Pakistan isn’t banana republic, it’s absurdistan

[VCheng]

Let us keep in mind that PDF is merely a representative microcosm of Pakistan.




http://dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/05-Oct-17/pakistan-isnt-banana-republic-its-absurdistan


Pakistan isn’t banana republic, it’s absurdistan
The regrettable outcome of this state of affairs is that the media remain under tight control and dissenting voices are suppressed. And the world is not even distantly eager to buy our twisted narrative

05-Oct-17 by Zulfiquar Rao

In Pakistan, the phrases such as banana republic are used rather loosely; however, in literature and political science they have definitive meanings. So when recently a federal minister questioned ‘are we a banana republic?’ I found it a misplaced analogy for Pakistan. We are not a banana republic, but perhaps worse in some other ways.

But first this: In 1904, American novelist William Sydney Porter had coined the phrase of banana republic in his novel ‘Cabbages and Kings’ which was plotted over a small maritime state of Honduras. Honduras was then characterised with a society suffering from abject social class inequality, an unstable government, and precarious economy relying almost entirely on export of Banana that too through American fruit companies, who exercised decisive influence over polity and economy of the country at the expense of the poor inhabitants.

Likewise the phrase ‘Absurdistan’ was coined in 1971 by Munich university magazine of political studies, which meant to reflect such a state of affairs in a particular environ or state where absurdity is the norm, where one can’t understand and define affairs otherwise logically, and any logical argument or construction is responded with irrational and illogical diatribe. Pakistan may have some aspects of a banana republic, but it doesn’t really fit in with this character as such. What unfortunately the Pakistan of our days look like is the ‘absurdistan’.

For instance, ask any educated person, he will hardly concede with the idea of democracy in Pakistan without first requiring it to deliver all the good that he may have imagined of from any type of government. Not realising that democracy is a system of government that citizens rightfully elect according to their priorities and preferences. So greater the citizens are politically conscious and educated, they will most probably elect commensurately better representatives to form a government accountable to them. However, so many here are dismissive of the idea of politics, politicians and thereby democracy without giving slight consideration to the pre-requisite of the time and space to let the democratic governments work unperturbed year after year to gradually grow into a functioning democracy. Isn’t it as absurd as if you postpone the efforts to make an airplane unless the plane made is already capable of flying across Atlantic?

As much curious is our foreign policy, especially our stance on Kashmir dispute with India. Without dilating on the past context, the punch line of our stance is ‘no good neighbourly relations with India, unless it agrees to resolve Kashmir dispute’; that too in favour of Pakistan. So instead of keeping it as no doubt an important issue between the two countries while exploring cooperation in other areas of bilateral relations, the point perhaps we drive is give us Kashmir first before we become friends. Let’s hope India sometime soon gets this desperate to earn our friendship. But bad news is India has not shown any such appetite yet and it’s unforeseeable in near future.

How absurdity rules us and defines our everyday polemics may still be better understood by just two recent incidents. One, a woman parliamentarian complained of sexual harassment at the hands of her party leader and offered to provide proofs from her phone’s text messages. In any civilised society, it’s a grave allegation worthy of attention and investigation. Unfortunately, what dominated in our national discourse over this in electronic and print media was the suspicion on ‘why did she take so long to come up with this allegation’.

Then, early this week, the Chief Commissioner of Islamabad informed the Federal Minister of Interior that Rangers, a paramilitary force, had taken over the premises of accountability court without civil administration’s permission and had barred anyone including media persons to enter the court, where the former prime minister had appeared for trial. When the minister reached the court to resolve the situation, he too faced humiliation from the deployed force there which interestingly reports to him. Elsewhere, this would have been taken as an awful insubordination if not revolt. In our la-la land, what most of media and so-called analysts were worried about was ‘why did a minister have to go there?’ and not over the fact that Rangers had not only got itself deployed without an order from civil administration, but also humiliated its civilian boss.

The list of our absurdities is duly contributed by our judiciary, military, government, and people and it is too long to be presented here. But the regrettable outcome of rendering ourselves as ‘Absurdistan’ is that despite whatever is fed to masses through controlled media and strangulation of dissenting voices, the world is not even distantly eager to buy our twisted narratives and take us for a cherished people and the country.



The writer is a sociologist with interest in history and politics. He tweets @Zulfirao1 and is accessible at zulfirao@yahoo.com





Published in Daily Times, October 5th 2017.

 

[Khafee]

In Pakistan people don't post from mental asylums, but on PDF we have you.

 

[Winchester]

Absurdity right!!!

Can you believe it the National Assembly of Pakistan is going to pass a bill in the coming week that will allow sale of silencers for guns right after the worst gun massacre in Pakistan's history...

Oh that is the U.S. Congress !!!

Or 30% of Republicans wanting to bomb the non-existent country of Agrabah.

What is most absurd for a country is electing Donald Trump..... Nothing can top that !

 

[CriticalThought]

More hand wringing by a liberal democracy apologist. Labeling matters as absurd by treating them out of context and through a biased lens. Petty journalism that doesn't deserve to be given the effort to discredit it because it is a discredit to itself.

 

[YeBeWarned]

In Pakistan police can shoot black people and get away with it ... Ops it was USA

 

[war&peace]

@Syed.Ali.Haider in your country people have started worshipping the mass-murderer and made a temple for him...What do you say about that?

 

[El Sidd]

sounds legit........

 

[The Eagle]

The world only buys what it wants to hear. For mere reference, read what happened in Iraq but still, none apologized despite the truth came out by Tony Blair, speaking of the same as such, there are so many worlds as per own needs, interests and wishes so it is impossible to please them all. However, we do not sell our narratives but present it straight though, world being so deluded (the specific world of one's need), doesn't get it as it seems impossible for them in these times of lies and deceit.

Then speaking of control media, none questioned that how such warfare pushed many countries to disaster with a pre-planned injected narrative. However, I do agree that whatever is being told about Pakistan is not what we are but this controlled media (remember that Pakistan lacks propaganda machine badly) by stake holders actually creating the wrong trend. Author wasn't clear that who controls the media for which, we have been saying that whatever the media tells, is not the truth about Pakistan but we are far better than many.

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Pakistan isn’t banana republic, it’s absurdistan

What is your views on "ZOG"?


Zionist Occupation Government, Zionist Occupational Government, or Zionist Occupied Government (abbreviated as ZOG) is an antisemitic conspiracy theory that claims "Jewish agents" secretly control the governments of Western states.[1][2] Other variants such as "Jewish occupational government" are sometimes used.[3]

 

[VCheng]

As if the predictably absurd responses above were not enough to reinforce the point, here is another look at the issue, applied both to the microcosm here as well as the whole called Pakistan:

https://www.dawn.com/news/1361932/the-powers-that-be

The powers that be
Faisal Bari October 06, 2017


BORROWING from the example that Kaushik Basu uses in one of his books: imagine that the mother of the prime minister applies for an electricity or gas connection. Imagine that she is told to wait for a few months till it is her turn to get the connection. If the prime minister decides that he or she should not intervene and lets the matter proceed in the way it is supposed to, without strings being pulled, how would our society view him or her?

A lot of people will think that the prime minister is weak and ineffective: if his/her mother cannot be helped, then how can I be helped? And how can the prime minister govern effectively and make tough decisions?

Power is usually defined in relation to someone i.e. power over someone. It can be persuasive or coercive or both. But there is another way of thinking about power. It is about the ability to defy rules, norms and laws, the ability to not only get away with it but to also signal one’s level of ‘power’. So, defiance is not shown in private or while hiding from the law and society. It is shown, most often, in public with the intention of expressing one’s power and ensuring that all and sundry can see it.

Do we need a convoy of 30 to 40 cars when our prime minister or his family members move in public space? Is it all a security requirement? A few cars might be. But 30 odd cars? Surely not. They are actually a show of power to impress all.

Do police cars, whether or not on official duty, have to defy the traffic rules? Again, clearly not. They are not supposed to do that except in an emergency. But, more often than not, you will see police department cars defying traffic laws. And not only do they defy the rules, they think it is the right thing to do as well as they are members of law enforcement. Reminds one of the dialogue from Judge Dredd: “I never broke the law. I am the law!”

Even institutions have started behaving in this manner in Pakistan. Laws are being drawn up in ways that can be used to show the power of the institution rather than to regulate an area effectively or facilitate certain legitimate activities of citizens.

People who have registered not-for-profit companies under the Companies Act have been asked to have the registration renewed every five years. One wonders why this is needed and why it applies only to not-for-profits, but so be it: the state feels it needs to re-verify everything about a company from scratch every five years even though they get quarterly and yearly updates from each company, but, again, so be it.

What, in fact, might be of more interest is that the Security Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP), the regulator of the corporate sector, requires the interior ministry to give clearance before it can renew the registration of a not-for-profit firm. This has clearly been done with security and control purposes in mind.

And what is even more interesting is that SECP has not imposed, and clearly does not feel it can impose, any timeline on the clearance process from the interior ministry. So, one hears of firms that applied for the renewal of registration a couple of years ago but that are still waiting to hear back from the SECP. In some cases, the SECP has told firms in writing that their clearance is pending with the interior ministry and until they hear back from the latter, they cannot move the case forward. Informally, SECP officials have even told firms that if they have connections in the interior ministry and can get the go-ahead, they should do that.

What sort of a regulatory structure is this? Is all this necessary for security? Or is it about control? And even here is the structure efficient? By not having timelines, the door is opened for arbitrariness. And by allowing the ‘connected’ to get away with so much, power is being exercised by them, indeed, the pursuit of power itself, is being encouraged.

At a different level, and with different and much more serious consequences for individuals and families, the issue of ‘disappearances’ is also related to the exercise of power in terms of flouting the laws and impunity. People disappear; every individual in Pakistan knows that it is the law-enforcement agencies that are behind a lot of the disappearances, but there is nothing that anyone can do about it. The courts cannot do much. The political setup does not want to do anything; in any case, it, probably, can’t do much. This is power in its most naked and fearsome form: the ability to make a person disappear beyond the reach of the law, and with no recourse for redressing the situation. A true claim to absolute power — the kind of power that, in some societies, is only attributed to divinity or nature.

Children, when they want to impress parents with their increasing prowess, will drive a toy car or cycle with their hands in the air instead of being on the handles or the steering wheel and shout ‘look Mummy, no hands’. The way we use the concept of power in Pakistan seems similar. We only believe that a person or institution has power if he/it can break the laws or flout the rules and get away with doing so. And the ‘no hands’ part has to do with being able to violate the rules publicly. If democracy, the rule of law and institutions are going to evolve in the right direction in Pakistan, our notions of power and its exercise will have to undergo a radical change as well.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives and an associate professor of economics at Lums, Lahore.

Published in Dawn, October 6th, 2017

 

[untitled]

Originally the term banana republic was used for countries in South America. If anyone wants to associate Pakistani democracy with in any fruit I would prefer it to be mangoes.

Mango Republic sounds better

 

[Azadkashmir]

Originally the term banana republic was used for Countries in South America. If anyone wants to associate Pakistani democracy with in any fruit I would prefer it to mangoes.

Mango Republic sounds better

naswar republic is nice too.

 

[El Sidd]

Good to see people sarcastically thrashing lundai ka tarek fateh and sasta hussain haqqani @Syed.Ali.Haider on this thread

They should all move to Puerto Rico and enjoy the fruits of democracy.

 

[Areesh]

They should all move to Puerto Rico and enjoy the fruits of democracy.

And catch toilet papers.

 

[VCheng]

Along the same veins of absurdity:

https://www.dawn.com/news/1361777/no-room-for-the-truth

No room for the truth
I.A. Rehman Updated October 05, 2017



The lover of the wine cup who blurts out the truth in a state of abandon is better than the jurisconsult who seeks refuge in expediency.
— Zafar Ali Khan

MUCH water has flown under the bridge, assuming that what flows into the Ravi these days is water, since Khawaja Asif began to be lambasted for speaking truthfully about some of the problems that involvement in the Afghanistan conflict has saddled Pakistan with. This is not surprising. Indeed, it only confirms Bulleh Shah’s axiom that when the truth is out, a commotion must follow.

What is surprising, and quite painful, is the fact that not many people have had the courage to speak in support of the foreign minister. Barring a couple of rational comments, the media overwhelmingly joined the chorus of calumny. While the minister’s party members chose to discover the virtues of silence, the opposition stalwarts jumped at the opportunity to play to the gallery. The Foreign Office’s clarification that the minister’s statement had been quoted out of context amounted to denying him credit for being honest.

The affair will sooner or later be superseded by another meaningless controversy. What should not be forgotten is the bitter reality that the habit of denial has found a permanent place in the minds of Pakistanis.

The terrible consequences of living in denial are well known. By denying a fact that is known to many, if not to everyone, you invite being called a knave or a liar, or both. Worse, persistent denial will more often than not convince you that the problem is not real. And you cannot try to solve a problem if you believe that it does not exist. Subsequently, you may become aware of your mistake, but by then, the issue might have become insolvable or the cost of setting matters right unaffordable.

This is also what has happened in the case of Balochistan. Persistent refusal to see the real causes of discontent in that province from the point of view of its people, and attempts to force the latter to sing patriotic songs under the shadow of bayonets, have made all parties sink deeper and deeper into despair. A fair settlement of Balochistan’s grievances that seemed possible 40 years ago has been made almost impossible by preferring falsehood to the truth.

There is, however, a need to take up with Khawaja Asif the question of the manner in which the truth, especially of the unwelcome variety, can be told most effectively. He is known for speaking in unnecessarily high tones and often off the cuff. This style won’t help him as foreign ministers are expected to be firm without appearing to be unreasonable. They should be able to convey the most bitter of messages after coating it with sugar. The reason is obvious: truth’s hardest blows will have no effect on those steeped in falsehood, whereas a persuasive rendering of the truth can at least make the other party reflect on what it has been told.

But where does a Pakistani politician acquire the art of speaking persuasively? Unfortunately, our party platforms have become notorious for being used only to abuse rivals, and our legislatures are rarely treated to insightful speeches that could command the respect of both friend and critic. It is difficult for anyone to pick up the finer points of parliamentary oratory if assembly proceedings are reduced to the glorification of one’s own labours and the demonisation of the other. It is necessary — not only for the pleasure of listening to a finely worded address but also for making democratic norms stronger — that parliamentary debates be made thematically richer and the scope of discussion extended to include whatever is relevant.

Maybe, the Pakistan Institute for Parliamentary Services should do something in this regard. This useful institution has attracted notice with the latest issue of its periodical publication, Parliamentary Research Digest, for July-August 2017.

The slim newsletter tells us of an event described as parliamentary dialogue on ‘youth building peace’ held on Aug 8 this year. The participants included members of parliament, academics, diplomats and students from 25 universities and colleges from different parts of the country. Making our youth familiar with parliament’s working is a sound method of deepening democracy. In fact, there is much to be said for taking all students on the opening day of each academic year to a national or local hero’s monument, a democratic institution (from union council office to provincial assembly to parliament) and/or a historical/ anthropological museum. Children should start learning about their identity, their history and democratic governance as early in life as possible.

The next feature is a recollection of the proceedings of the constituent assembly of Pakistan on Aug 10, 11 and 12, 1947, including the Quaid’s historic address on being elected president of the assembly. This is followed by the report of a function held on Aug 10-11, 2017, to celebrate parliament as Pakistan turned 70. Finally, one finds a refreshing though preliminary paper on ‘gender-responsive budgeting’, a subject that is most relevant to Pakistan and yet very rarely discussed. The writer offers us useful examples of how the subject is addressed in Australia, South Africa, Sri Lanka and India.

In a country where state institutions seldom win approval for their labours, this institution deserves to be commended. And that is why it is asked to develop as rich as possible a library of books, videos and films on parliamentary practices where our legislators could, individually and collectively, equip themselves with the means of making their debates livelier, informative and educative and thus advance the conventions of democracy more effectively. They will help make the truth more palatable and also establish a tradition of facing it squarely.

Published in Dawn, October 5th, 2017