Solomon2
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2008
- Messages
- 19,475
- Reaction score
- -37
- Country
- Location
Collapse of moral framework
Shafqat Mahmood
Friday, October 28, 2011
Abdus Sattar Edhi is a good man. Some may even call him a saint, and with reason. He has done more for the common folk of this country than anyone living or dead. When such a man calls for a limited military intervention, there is reason to pause.
Edhi Sahib has many great attributes, but being politically correct is not one of them. One could almost say that he is a bit naive when it comes to affairs of the state. But for a man used to speaking from the heart, it is his way of saying how disturbed he is with the way the country is being run.
The call for a martial law in my estimation is not a yearning for military rule. It is actually a cry for some honest broker in the system that would hold the corrupt to account and ensure better governance. Since he cannot see anyone else capable of doing it, he is calling for the guillotine, the ultimate intervention.
This is sad, because it reflects a loss of faith in the constitutional institutions designed to make the state run better. In particular, it shows disappointment with efforts being made by the Supreme Court to hold the corrupt to account.
This mood, this weariness bordering on cynicism, is a sign of general discontent. The common feeling is that the apex court is trying but not succeeding, the contrived Moonis Elahi acquittal being a case in point. It is also true in other cases, of people in far higher positions. The court, while respected for its efforts, is seen as impotent when confronted by wily machinations of the state machinery.
And at least for the middle class and the intelligentsia it is galling that the people who are alleged to have ripped off billions from this poor country also get to be its rulers. In fact, it is these very billions that are then used to buy political power and ensure favourable coverage in the media. Moonis’s case again being an example.
So what Edhi Sahib is expressing is a deep sense of frustration with evil triumphing over good, not once but repeatedly. Sadder still is the feeling that there is no way out. Rules of the game are such that the corrupt stand the best chance of thriving in a society that cannot hold them to account.
This triumph of evil over good is also beginning to change attitudes, for the worse. The message it sends out is that anyone who does not make money, any and whichever way, is stupid and/or cowardly. The moral compass of the nation disappears fast when the corrupt become electorally and socially acceptable, if not revered.
The perceived rise of Imran Khan among the intelligentsia is a direct result of the frustration so widely being felt. It is not Imran’s policy prescriptions – some of them seem naïve, particularly his take on militancy – but his clean image that makes him an alternative.
His social contributions, such as the Shaukat Khanum Hospital and a university in Mianwali, are also a huge plus. This has made him a focus of middle-class aspirations for a better-governed country. We are fast reaching a point where his success, if it comes about, would ensure continuation of faith in democracy for the intelligentsia. If he fails, the revulsion with the system would be intense.
The next election for many would thus be a litmus test for democracy’s oft-repeated claim of having the ability to correct from within. And for better or worse, depending on what you think of Imran, the onus of proving this has come to rest on his electoral success or failure. Quite a challenge.
Some would argue that these middle-class dreams, Pakistani-style, are impractical. Democracy everywhere is messy, and quite often corrupt. In fact, one big contradiction within the “government of the people, for the people” mantra is that no individual or party in an election can succeed without money. And money is contributed by people or organisations that have interests. They want something in return.
This may change in the internet age with individuals making small contribution to a party or a candidate without ulterior motives, but it will take time. For the moment in established democracies, it is these interest groups whose contributions make an electoral difference, and in return they have an agenda to be fulfilled. Corruption is thus in the dynamics of democracy.
In emerging democracies, it would be further said, these institutional giving structures, however inherently corrupt, have not developed. So the candidates need money and the best way to gather it is while in office. It is not just for additions to personal wealth but the only way to get elected.
These are false and dangerous justifications, particularly in developing economies with weak structures of governance. While a Japan, Italy or France with huge economies and strong governing systems can survive corrupt leaders, for those in a different league it can be lethal.
Where the size of the economy is small and the state looms as a big player either through direct ownership of enterprises or control of regulatory mechanism, corruption can stunt growth. If every economic decision has an ulterior money-making angle, it has a devastating impact.
Similarly, states with developed and potent institutions can survive bad decisions of their leaders because their inherent strength to resist and recover is strong. In states with weaker structures, if the moral framework embedded in the rule of law is ignored or deliberately pushed aside, its impact is bad governance from top to bottom.
Most importantly, if corruption becomes the norm in a state with institutions designed to control it unable or unwilling to do their job, the moral framework of society collapses. This leads to anarchy because nowhere is the state able to police everybody.
For a state and society to function well, there must exist a moral framework because this allows individuals to voluntarily accept its legal code. This act, internalised by a vast majority, leads to order. On the contrary, if only a minority believes in moral behaviour, there will always be chaos.
If states like Pakistan have to move forward, there is no choice but to make sure that moral principles enshrined in the constitution and the legal code are more often than not observed. This needs besides strengthened institutions such as parliament and the judiciary, a leadership that respects the law.
This is what in essence Edhi Sahib is talking about. The chaos and disorder that we are going through will never change unless from the top there is a commitment to rule of law. If the democratically elected leaders and state institutions cannot or will not enforce it, there will always be a desire for some intervention that makes it happen.
This call for martial law is just shorthand for accountability.
Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com
Shafqat Mahmood
Friday, October 28, 2011
Abdus Sattar Edhi is a good man. Some may even call him a saint, and with reason. He has done more for the common folk of this country than anyone living or dead. When such a man calls for a limited military intervention, there is reason to pause.
Edhi Sahib has many great attributes, but being politically correct is not one of them. One could almost say that he is a bit naive when it comes to affairs of the state. But for a man used to speaking from the heart, it is his way of saying how disturbed he is with the way the country is being run.
The call for a martial law in my estimation is not a yearning for military rule. It is actually a cry for some honest broker in the system that would hold the corrupt to account and ensure better governance. Since he cannot see anyone else capable of doing it, he is calling for the guillotine, the ultimate intervention.
This is sad, because it reflects a loss of faith in the constitutional institutions designed to make the state run better. In particular, it shows disappointment with efforts being made by the Supreme Court to hold the corrupt to account.
This mood, this weariness bordering on cynicism, is a sign of general discontent. The common feeling is that the apex court is trying but not succeeding, the contrived Moonis Elahi acquittal being a case in point. It is also true in other cases, of people in far higher positions. The court, while respected for its efforts, is seen as impotent when confronted by wily machinations of the state machinery.
And at least for the middle class and the intelligentsia it is galling that the people who are alleged to have ripped off billions from this poor country also get to be its rulers. In fact, it is these very billions that are then used to buy political power and ensure favourable coverage in the media. Moonis’s case again being an example.
So what Edhi Sahib is expressing is a deep sense of frustration with evil triumphing over good, not once but repeatedly. Sadder still is the feeling that there is no way out. Rules of the game are such that the corrupt stand the best chance of thriving in a society that cannot hold them to account.
This triumph of evil over good is also beginning to change attitudes, for the worse. The message it sends out is that anyone who does not make money, any and whichever way, is stupid and/or cowardly. The moral compass of the nation disappears fast when the corrupt become electorally and socially acceptable, if not revered.
The perceived rise of Imran Khan among the intelligentsia is a direct result of the frustration so widely being felt. It is not Imran’s policy prescriptions – some of them seem naïve, particularly his take on militancy – but his clean image that makes him an alternative.
His social contributions, such as the Shaukat Khanum Hospital and a university in Mianwali, are also a huge plus. This has made him a focus of middle-class aspirations for a better-governed country. We are fast reaching a point where his success, if it comes about, would ensure continuation of faith in democracy for the intelligentsia. If he fails, the revulsion with the system would be intense.
The next election for many would thus be a litmus test for democracy’s oft-repeated claim of having the ability to correct from within. And for better or worse, depending on what you think of Imran, the onus of proving this has come to rest on his electoral success or failure. Quite a challenge.
Some would argue that these middle-class dreams, Pakistani-style, are impractical. Democracy everywhere is messy, and quite often corrupt. In fact, one big contradiction within the “government of the people, for the people” mantra is that no individual or party in an election can succeed without money. And money is contributed by people or organisations that have interests. They want something in return.
This may change in the internet age with individuals making small contribution to a party or a candidate without ulterior motives, but it will take time. For the moment in established democracies, it is these interest groups whose contributions make an electoral difference, and in return they have an agenda to be fulfilled. Corruption is thus in the dynamics of democracy.
In emerging democracies, it would be further said, these institutional giving structures, however inherently corrupt, have not developed. So the candidates need money and the best way to gather it is while in office. It is not just for additions to personal wealth but the only way to get elected.
These are false and dangerous justifications, particularly in developing economies with weak structures of governance. While a Japan, Italy or France with huge economies and strong governing systems can survive corrupt leaders, for those in a different league it can be lethal.
Where the size of the economy is small and the state looms as a big player either through direct ownership of enterprises or control of regulatory mechanism, corruption can stunt growth. If every economic decision has an ulterior money-making angle, it has a devastating impact.
Similarly, states with developed and potent institutions can survive bad decisions of their leaders because their inherent strength to resist and recover is strong. In states with weaker structures, if the moral framework embedded in the rule of law is ignored or deliberately pushed aside, its impact is bad governance from top to bottom.
Most importantly, if corruption becomes the norm in a state with institutions designed to control it unable or unwilling to do their job, the moral framework of society collapses. This leads to anarchy because nowhere is the state able to police everybody.
For a state and society to function well, there must exist a moral framework because this allows individuals to voluntarily accept its legal code. This act, internalised by a vast majority, leads to order. On the contrary, if only a minority believes in moral behaviour, there will always be chaos.
If states like Pakistan have to move forward, there is no choice but to make sure that moral principles enshrined in the constitution and the legal code are more often than not observed. This needs besides strengthened institutions such as parliament and the judiciary, a leadership that respects the law.
This is what in essence Edhi Sahib is talking about. The chaos and disorder that we are going through will never change unless from the top there is a commitment to rule of law. If the democratically elected leaders and state institutions cannot or will not enforce it, there will always be a desire for some intervention that makes it happen.
This call for martial law is just shorthand for accountability.
Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com
