An Open Letter to Civil Society
Dear Members of Civil Society,
Writing this letter to you kind of puts me in a moral dilemma. I, with all honesty and sincerity, think that terms like Civil Society are discriminatory and are a miniature of the concept of Brahmanization in which educated elite classes (Lawyers, Journalists, Students etc) try to set the agenda for the rest of the nation and want the nation to abide by it. It is not the setting of agenda that bothers me. These are the hijacking tendencies of Civil Society that are troubling me. It is this sense of superiority in which one takes the whole moral authority to define what is right or what is wrong for Pakistan is what I have problem with. So just when I am someone who refuses to accept that there is any role of "Civil Society" in any democracy, my dilemma is that gravity of the issues facing us makes me right to you all who bracket yourselves as "Civil Society".
Secondly, let me confess that I actually have high regard for quite a few individuals who have been part of this "Civil Society" for their contribution in one field or the other. But this is precisely my problem with the notion of "Civil Society". It hinges on the fact that some people because of their experience, pedigree or education are more qualified to set the agenda for the rest and their belief in democracy requires that people should make choices from a set of options provided to them from the organs of "Civil Society". More importantly, the record of "Civil Society" in identifying the problems and putting workable solutions is miserable to say the least. Needless to say, with exception of a handful, majority of you were opposed to taking part in elections which are now hailed by you as a vote for your cause.
I am in US for last few months and living here makes one realize how easy it is to confuse being literate with being knowledgeable and this my friends is the biggest issue you need to look into. The illusion that I know because I have read or have watched it on TV is the biggest threat that liberal democracy faces around the world globally. It is very easy to fall in the trap of I know it all by reading an article, watching a TV report or even worse reading a book. So, my friends, I just want to caution you in this regard. Fortunately or unfortunately, all the access to information is no substitute to folk wisdom, living in ground realities or something simply called commonsense.
What also bothers me is the role that press reporters have taken. Instead of being mere reporters of the news events, they have assumed the role of opinion makers. We, as a society, need to define whether the media (both print and electronic) be curtailed to a source of information only or should it be given the role of opinion formation on issues on which we as a nation are still divided. I see this as a tool for exploitation and believe that going too far on this path will restrict choices and will take all objectivity out of democratic decision making. We, by the grace of God, have been successful in protecting our democratic will intact, despite all odds, because majority of us either did not listen to media or has decided not to be influenced by it.
That brings me to the couple of issues that are hottest with you, i.e. judiciary and end to Musharraf rule. Following are my positions on both the issues and I would want the collective will of people of Pakistan manifested through democratic process set the agenda in this regard.
I am proud to be part of the movement for restoration of chief justice. I was present both times he visited Lahore during his illegal and unlawful suspension. And to me even now, I want Iftikhar Chaudhary the person back as CJP. But few things bother me about the demand for restoration of pre-November 3 judiciary and the extreme positions that few people have taken in this regard. First, among deposed judges are judges with strong political and ideological affiliations and the judges who have served on NAB courts in the "fullest sense of duty". I can never support the judges writing dissenting notes on cases like Saima Waheed. For me what is more important is to have a judiciary which does not take decisions on personal or ideological biases than restoring X,Y,Z or even Mr. Chaudhary. It is more important to have a fair system of appointment of judges than focus on individuals. Secondly, I will prefer being cautious going too far with the notion of judicial independence. No sane person can disagree that courts should be free and independent. But keeping in view the centrality of bench in the nexus of establishment in the past, I will be a little reluctant to give it sweeping powers or trust. Keep in mind, we let the power and trust of Army build farther and farther in the name of "Strong Defense" and look at the monster we have at our hands today. My fear is, with the notion of "Independent Judiciary", the potential of it being the check on will of people cannot be ruled out. It might just be a little realignment in the ranks of the establishment. Forth, right now when the political classes of Pakistan are in intense bargain with establishment for restoration of constitution and parliament, a call for protests against them will weaken them in this bargain. Any sane head will agree that supremacy of constitution and parliament remain paramount than being stuck in the past. Fifth, I am appalled when people try to bully political parties for restoration of judges, just when except PML-N, all other parties winning either never had a clear position on judiciary or opposed restoration outright. So, in all honesty, even if all who voted N voted for judiciary, minority voted for restoration of judiciary. It appalls me even more when people whose boycott call has fallen flat on its face (with the second largest turn out), try to become champions of public opinion.
And that brings me to the second issue - the issue of Musharraf. For me, no individual mattered in politics more than Benazir Bhutto. She remained the only political figure who inspired me. I strongly believe that Musharraf is responsible for Benazir's killing at least for the sheer negligence that he showed and may be a lot more. For this, I detest him even more than I even did. So for me, ideally he should go. But if ever I have a choice of retaining Musharraf while weakening establishment, I am ready to swallow this pill. He has become a lame duck anyways. Let us keep working for throwing him out but not at the cost of strengthening the establishment.
Let us not be bracketed as something elitist as civil society. Let us all rely on the collective wisdom of the people of Pakistan and bow to it. And please please please, let us not bully others when we do not have the mandate for it. Collective wisdom of a nation is like hedging in the financial markets, and no individual stock or fund, no matter how sophisticated, can outperform the collective returns of the market over a longer period of time.
May Allah bless us in every possible way.
Sincerely,
Ali
Writing this letter to you kind of puts me in a moral dilemma. I, with all honesty and sincerity, think that terms like Civil Society are discriminatory and are a miniature of the concept of Brahmanization in which educated elite classes (Lawyers, Journalists, Students etc) try to set the agenda for the rest of the nation and want the nation to abide by it. It is not the setting of agenda that bothers me. These are the hijacking tendencies of Civil Society that are troubling me. It is this sense of superiority in which one takes the whole moral authority to define what is right or what is wrong for Pakistan is what I have problem with. So just when I am someone who refuses to accept that there is any role of "Civil Society" in any democracy, my dilemma is that gravity of the issues facing us makes me right to you all who bracket yourselves as "Civil Society".
Secondly, let me confess that I actually have high regard for quite a few individuals who have been part of this "Civil Society" for their contribution in one field or the other. But this is precisely my problem with the notion of "Civil Society". It hinges on the fact that some people because of their experience, pedigree or education are more qualified to set the agenda for the rest and their belief in democracy requires that people should make choices from a set of options provided to them from the organs of "Civil Society". More importantly, the record of "Civil Society" in identifying the problems and putting workable solutions is miserable to say the least. Needless to say, with exception of a handful, majority of you were opposed to taking part in elections which are now hailed by you as a vote for your cause.
I am in US for last few months and living here makes one realize how easy it is to confuse being literate with being knowledgeable and this my friends is the biggest issue you need to look into. The illusion that I know because I have read or have watched it on TV is the biggest threat that liberal democracy faces around the world globally. It is very easy to fall in the trap of I know it all by reading an article, watching a TV report or even worse reading a book. So, my friends, I just want to caution you in this regard. Fortunately or unfortunately, all the access to information is no substitute to folk wisdom, living in ground realities or something simply called commonsense.
What also bothers me is the role that press reporters have taken. Instead of being mere reporters of the news events, they have assumed the role of opinion makers. We, as a society, need to define whether the media (both print and electronic) be curtailed to a source of information only or should it be given the role of opinion formation on issues on which we as a nation are still divided. I see this as a tool for exploitation and believe that going too far on this path will restrict choices and will take all objectivity out of democratic decision making. We, by the grace of God, have been successful in protecting our democratic will intact, despite all odds, because majority of us either did not listen to media or has decided not to be influenced by it.
That brings me to the couple of issues that are hottest with you, i.e. judiciary and end to Musharraf rule. Following are my positions on both the issues and I would want the collective will of people of Pakistan manifested through democratic process set the agenda in this regard.
I am proud to be part of the movement for restoration of chief justice. I was present both times he visited Lahore during his illegal and unlawful suspension. And to me even now, I want Iftikhar Chaudhary the person back as CJP. But few things bother me about the demand for restoration of pre-November 3 judiciary and the extreme positions that few people have taken in this regard. First, among deposed judges are judges with strong political and ideological affiliations and the judges who have served on NAB courts in the "fullest sense of duty". I can never support the judges writing dissenting notes on cases like Saima Waheed. For me what is more important is to have a judiciary which does not take decisions on personal or ideological biases than restoring X,Y,Z or even Mr. Chaudhary. It is more important to have a fair system of appointment of judges than focus on individuals. Secondly, I will prefer being cautious going too far with the notion of judicial independence. No sane person can disagree that courts should be free and independent. But keeping in view the centrality of bench in the nexus of establishment in the past, I will be a little reluctant to give it sweeping powers or trust. Keep in mind, we let the power and trust of Army build farther and farther in the name of "Strong Defense" and look at the monster we have at our hands today. My fear is, with the notion of "Independent Judiciary", the potential of it being the check on will of people cannot be ruled out. It might just be a little realignment in the ranks of the establishment. Forth, right now when the political classes of Pakistan are in intense bargain with establishment for restoration of constitution and parliament, a call for protests against them will weaken them in this bargain. Any sane head will agree that supremacy of constitution and parliament remain paramount than being stuck in the past. Fifth, I am appalled when people try to bully political parties for restoration of judges, just when except PML-N, all other parties winning either never had a clear position on judiciary or opposed restoration outright. So, in all honesty, even if all who voted N voted for judiciary, minority voted for restoration of judiciary. It appalls me even more when people whose boycott call has fallen flat on its face (with the second largest turn out), try to become champions of public opinion.
And that brings me to the second issue - the issue of Musharraf. For me, no individual mattered in politics more than Benazir Bhutto. She remained the only political figure who inspired me. I strongly believe that Musharraf is responsible for Benazir's killing at least for the sheer negligence that he showed and may be a lot more. For this, I detest him even more than I even did. So for me, ideally he should go. But if ever I have a choice of retaining Musharraf while weakening establishment, I am ready to swallow this pill. He has become a lame duck anyways. Let us keep working for throwing him out but not at the cost of strengthening the establishment.
Let us not be bracketed as something elitist as civil society. Let us all rely on the collective wisdom of the people of Pakistan and bow to it. And please please please, let us not bully others when we do not have the mandate for it. Collective wisdom of a nation is like hedging in the financial markets, and no individual stock or fund, no matter how sophisticated, can outperform the collective returns of the market over a longer period of time.
May Allah bless us in every possible way.
Sincerely,
Ali
Comments
But then why is Aitzaz Ahsun, a PPP loyalist, being so vocal and clear at the restoration issue and insisting on showing Musharaf the 'exit door' if there are more important issues to cater?