Aware of the selfishness of the Indian people, the British created a class of chiefs (chieftains) to suit their need for loyalists, war-fund raisers and recruiters in the post-Mutiny period and during the Second World War. Peek into the pre-partition gazetteers and you would know the lineage of today’s’ Tiwanas, Nawabs, Pirs, Syed Faqirs, Qizilbash, Kharrals, Gakhars, and their ilk. A gubernatorial gazetteer states, ‘I have for many years felt convinced that the time had arrived for the Government to try to introduce some distinction for those who can show hereditary services before the Hon’ble Company’s rule in India ceased. I have often said that I should be proud to wear a Copper Order, bearing merely the words ‘Teesri pusht Sirkar Company ka Naukar’.
Some pirs (shrine holders) and mashaikh (religious scholars) even quoted verses from Holy Quran to justify allegiance to the English (amir, ruler), after loyalty to Allah and the Messenger (Peace be upon him)). They pointed out that Quran ordained that ihsan (favour) be returned with favour. The ihsan were British favours like titles (khan bahadur, sir, etc), office of honorary magistrate, assistant commissioner, etc. Gandhi astutely perceived that Indians themselves allowed themselves to be colonised for their own material interests.
About 460 scions of the pre-partition chiefs along with industrial barons created in the Ayub era are returned again and again to assemblies. Like sand dunes they keep changing their parties depending on direction of the wind, However, it is questionable whether they could amass people like the TLP can, on the streets. The TLP draws its support from urban centres and the martial belt Jhelum onward.
Demokratia (power of the people) could never equalise citizens. However, all democracies envision ‘opportunities for political participation to larger proportions of the population’, and across-the-board accountability. Democracy is a progressive effort to equalise citizens before law, rather than legalising mafias.
What a pity that demokratia (power of the people) never succeeded in equalising citizens in Pakistan. Most nominees, even those of the Naya Pakistan party, are filthy rich. Even our lower house has no place for paupers. Then who would do pro-poor legislation? Evolve a national healthcare and education system? Ensure basic facilities and justice at doorstep?
Media as the tertiary wing of the parliament is docile. Since creation of Pakistan, there has been little pro-poor representation. A political order and culture, dominated by feudal, industrial robber barons, tribal dynasties or their extended clans, and mullahs, fostered clienteles’ politics. Taxes become regressive, throttling the poor, and sparing the rich (owners of plazas, car fleets, ‘farm’ houses, posh idyllic mansions including those at politicians, Clifton, Sea View, and elsewhere at home and abroad).
There is abhorrence to taxing the network of supporters. Instead, there isa tendency to rely on or blame the USA for the country’s problems, leverage Pakistan’s geographic location to attract foreign funds instead of tapping بٹو own resources, including its tax base, creating divisions in society by popularising extremist versions of Islam and justifying persecution of minorities.
According to the UNDP, 2020, the feudal aristocracy and industrial barons together enjoyed privileges of whopping Rs. 1094 billion, Rs 370 billion and Rs. 724 billion respectively . Being perched in Parliament, they remain untouchable.
Pakistan’s Constitution gives paramountcy to Islam. Islam is itelf the most progressive religion. But, the problem is that , unlike Iran, Pakistan has no supra-constitutional authority to overturn such Islamic legislation as is against broader public interest (maslaha mursala). A case in point is Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab. Judgment in the case was pronounced on August 10, 1989.
A 3-2 vote judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court blocked land reforms in Pakistan. Pakistan can’t do away with all jagirs as did India way back in 1948, because of it. Mufti Muhammad Taqi Usmani wrote the lead judgment:
In an interview with Al-Jazeera, the UNDP assistant secretary general, lamented that Pakistan’s power structure is so deep rooted that only a “social movement”, euphemism for revolution, could change the status quo.
Are jagirs a divine or a British gift? How did the filthy rich, the feudal lords and the industrial barons come into being? If accumulated wealth in a few hands is rooted in wrongdoing, a considerable chunk of it should be mopped up. Taqi Usmani perhaps overlooked that a feudal aristocracy was created whose generations ruled post-independence governments. It is eerie that the government could not stop Maulana Taqi Usmani from supporting the TLP.
