The question of tolerance —Rasul Bakhsh Rais

Intolerance stems from arrogance, from a belief that a person’s religion and ideology are true while all else is false. But above all intolerance grows from an individual taking responsibility for scrutinising and guarding the beliefs and practices of other and passing a final judgement on them.

We need to build tolerance by reforming the education system. A public education system that functions and has quality and public trust will go a long way toward cultivating young persons in modern values of respecting diversity and an opposite point of view

It is hard to contest the growing view that in recent decades, the social trends in Pakistani society have changed a bit for the worse in becoming less respectful of diversity. The question is, is it accommodative of or tolerant toward the religious difference as it used to be about three decades back? Our tentative answer is that it is not.

What is then the trend? The trend is toward seeking conformity to the dominant views on religion and religious values. There are many causes for this, but one of the salient ones is the failure to develop educational institutions into places of free debate and inquiry. We cannot expect it to happen with poor quality of academic leadership. And of course another reason is political expediency guiding the policies of governments that have lacked a vision and a practical programme to restore true spirit of learning and reflection in the colleges and universities.

We need to focus more on modern institutions than on other factors is for obvious reason; the primary function and the historical identity of the academy is associated with the training of free thinking, rational, tolerant and open individual that develops himself to respecting others and giving equal value and respect to beliefs of others. Sadly, our colleges and universities that churning out graduates in thousands and the majority of those who are imparting them modern knowledge lack some of the essential qualities of modern man.

Let me also discuss briefly two other reasons for growth of extremism and violence. The first is the worsening quality of governance at all levels. Contrary to official claims, our system of governance, including all branches has deteriorated. There are so many elegant philosophical and political debates, mainly in the western societies, about the purposes of the government.

These debates are open to everyone, and are part of collective human heritage; our rulers will greatly benefit by opening some pages of literature on why the government was created. Even if we take the first principle, law and order, being the primary responsibility of the government, we see a poor record of the Islamic Republic.

Most of the questions about law and order become centred on the fundamental rights of the individual—life, property, and in the Lockean sense, pursuit of liberty. Property rights are poorly enforced; life, if not short and brutish, its fullness and self-actualisation is uncertain and problematic; and liberty is hostage to tradition, conservative religious values and hybrid of feudal authoritarianism. The combination for these forces overtime has created an intolerant society. Because all elements of the iron triangle—mullah, bureaucracy and the feudal by their class interests and organisational culture seek conformity and punish dissent.

Whether or not the ruling classes help create a pluralistic social order would depend on what is their vision of the society and what institutions they create to resolve conflicts and help create a pluralistic social order. To gauge their capacity we need to look at their own socialisation or social learning. In the end it is culture of our ruling elites and their being insensitive or sensitive to larger question of social injustice violence against women, religious minorities that would increase tolerance or intolerance.

Our debate about the failure of the state in dealing with religious, ethnic and sectarian violence often revolves around its capacities. That is true, but not enough an explanation. The general mindset of three major groups that I have referred to above and their attitudes, values and orientation toward accommodation of difference need to be looked at closely to understand ineffectiveness of the government.

Intolerance stems from arrogance, from a belief that a person’s religion and ideology are true while all else is false. But above all intolerance grows from an individual taking responsibility for scrutinising and guarding the beliefs and practices of other and passing a final judgement on them.

The numbers of men and women who think it is their primary religious duty to make other Muslims believe and behave like them seem to be growing. They are possessed with an artificial sense of certitude, authenticity and being on the right-path to influence others’ religious and social choices.

A good number of them have become self-appointed soldiers of God, His judges and executioners. Violence motivated by sectarian considerations is not so infrequent and takes many forms of humiliation, physical assault and target killings of prominent individuals—religious scholars, professionals and community leaders of rival sects.

Religion is part of life and society and will remain so even in post-industrial societies, though it may take different forms. Religion has a great value in answering questions about the mystery of existence and giving a positive and purposive direction to a person’s life.

But we cannot rely on religion alone to create a peaceful, orderly and tolerant society. An individual made up of greed, ambitions and lust for power cannot be tamed by religious values alone. This role has to be played by the state through its strong arm of law. But then, law cannot be strong enough without the rule of law. Here we are back to the basics.

Never will intolerance and violence disappear from Pakistani or any society for that matter with sermons, speeches and florid statement of religious and political leaders. We must start a reform process in the governance, accountability of ruling political groups that have alternated in power.

We need to build tolerance by reforming the education system. A public education system that functions and has quality and public trust will go a long way toward cultivating young persons in modern values of respecting diversity and an opposite point of view.

The process of promoting social change and cultivating modern rational attitudes of tolerance of difference is a long-term developmental issue. No matter how difficult and long this social journey might be but we must set ourselves on this path by investing more in social development and by making calculated interventions through law and public policy into the structures of our social and political life.

Tolerance is dependent on culture, religious orientations and general social framework of the society. Our tradition cultural values both in social and religious realms were tolerant of other communities and accorded respect to the beliefs and practices of other religions and sects within Islam.

Unfortunately, the traditional social pluralism has been under constant threat for the last thirty years mainly because of militancy among some of the religious sects. This trends must be reversed, but it is not going to happen without major reforms, good political, better governance and rule of law regime.

Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais is author of “Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan” (Oxford University Press, 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at rasul@lums.edu.pk (Daily Times)

Read more...

The third democratic transition in Pakistan - An analysis by Rasul Bakhsh Rais

The third democratic transition

The political parties and their leaders bear greater responsibility for sustaining the growth of democracy in Pakistan. This will require them to perform better in governance, honour their part of the social contract with the people and respect each other’s political mandate

Pakistan has lived from crisis to crisis for a very long time, with interludes of superficial stability and security under military regimes. Why has Pakistan faced a sort of permanent political crisis, and what is it that the world community can do? Or is it fair to expect external actors to put our political house in order?

Opinion is divided on which sectors of state and society have caused problems to the polity and who can really put Pakistan on the road to political and social recovery. Those attached to the authoritarian tradition and benefiting, personally or as a class, from military dictators have blamed elected governments, political parties and hereditary leaders for the political mess.

The usual barrage of charges that we have heard against the political forces of Pakistan may find echo in many other democratic countries, except they strengthen institutions, laws and accountability processes to deal with the dilemma of the ‘wicked’ politician. Our experience of military dictators, particularly the Musharraf regime, shows how national wealth was plundered and how those joining dictators from fragmented political parties and outside were allowed to milk the country. And they were not accountable to anyone.

The interventions that apologists of military regimes defend have rather deepened the crisis of democratic transition and made the process of nation and state building more difficult and complicated. Pakistan is going through a third democratic transition and faces all those familiar problems that other countries have faced to find a natural balance between social forces and political institutions.

We are guardedly more optimistic about the third transition holding ground than we were during past attempts. The reasons for optimism are not too many because social structures that may sustain democratic growth remain weak, and traditional ruling classes continue to live in the old mindset. This is evident from their outlook of Pakistani society, which they believe has not changed much.

Let us look what has changed and how these changes may help the process of democratic transition in the country. The first important change is in the character of civil society, mainly its proliferation and activism on central issues of the polity. Its vigour comes from the new urban middle classes that have grown out of parochialism and narrow political affiliation. Although civil society traditions and associational life are as old as the advent of imperialism, its new focus is on freedoms, rights, free speech and democratic accountability.

The experience of other countries that have successfully made democratic transitions suggests that civil society and its quality has largely determined the pace and quality of democratic transition. If there is any hope of making the political class responsible and forcing it to work within legal and constitutional limits is through the vigilance and activism of civil society organisations.

Issue-based activism of civil society, more than unfocused protests, is what really matters in restraining governments and ruling groups from the misuse of power. Support for democracy and democratic rule has been an overall objective of civil society starting with the anti-Ayub Khan movement. Its new focus on the independence of media and judiciary, rule of law, and accountability of public office holders is about building and strengthening democratic institutions and practices.

The media itself is a big change in Pakistan. Some commentators may question, as they often do, its quality or ability to focus debate on social and even political issues with a degree of insight, but even the free debate we witness daily is mark of great progress. Its is significant for building democracy as it helps evolve a culture of civic engagement and free speech. These are some of the social ingredients that promote and sustain the growth of democracy.

There are many things that remain unsettled in the society and polity, from the rapacious character of the elected representatives to the weak party system and trashing of accountability laws and processes as motivated by political considerations. Not all cases against public representatives, and definitely against the bureaucrats and intelligence agency operatives, were politically motivated.

There is a need to start with a clean state, and having been wronged on almost every issue of national importance by Pervez Musharraf and his associates, the people and civil society want elected governments to prove they have changed and that they would not repeat the misdeeds of Musharraf and earlier governments. They have already wasted a lot of time trying to build trust with the people; they can do that by providing better, honest and clean government.

The revelations of scandals involving the highest elected officials have undermined public faith. So what is the solution? This is a classic problem of building democracy in a society where the political class is not bound to modern norms, integrity and honesty, and is in the habit of flouting laws to enrich itself.

Never, never should we think that angels will descend from heaven and change the hearts and minds of elected representatives; or of the armed forces, to correct their paths. Only good accountability laws, an impartial judiciary, free media and activist civil society can force elected representatives to remain within the limits of law.

When we talk of public representatives, we need to be fair and nuanced and not consider all of them as being greedy, selfish and corrupt. We may find honest and good parliamentarians from every region and in every party. For the democratic transition to move forward, it would be necessary to build broader political coalitions among true democrats within the existing parties and civil society groups.

The old and conservative thought that the social climate of an Islamic country like Pakistan is unfit for democracy is neither rational nor historically correct. Other cultures with non-western religious roots have successfully embraced democracy. The evidence from Pakistan itself in popular movements for democratic rule and against military rulers is something to cherish and that can help further improve the quality of democratic life.

Finally, the political parties and their leaders bear greater responsibility for sustaining the growth of democracy in Pakistan. This will require them to perform better in governance, honour their part of the social contract with the people and respect each other’s political mandate. On these counts, the picture is mixed at best. Weak democracy is better than no democracy at all; this is an emerging national sentiment, which the public representatives shouldn’t take as a licence for wrongdoing, as that would weaken democracy further and undermine its social support base, making it harder for civil society and media to sustain public support for democracy.

Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais is author of Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan (Oxford University Press, 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at rasul@lums.edu.pk

Read more...

Is America our friend? —Rasul Bakhsh Rais

Is America our friend? —Rasul Bakhsh Rais

Our rational self-interest in this situation dictates that we help rebuild a stable Afghanistan, help end the war and deepen our relationship with the United States, taking it beyond the contingencies of Afghanistan

This is a wrong question that is often raised and debated in the media, academic and political circles. Why it is a wrong question? Friendship between and among states has a different quality to it, and has more substance and meanings than the conception of friendship between people. And it is not really friendship between states, but the totality of relationship — its nature, extent, diversity, depth and commonality of objectives — that matters. Otherwise all countries with which a country might have diplomatic ties could qualify as ‘friends’, with very rare exceptions.

Relations among states have many dimensions and depths, and are motivated less by moral considerations and more by how the two sides in the relationship can benefit from what they do together on issues of peace, security or economic cooperation.

What really matters then is the issue of benefit. It is assumed that all states are rational actors, and those who govern them think rationally about the interest of their states and forge relationships to achieve national objectives. This may sound a bit academic and theoretical, but it is necessary to spell out what generally the operating assumptions of any country’s foreign policy are.

It is equally true that politicians and others types that control the states may fail to understand what the real interest of their states could be in a given situation. This could be due to false or incomplete information or due to some personality factors — any perceptual or emotional defects that may stand in the way of fully understanding and appreciating the dynamics of power politics or other forces that shape modern nation states.

All types of states, in disregard to their internal political configurations, are driven by self-interest. But self-interest in a globalised world requires cooperation with other states; no state can help itself, achieve progress or peace without the cooperation of other states. Yes, there can be serious questions about who gets how much and when out of cooperative enterprises among states, with so many layers of non-state actors like the multi-national corporations opening many paths and adding to the complexity of interactions.

Relations between states, however, cannot be zero-sum games; there are obvious and objective reasons for shaping them and there are benefits to be drawn. Never are such relations one-way traffic, at least not since the end of colonialism, with benefits flowing in one direction and costs accumulating on the other side.

We need to have some clarity about how the world system functions and how states form cooperative relationships in order to answer the question we have raised above.

It is not just our relationship with the United States but with other states as well that requires a degree of pragmatism and some basic knowledge of the operating principles and realities of world politics. Much of this knowledge is lost when one takes an ideological position on who can be a friend and who cannot be in the world arena.

The national debate on our relationship with the United States has interesting points that show how ideology and emotions have shaped it more than any clear ideas about what we have gained in different areas of national life.

This is not to discount the fact that this relationship has been controversial and remains so in the context of the current war in Afghanistan and our support to the international coalition to defeat the Taliban. And there have been hidden costs and negative consequences on our political landscape with great impact on the balance between political forces and state institutions.

But such costs are as much a result of our own state weaknesses, internal political confrontations, institutional conflicts and the character of ruling groups as the rentier quality of our state. No state can think of operating in an ideal environment, let alone Pakistan with so many internal problems and a highly complex regional security environment.

We need to apply a rational approach to the debate on our relations with the United States, with a full understanding of our objectives and how best we can realise them in an imperfect world with self-centred and competing states. This perspective is unfortunately lacking when we try to understand and explain state-to-state relations in personalised terms.

In the contemporary world, given our vital interests and multiple internal and external vulnerabilities, no other relationship for us can be more important than the one we have with the United States today. The question is how best we can turn this relationship to the benefit of Pakistan. We have in the past on many occasions protected our vital interests, like the nuclear programme, without yielding any ground, no matter what the amount of pressure.

Today, we seem to be divided not on the quality of relationship with the United States but essentially on whether or not Pakistan should be extending the support it is to the international coalition, mainly the US, in Afghanistan to defeat the Taliban insurgency. There is a section of Pakistani society that feels that the Taliban in Afghanistan are justified in resisting what they call a foreign occupation, and argue that Pakistan must stand neutral in this conflict.

That is not possible. Perhaps they don’t realise that the Tehreek-e Taliban of Pakistan is inspired, guided, funded, and controlled by the Afghan Taliban. The two have the same ideology and worldview, and believe in using violence to capture state power. It is however debatable what the best strategy is to deal with the issue of non-state actors and how can we peel local populations away from them.

Pakistan and Afghanistan face similar internal security threats but at varying degrees as state capacities are different. The war in Afghanistan, the current phase and its earlier cycles, have affected Pakistan very badly. Pakistan’s security and peace hinges on the success of the international effort to secure and rebuild Afghanistan.

The United States has come to occupy a central position in the strategic environment of Afghanistan and Pakistan. This may not be an ideal situation for us but that is the reality. Our rational self-interest in this situation dictates that we help rebuild a stable Afghanistan, help end the war and deepen our relationship with the United States, taking it beyond the contingencies of Afghanistan. There is genuine interest in the US and other world capitals in stabilising and normalising Pakistan by giving it a democratic and developmental orientation. It depends on us how best we leverage our position and advance our national interests.

Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais is author of Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan (Oxford University Press, 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at rasul@lums.edu.pk

Read more...