| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| 'Nasty, brutish and short...' |
| 2009-09-14 |
| The war in Swat and some other areas may have been won but as a polity and a citizenry, we have spent very little time reflecting upon the deep-down reasons why there is so much strife in Pakistan. The obvious direct or reasons are, of course, discussed, for without them there cannot be even a superficial understanding of any issue. We do talk, for example, about how the rise of the Taliban can be explained by the role played by this country's spy agencies, other countries' policies vis-Ã -vis Afghanistan or Pakistan's own notions of 'strategic depth' etc. And the role played by madrassahs, large-scale illiteracy, economic depravation and related issues. Nevertheless, these explanations fail to touch upon anything other than the specific case of the Taliban, and the immediacy of this particular issue. In terms of strife in Pakistan, what we need is to identify the links between, say, the Taliban and street-criminals, kidnappers for ransom and citizens' riots, dacoits and food adulterators. Taken together, such evidence of the defiance of the rule of law are what underpin the frequent lament one hears of the fraying social order in the country. So, what are the links between the apparently disparate forms of illegality referred to above? Some answers can be found in political philosophy and anthropology, particularly in Thomas Hobbes' theory of social contract. At its most simplified, the 17th century English philosopher's theory was that without a political government, mankind would have existed in a 'natural state' which consisted of a war of every man against everybody else -- against all competitors for resources. Hobbes' 'state of nature' refers to what human society would look like without government: '[. . .] every man is enemy to every man [. . .] wherein men live without other security than what their own strength, and their own invention, shall furnish them withall. [. . .] continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.' In such a state, he postulated, each person would have the right or the licence to everything in the world, inevitably leading to conflict -- war of all against all, and thus lives that are nasty, brutish and short. To escape this perpetual strife, he theorised, men accede to a social contract and establish a civil society -- defined by Hobbes as a population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede certain natural rights for the sake of protection. In other words, free men establish a political community -- a civil society -- through a social contract in which they gain civil rights in return for subjecting themselves to civil law or political authority. Abuses of power on part of this authority are accepted as the price of that peace, though Hobbes also explains that in case of the severe abuse of this power, rebellion by society can be expected. His 1651 book 'Leviathan', in which Hobbes laid out these theories, bore a title-page adorned with an engraving that has become famous over the subsequent centuries: from behind some hills overlooking a landscape towers the body of a crowned giant, that is itself constituted of tiny human figures. It was written during the English Civil War, and much of the book occupies itself by demonstrating the need for a strong central authority to avoid discord and civil war. It views the State as a great artificial man or monster -- a Leviathan -- composed of individual men, but at the same time also raises the question of the subject's right to change allegiance when a former sovereign power to protect is irrecoverably lost. Thomas Hobbes was followed by John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in developing the principles of contractarianism, which later formed the backbone of theories of democracy. The idea of social contract tries to explain the way people gather themselves into states and/or maintain social order, with people giving up some rights to a government or other authority -- which could even be a tribal chief, in the context of Pakistan's north -- in order to maintain social order through the rule of law. The idea of social contract became central to the notion, now associated with 'democracy', that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. What light does all this throw on the situation in Pakistan? Well, the social contract theory postulates that the civil rights it bestows are neither 'natural rights' nor permanent. In fact, the contract is a means towards an end: the benefit of all. Locke and Rousseau, in fact, argued that the social contract is legitimate only to the extent that it meets the general interest. Since civil rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who choose to violate their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, abdicate their rights and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself by punishing outlaws for violating the terms of the contract: seen this way, society works by 'mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon.' On the other hand, when failings develop in the contract, people renegotiate through methods such as elections and the legislature to change the terms. In case the contract led to tyranny, Locke theorised upon the citizenry's right of rebellion. The right of rebellion refers, in political philosophy, to the right or duty (variously stated through human history) inherent in the subjects of a state that would justify their action to overthrow the government to whom the subjects otherwise owe allegiance. There are indications of this in Islamic thought, where in case of a conflict, allegiance to divine laws takes precedence over man-made laws. And in Europe, the right of revolution can be found in the Magna Carta charter of 1215, that required the King to renounce certain rights and accept that his will could be bound by the law. It also included a security clause that gave the right to a committee of barons to overrule the will of the king through force if necessary. It was this charter that directly influenced the development of parliamentary democracy -- such as that in Pakistan -- and many documents such as the US constitution. What is happening in Pakistan can be understood on one level through the idea of a social contract, which is in many ways collapsing in the country. We agreed to be ruled by the state and its government, in return for gaining certain civil liberties and protections: protection of our lives, livelihoods, properties and rights; the right to economic and educational opportunity, health care and equality under the eyes of the law; the freedom to live in dignity and prosperity. These requirements are hardly even nominally met in a country where institutional inadequacies have become the norm, shortages of all sorts are a part of daily life and where the price of the lives of most citizens is hardly worth mentioning. The social contract can scarcely be said to be being met in a country characterised by gross inequality and the criminal negligence of citizens' rights. Postscript: The term 'Commonwealth' comes from the full title of Thomas Hobbes' book: 'Leviathan, or the Matter, Forme, and Power of A Common Wealth, Ecclesiasticall and Civil.' -- hajrahmumtaz@gmail.com |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #4 REDDIT > GLOBALIZATION [ee OWG-NWO] AND THE AMERICAN WORKER: SETTING UP A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-09-14 23:16 |
| #3 The obvious problem in all Muslim states is that allegiance to religion takes precedence over allegiance to the state. And in Pakistan tribal areas allegiance to the tribe takes precedence over both. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2009-09-14 07:12 |
| #2 It ain't Locke, Hajrah dear boy, it's Darwin. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2009-09-14 02:36 |
| #1 I thought you meant my lawyer... |
| Posted by: mojo 2009-09-14 02:28 |