Your true liberty, you, as a person living in a nation of a diversified people, can only be assured personal freedoms through a massive election turn-out, bent on a paradigm shift. Thomas Kuhn defines paradigm shift as “one conceptual world view is replaced by another.” Kuhn wrote, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, (1962) arguing that scientific advancement is not evolutionary, but rather is a “series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions.” Revolution does not necessarily mean civil war. But, it does require action to replace complacence.

But, a paradigm shift to what end, you might ask? To an end that gives the power back to the people of Pakistan: for a Pakistani public committed to a non-biased Constitution, with protections therein, and government accountability to the people. Such a document does not exist in Pakistan. Where in Pakistan is the document that protects the people’s rights against a tyrannical government, or dictators that would disallow imposition of religious edits inserted into their Constitution to pacify extremists, or protect against utilization of non-specific language that can be interpreted to political advantage? The Islamic Republic of Pakistan exists instead as a governing nightmare in the form of its own phantasm of dead Zia, and very much alive, Musharaff, who haunt the people through the current Constitution. The people of Pakistan appear to be sleepwalking, expecting change to occur on its own, as they allow the ghost of General Zia al-Haq and General Musharaff to remain forever haunting the halls of the Pakistani justice system. From the abusive Blasphemy Laws, a mischievous religious tool that can be arbitrarily used against anyone’s antagonist, by virtue of hearsay- “second-hand” accusation, or a single accuser, as the burden of proof is on the accused – to the Presidential Ordinance No. 14 of 1985, that took the precise language from 1973 Articles 62 and 63, and cleverly obfuscated it by Zia and later, General Musharaff meddling, allowed imprecise language for manipulative interpretations to serve as vague “qualifications for Parliament.” Was this the vision of the Founders, Jinnah, Iqal, Z. Bhutto, and/or Liquat Ali Khan? Or, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto?

 Any nation’s constitution that is at odds with itself becomes impossible to reconcile. Namely, secular and religious constitutional elements struggle within itself, by virtue of a legacy of non-elected, non-representatives of the people inserting laws for political gain and pacification of religious radicals (Z. Bhutto- a formidable leader, but given to over-zealousness, and errors in judgment) or, radical religious conviction (General Zia al-Huq), or, self-serving nuances (General Musharaff). The initial vision of an Islamic democracy of Jinnah and, the later stated “pluralism” of Benazir Bhutto were ideologies sabotaged, that promised protection of minorities, and accommodation for the culturally unique and historical patchwork of a diverse people from territories, outlying regions, tribes, and provinces, the stitching together of which formed Pakistan. 

 Freedom of religion from the beginning of Pakistan’s history was impeded by the political influence of a small group of elitists; namely, a power-driven military, self-interested politicians and a powerful religious voting bloc. I reference the Ulema that holds radicalized, fundamental belief systems reverting back into the 7^th Century; those Saudi-funded Salafist terrorists that continue to hold the nation hostage through fear, assassination, or intimidation of those that would challenge biased laws (Shahbaz Bhatti, Salman Taseer murdered; kidnapped son, Shahbaz Taseer; or the feeble accusation of Blasphemy against a crusader of human rights, Sherry Rehman). These Kafirs defy the religious, in murdering their own moderate Sunnis, and eliminate Shias, Ahmedis, and Christians unimpeded by authorities.

Despite my admitted confession that the U.S. has made many foreign policy mistakes over time, I nonetheless ask you to put your anti-American sentiments aside for a moment to consider what does work: our U.S. Constitution. There were religious fanatics in the early colonies of America- Salem witch burnings, and such, and government sanctioned slavery, to remind us of the necessity of Law and Order provided by a voting public, governmental checks and balances, a secular Constitution, and the need for personal protections from the tyranny of each other and our own governments. The first constitution was a failure in the U.S.. As an example for the need of a paradigm shift that may be necessary for Pakistan, I suggest the discipline required of the growing pains the U.S. system went through. The first attempt of the 1777 Articles of Confederation discouraged those who wanted a stronger central government, and less power in the states. Eventually that central government was given power, but with checks and balances. The U.S. Constitution was born in a crisis, not so very different from any country separating from colonial rule, and earning its sea legs among an ocean of competing ideologies. Nothing but potential existed of the newly formed United States, or, the nascent Pakistan, a bloody and violent birth for both, torn asunder from the mother country, as was the colonial U.S. from Britain. The U.S. Articles tried to form fundamental “Rights of Man,” a Thomas Paine imperative, but, did not sufficiently represent the people. There exists the tyranny of the majority over the religiously stifled or marginalized from political power as were the Muslims under the Raj, and under India.

The consent of the people is the only means by which equality is made politically operable and arbitrary power can be thwarted. Islam does not vanish in such a secular world, it is protected. Still, any political powers not derived from the consent of the governed are, by the laws of nature, illegitimate and hence unjust. Those comfortable with Socialism should review history, as they are vulnerable to governments imposing its own will upon the people (Social Democratic Party of Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s Italian Socialist Party, et.al.). As for Sharia Law –  whose interpretation? Saudi Arabia’s version? Iran is certainly not pure Islam. It is in fact, Khomeinism.

We cannot trust religious authoritarians, nor can we trust our own governments. James Madison:  

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

Thus, the standard of whether a government is legitimate is whether that government rests on the consent of the governed- among those governed in Pakistan, is there but one Muslim consensus? I submit that Shia sharing Sunni communities, with Christians and Hindus, Ahmedis, and forming a workable federation of Baluchs with their own deep history, aside the proud legacy of fighting Pashtuns, the minority Sindhis, and majority Punjabis, requires from a Constitution precisely those with a foundation of protections of the “Rights of Man.” “Humankind,” might be more politically correct.

As Pakistan was formed and the Constitution was delayed, questions of how much power should a president, prime minister, or the central government wield occurred in an environment clamoring for Muslim Sharia Law; and whether a democratic government or secular ideology could be accommodated in a land meant for Muslims? The world still struggles with this: the Rashidun Caliphate was an early example of a democratic state; today’s Turkish, Egyptian, and Malaysian examples serve as uneasy models. Can a nation draw enough societal power and support from the people, short of a civil war, to temper and control its own military or dictator? Currently, the Arab world is watching forthwith, does Egypt have enough power to challenge its military, or the Syrian rebels prevail against Assad? Not so far. Does India? Yes. Does Pakistan? Ask yourself.

At any time the military could exercise its will over the government as it has in the past. A threat of a Coup d’état has been a consistent specter in Pak politics for all governing parties. Rail against Zardari if you must, but, no one in his place could have faced off against the Pakistan Military. That is why traditionally the U.S. from Reagan to Obama has dealt with the military powers in Pakistan instead of the civilian elected officials. How does a president, PM or parliament govern and manage domestic economics, and legislate, and direct foreign policy when the strongest and arguably the most organized institution in the nation is the military, with its own economic programs, and land development?

What if there are dark elements within the military, forces that are aligned with LeT, LeJ, ASWJ, Salafist terrorists, with the constant threat tainting every controversial argument, before it even can get to a decision? What if the Supreme Court of the land, the Chief Justice, is questionable, in letting confessed killers such as Qadri free? What chance does a government have of being self-determining; or changing its constitution?  Is there a need for a paradigm shift within lethargic public minds, to join in numbers sufficient to rebel against the status quo, and force the powers that be to provide what it promises? Be honest: Currently, any Pakistan government official has only a few choices: cynicism goes with silence (most Pakistanis); quietly align with the dark forces and survive (Sharif brothers and Imran Khan); or stand on one’s principles and risk assassination (Benazir Bhutto, Bhatti, Taseer, Baloch rebels, the Shia community faced with state-sanctioned genocide)? How do a people, a government, change a Constitution, while contending with radical elements that will kill you while the law enforcement and military looks away? Does it overthrow its own military? In the U.S. we deny the military funding through an elected congress. In Pakistan, as in Syria, Egypt, or a myriad of African dictatorships, what choices are there? The military raison d’etre is national defense; it is not foreign policy, or domestic economics.

Elected federal governments that concede to rampant corruption cannot expect from its people the necessary collecting of tax revenue it needs to build roads and bridges, and succeed in educational goals. Neither can it succeed while the military diverts U.S. Foreign Aid to its own purposes, and becomes involved in business ventures, becoming wealthy in its own right and makes deals with known terrorist organizations. Just laws must be enforced by elected officials by the will, and interest, and vigilance of the people. If they are not then infrastructure dissipates and we get such peculiarities as Imran Khan who is at once, for and against, terrorist organizations, and runs on a platform that assures “no corruption.” Shouldn’t anti-corruption be a given for all politicians?

The lax interest in amending a flawed Constitution or prohibiting blatant corruption needs a paradigm shift. The refusal to see that training and paying law enforcement sufficiently would reduce corruption, or educating women in Northern tribes and dispossessed, using government funds to develop infrastructure needs a paradigm change. Not recognizing that incentives for private business, creating jobs, would enliven a thankful and involved voting public requires a paradigm shift. Otherwise, you the status quo encourages anarchy in the form of religiously-motivated violence, torture, kill-and-dump, extra-judicial murders, assassinations, suicide bombers, mafia-type hits in Karachi, kidnapping, and genocidal intentions in FATA- against your own population; Muslim against Muslim, and a Security apparatus threatening the very nation it swears to protect.

 Mindful of the profound difficulty that discussing controversial Constitutional changes openly in Parliament, arriving at a consensus, voting on it, passing the annulment of the Blasphemy Law, and reverting articles 62 and 63 back to their original form as they were in the 1973 constitution, and at the end, all those involved still walking among the living, is cause enough for alarm. This should be its own warning of the need for a paradigm shift towards an active citizenry compelled to change the status quo in this election year, a step forward in reclaiming your own Land of the Pure.

 

Comments

comments