Freedom without security

David Emile Durkheim, the famous French sociologist, describes the role of a statesman not as simply pushing society toward an ideal that seems attractive to him. In his opinion, a statesman should act more as a physician who can prevent the outbreak of an illness with good hygiene and who seeks to cure it at the early stages of its appearance. Politics in Pakistan has never been smooth or tolerant, but with the escalating debate over creating new provinces, it seems to be heading toward an unavoidable clash. Today, Pakistani society is not in balance, and so is not the state. Balance results from the conditions in which a state exists. In the last seventy-nine years of our independence, the political, economic and security condition of the state was never as poor as it is today. A state prospers not only because of political outcomes but also because of economic security and social outcomes. Our downward trajectory as a state explains the unfavourable outcomes in all these domains. I am part of the generation that grew up believing that men make societies in their own image. The conditions offered to our subsequent generations changed them. They are all a product of the society that made them who they are. Are they winning the hockey matches at the World Cup? No, they are not. Are they winning the test series in England? No, they are not. In England, I see no resilience, character, or fight. The world is laughing at how we have miserably let ourselves down from being who we were – once world champions in cricket and four-time world champions in hockey. When a state is in trouble, if it seems not to be doing well, Kenneth Waltz suggests that the problem can be discovered from facts found in three images. Writing in his book, Man, the State and War, he explains the first image as the nature of human beings, that being the nature of the decision-maker, statesman, or governor in politics. The second image is the structure of the state, and the third is the structure of the system. It depends on which image you form in your mind, and depending on that, you will start looking at a given problem as a consequence of the factors that are found in that image. Can I blame our downward trajectory on how President Ayub, Yahya, Zia-ul-Haq or Musharraf led this country? Or should I blame it on Bhutto, Benazir, Nawaz Sharif, Zardari, Imran Khan or Maryam Nawaz? Bad polity makes men bad, and good polity makes them good. I don't remember any good polity at all because, when I was growing up and trying to understand politics, Gen Zia-ul-Haq made political promises that he was never meant to keep. This was in the late 70s, and since then there has been no good politics. In Pakistan, the guardians of the state have acted as the potter, and, with minimal exceptions, all politicians have acted as the lump of clay, posing no resistance to the shape the guardian artist would impart. Rousseau, who theorised that man is born free but is everywhere in chains, finds the causes of political violence and war not in men or in states but in the system itself. We all heard a loud noise from a senior minister in Pakistan claiming that "the system has failed". The first thought that came to my mind after hearing him was: Is he a resident of Pakistan? Is he talking about Pakistan? Only a man waking up from a deep sleep can make such a statement because the system had failed many, many years ago. I have taught international relations in universities for over a decade and know that all states want to remain at peace. But they might have to consider undertaking a preventive war, because if they do not strike when the moment is favourable, they may be struck later. This is true for an anarchic system in which states exist. How can this be true for intrastate politics? Political parties in Pakistan compete less and confront each other more. The American Revolution was sparked by the political slogan, 'no taxation without representation', against the British government in the 1760s and 1770s. The American Revolution was built around the idea that citizens who are taxed must have a meaningful voice in how they are governed. Pakistan over the years has presented almost the opposite paradox: massive public taxation without effective representation. Representatives hardly ever consider themselves accountable to the citizens who elect them. The result is a widening disconnect between taxpayers and the representatives. Citizens bear the costs of governance without receiving public service in return. America rebelled against taxation without representation; Pakistan normalised corrupt representation without accountability. Robert Taft, a senator from Ohio in the 50s, was a people's man and was known as Mr Republican. He wrote that, "history shows that when people have the opportunity to speak, they as a rule decide for peace if possible. It shows that arbitrary rulers are more inclined to favor war than people at any time." President Eisenhower stated, "People in general don't want conflict. It is only mistaken leaders that grow too belligerent and believe that people really want to fight." Our forefathers, seeking independence, raised the political slogan: what good is life without rights, justice and freedom? Better to die than live as a slave. Today, the citizens of Pakistan are forced to ask: what good is independence and freedom without the power to maintain the conditions of personal security? Our forefathers, in their struggle for independence, expressed a profound political ideal: what good is life without rights, justice and freedom? Better to die than live as a slave. Independence was therefore understood not merely as freedom from foreign rule, but as the creation of a society in which citizens could live with dignity, justice and security. Today, however, Pakistan's citizens confront a painful dilemma: what good is independence and formal freedom if the state cannot adequately protect the conditions that make those freedoms meaningful? It is not just the soul of Mir Raza Ali, the 25-year-old entrepreneur and an IBA graduate, that asks this question, but also Prof Arif Khan Saqi and many like him, who are the dead and living symbols of what this state represents – not what citizens deserve but what they must learn to live with and tolerate. A state does not fulfil its purpose merely by possessing sovereignty. Its legitimacy ultimately depends on whether its citizens can experience that sovereignty as security, justice, dignity and freedom.