Fruits with out roots, Appalling Writer Friend, Help The Word, Valid Argument, Critics Are The Vacuum-Creator, Points To Ponder, Modus Ponendo Ponens, Modus Tollens & POLITICAL SYSTEMS In Pakistan

Fruits with out roots, Appalling Writer Friend, Help The Word, Valid Argument, Critics Are The Vacuum-Creator, Points To Ponder, Modus Ponendo Ponens, Modus Tollens & POLITICAL SYSTEMS In Pakistan By Dr. Sohail Ansari

Conceived and worded by DR Sohail Ansari (originality of concepts and originality of words).

He believes that there can never be a zero scope for improvement and appreciates criticism if it is not for the sake of criticism.

(Emotional disorder is the inability to maintain the equated polarity or balance out personal polarities in conducting life; therefore, it is not a question of being out of tune with one’s culture so much as it is of being out of tune with one self.)

Fruits with out roots

·       A paradigm shift has occurred and has reversed the principle of sequencing. We can have the fruits with out the roots. One can with truncated character base lubricate social interactions with personality techniques. We do not need to like ourselves to like others as we have no self of our own. Ingredients we put in relationship are not what we are, but what we say; and these words of ours spring from shallow personality character ethic. We no longer build relationship inside ourselves; therefore, we no longer have enduring productive relationships with other people.

Your writer friend may be appalling

·        Choosing an author as you choose a friend is really good; however, you must be appalled if you do not know by the ironies appear to be marking the life of your writer friend as you see that insights of his into life are not evident in his every day life that fiction of a writer can not reflect its own creator, if the author had no insensitivity but only imagination to open the doors of life.

Help the word

·        The word revolutionary is becoming increasingly threadbare. Every invention is said to be the herald of a new era. We must help this word reclaim its former glory: invention can not be epoch-making unless it renders the realities of a recent past today’s metaphors.   

Valid argument

(Valid argument can be the one in which the premise entails the conclusion, however, this does not mean the conclusion has to be true, it is only true if the premises are true, which may not be. Furthermore, argument used as the rhetorical device can be taken in a literal sense to make a mockery of it.)

·        ‘I am the recipient of a sound bite lately. ‘Either we are all doomed or we are all saved’. We are not all saved every one of you knows it; therefore, we are all doomed. I wonder how we having met our doom, hearing each other.

Critics are the vacuum-creator

·        Critics are the scholarly antagonist of theories, thus become the focal point of the relative demise of those same theories with in their discipline with out the capability of producing any on their own.

Points to ponder

·        Middle class__ a class apart__  is born when men in society not belonging to it by the right of birth create their own society for themselves and accord to rank the deference due

·        Negotiations for public consumption follow the songs about the virtue of disarmament and conclude without even scrapping the tips of the icebergs.

·        Viewing a phenomenon as a ‘multi-layered’ occurrence can only enable researcher to bring multiple insights and perspectives to bear on the many and various issues relating to a topic and to explore the historical, legal, social, religious, economic, and political contexts, thus making the research innovative, cutting edge inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary.

Modus Ponendo Ponens (forward chaining)

(Modus ponens is the way that affirms by affirming and for modus ponens to be a sound argument the premise must be true for any true instances of the conclusion. Political marketing consultant, however, applies valid though unsound argument.)

·        ‘If one visits your town, he is your friend. I am your friend as I am visiting your town.’

(Leader must be visiting other towns as the part of an election campaign so argument is not only sound for this town, but valid for every town, therefore, reasoning is unsound.)

Modus Tollens

(In Modus tollens it is not possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false, however, political marketing consultant applies it in a way that conclusion can be wrong despite premise is true.)

·        If corruption of mine were proven, I would be arrested. I am not arrested, therefore, no corruption is proven and I am, therefore, not guilty.

(Failure to prove does not amount to no corruption and one is not arrested because one should not be is different from one can not be because of the various reasons.)

(In Modus tollens are response to the need for induction and falsificationism. It is the instrument of applying truth or falsity when things are approximation to reality.)

·       I am charged with cooking the books; I mean financial sleight of hand. All those who believe that I am capable of any such thing must know that I have no academic qualification to do so.

ZIA’S NEW POLITICAL SYSTEM:

To Zia politics was means to pursue personal gains and virtually politics was not possible in country as Pakistan had no civil society and people were poor in knowledge and in material things. Having experienced rule of Bhutto it was impossible for him to imagine that the country’s work could be done in structured political circumstances.

‘By 1985 Zia revealed his willingness to re-create the central parliament and provincial legislatures. True to Pakistan’s vice regal tradition, the president would retain the extraordinary powers enjoyed by the colonial viceroy….the president would perform the duties of both head of state and head of government.

Zia’s behavior was a direct response to the country’s stunted political process. he was as much a prisoner of the Pakistan experience as he was its judge and Jury…he did not emerge from nowhere. Zia was part of the Pakistan story, hardly its maker. He was an extension of a deeper past that intertwined with the age of the Mughals and the reign of the British Raj.

SOCIAL, CULTURAL &POLITICAL CONTEXT OF 1988

All rulers since the birth of country conscientiously nurtured vice regal traditions and in the personality of Zia viceregalism found another ally, who questioned that whether an Islamic state could also be a parliamentary democracy. 

In consequence, the public was left untutored in the kind of vigilance usually needed to hold political leaders accountable. The subsequent education of people to accept democracy through meaningful participation in their political affairs was minimal.

Large number of Pakistani even began to take elections as an exercise in intimidation, outright fraud and  largely irrelevant to their lives.

Legitimatization of the monarchical rule sanctified the submission to the head of state, thus fashioned Muslim political consciousness which was further reinforced by subjugation to colonial rule and measures of all rulers since 1947 to 1988, determining conception of the world and man’s place in it. People had been conditioned toward the non- acceptance of democracy; and not grown out of infantile dependence and irresponsibility.

Vice regal traditions had become the dominant element in social and political fabric when democracy visited Pakistan in 1988. Culturally, philosophically, psychologically Pakistan was inherently inimical to flowering of democratic ideals.

Conscientiously-crafted democratic approach on part of rulers could only wean nation off the Garden of Eden theory.  

BENAZIR GOVERNMENT (1988 TO 1990)

‘Though Benazir committed herself on assuming power to consensus building, she plotted the undermining of her opponents through non democratic means. Benazir was not unaware of the give-and-take of democratic politics, but believing in her heart of hearts that democracy was dysfunctional in her country, she set her sights on destroying her rival’

The political vacuum created by her inability to reconcile with full consequence of 1988 elections set in motion the forces that  ultimately overwhelm the country’s democratic experiment.

‘Guided by her own inner beliefs and deeply committed to the tragic memory of her idolized father, she could not deliver on her much proclaimed promises. Many continued to believe in her, in no small part because she represented a departure from the years of military rule, but her administration was not the democratic experience Pakistanis had hoped for. Benazir’s PPP was an autocratic arrangement that had never adopted democratic practices’.

On 20^th August 1990, writing in Jung, professor Husneen Kasmi said: On first December 1988, President Ishaq appointed Benazir as Prime Minster; therefore, the responsibility to strength and promote democracy became the responsibility of PPP.

 There would be no sacking if Benazir lived up to this responsibility, and tried to co exist with the opposition in Punjab and responded to the grievances of MQM in Sindh….. The attitude of PPP was in contradiction not in consonance to democratic principles. The slogan of democracy serves as rally-cry, its appeal mobilizes people; but democracy as system can only benefits people if politicians rule by justice. If parochialism, biasness, vested interest direct one’s conduct of rule, then it will unravel whole democratic process. In the history of Pakistan encroachment of authoritarianism was due to autocratic tendencies of democratically elected people. Martial law (of Zia) that led to deposing of PPP government was due to unbalanced and extreme attitude of PPP’s government, and when after 11 years PPP came into power it just proved by practicing democracy in authoritarian fashion that we learn that we do not learn from history’.

 On 23^th August 1990 Irshad Ahmed Haqni followed balanced approach held Nawaz Shrif as well responsible for the dissolution of assembly, though not absolving Benazir either. He wrote “one another chapter of the political history of Pakistan came to an end (itself) or(deliberately) ended….absence of democratic norms, and immaturity of political leadership led to political tussle. Who was responsible to what extent would be decided by history, but it is obvious that every one is guilty. PPP tried to destabilize Nawaz in Punjab; and Nazwaz did likewise in centre and other provinces. Undemocratic means were employed to destroy each other”.

On 25^th August 1990 Dr Mohammad Waseem, writing in ‘dawn’ advice PPP in his article ‘Politics of Polarization’ that ‘Similarly, the PPP leadership must do the stock taking of its own performance in government. It must appreciate the difference between public money and private money, between arbitrary rule ad institutional rule, and between state as policy and state as patronage’  

NAWAZ GOVERNMENT (1990 TO 1993):

Though Nawaz publicly vowed to follow reconciliation, not revenge, he immediately silenced Benazir when she organized a civil disobedience movement. He maintained government restrictions on public demonstration and sought to concentrate all powers in him which resulted in power struggle that doomed democracy.

BENAZIR GOVERNMENT (1993 TO 1996):

Return of Benazir to power in 1993 was seen with hope that three years in opposition must have mellowed her. No longer hobbled by the president, she was expected to deliver; it seemed almost to all that she was going to write a new and better chapter for country; and ‘most important, that ‘the country’s viceregal tradition, born in the crucible of colonialism had at long last been laid to rest.’

Benazir proved every one wrong by reverting to the more familiar Benazir of her initial tenure. The country’s economic and social plight was ignored in the struggle to retain power, and a classic example of intrigue, influence peddling, and a outright bribery ripped apart the country. ‘Democracy proved to be another empty concept as the government’s draconian measures sought to neutralize the voices of dissent. Nor could the arbitrariness of the government’s actions be justified on anything but personal grounds; the Bhuttos were engaged in a vendetta and the whole country was witness to the unleashing of nightmarish forces….intimidation and arbitrary arrest had become commonplace by the beginning of the third year of the Benazir Bhutto administration’) Ayaz Amir writing in Dawn on 7 October cited the discredited government of Benazir, asserting that ‘it was the ‘brazenness’ of the men and women ‘running the latter-day Mughal court which passes for a government of Pakistan that would have discredited a nunnery or a college of cardinals’ the writer asserted that there was not a ‘sliver of independent thinking in all the glittering array of Ms.Bhutto’s court’. And finally coming to the climax of his piece, Amir noted that the struggle had always focused on power, not the welfare of the people of Pakistan: Bhutto vs. Zia, Zia vs. Junejo, Ghulam Ishaq vs. Benazir, Ghulum Ishaq vs. Nawaz, and now Faoorq Legahri vs. Benazir, none of these ‘mighty battle’ had any relevance for the common Pakistani citizens. Nor did Ayaz Amir believed that the current National Assembly was capable of moving beyond the oratorical dimensions of the corruption issue, and he lamented Benazir’s inability to reverse course, to admit her mistakes, to clean house, and to move forthrightly to tackle the nation’s pressing business. Noting that even the Ayub and Zia government had some notion of the rules of the game, Amin charged the Benazir administration with the flouting of all established understanding, of riding ‘roughshod’ over all the conventions that had sustained Pakistani society through so many turbulent years.

NAWAZ GOVERNMENT (1997 TO 1999):

Nawaz Sharif’s PML returned to power by amassing two-third of the total vote. Nawaz’s two-thirds majority, however, had given the Prime Minster-elect a popular mandate that was aimed at reviving the parliamentary experience, Nawaz ‘respected’ this mandate by rarely appearing parliament. He anointed himself as king by passing the 14^th amendment which made him the ‘final authority in judging member’s conduct on these matters with no recourse to the judiciary or any independent authority. This amendment in effect created a dictatorship for the party leader.

Objective to have absolute rule through out country was pursed by governors rule, suspension and then paralysis of the provincial assembly, installation of anon-elected Muslim Leaguer as a de facto chief Minster not responsible to the provincial legislature to break the opposition to set up a Muslim League government.

Nawaz entered into confrontation with president and judiciary and finally he turned against the military. He dismissed the Chief of Army Staff who was then out of the country on official duty. But in the end that was Nawaz who had to go.

Examining the return of military Beena sarwar writes “how we came to this pass, it is clear that the present situation was brought about by the Nawaz’s own action, stemming from his greed for absolute power and his delusions of setting himself up as an Emperor of sorts”. On 18^th of Oct 1999 Syed Asad Ali wrote in Dawn “Democratic dictatorship of Mr Nawaz has fallen…it was the worst form of tyranny under a façade of democracy….the people of Paksitan are so disillusioned that they feel that no change could be worse than their present state.” Shahid Amin dismissed both Nawaz and Bhttuo government as dictatorship in guise of democracy “In any event, Pakistan has not had a properly functioning democracy. Instead, there has only been a democratic charade, where under a rapacious oligarchy has in reality ruled the country….. Since the ‘restoration of democracy’ for the past 14 years, this oligarchy has gone on a rampage of corruption and misrule….Many Western observers have been puzzled by the seeming paradox that the ouster of the elected government of Nawaz by the military has not produced any public protest; instead there has been a sentiment of relief and jubilation in all parts of Pakistan. The earlier ouster of Benazir had produced even greater jubilation… the reason is if this is democracy, then the people at large find little reason for attachment to it….. Many foreign observers do not understand that Pakistan has had only a sham democracy. Indeed, Nawaz was civilian dictator who had been ruling country in a highly autocratic style.”. M.H.Askari echoed similar views on 20^th of Oct 1999 in his article ‘What led to the army take over’ he writes “The government governments of Benazir and Nawaz had blatantly attempted to concentrate all powers in their hands….If there is a single factor which has impaired the working of democracy in Pakistan, it was the persistent ambition of the elected rules to centralize all powers..” Ayaz Amir appreciated army to overthrow Nawaz in his Islamabad diary on 15^th of Oct: “The army’s hand was forced. If it had not done what it did it would have stood condemned before the bar of history. The Sahrifs were wanting to do to the army what it had done to the supreme Court...so as to render it ineffective as a check on their ambitions.”

Aziz Siddiqui implied that dictatorship replaced dictatorship “To the argument that the army action is unconstitutional, undemocratic and a throwback, the people counter: was the government it replaced really democratic? Did Nawaz actions accord with Constitution? Was this rule truly in accordance with his mandate?”.               

Democracy from 1988 to 1999 was only the manifestation of the ideology of democracy. Therefore it failed to prove its efficiency, toughness, and reliance in the ideological and security field and its power to transform a non-democratic people into a democratic one. The poverty of genuine democratic living in a society, which became during democratic interval formally and constitutionally committed to democratic government equally market by the poverty of genuine democratic practices, was deeper cause of a nation, fell into the abyss of out-and-out totalitarianism in 1999. During democratic period there was gradual weakening of democracy by those elected to lead it.

Though elected through democratic means, both democratic rulers cherished to rule in an autocratic manner for indefinite period with absolute power by liquidating opponents. The Absence of strong presence of political marketing was due to absence of democracy in democracy.

Both tenures of both leaders were marked by the failure to curb inflation and maintain law and order. Economic plus physical insecurity_ the strongest ally of the latent regressive trend to go back to the Garden of Eden_ haunted everyone in democratic periods and accounted for jubilation that greeted dismissal of democratic governments. Declined in the number and quality of ads seemed as the response to general aspiration for such authoritarian system that requires only obedience, but in return offers full security.

Election campaign is launched at end of the tenure of party in office. Ruling party and party in opposition wait for time and when time comes, government highlights its achievements and parties in opposition its failure while urging voters to seek alternative. Sacking never allows that time to come. All of sudden, government is gone, and 90 days are left to run for election. Further more, when government through out its tenure remains committed to destroying opponents and opposition to do likewise; neither has anything to highlight. The ads of PPP in 1988 drew on the charisma of Z.A. Bhutto and of IJI tried to tap the resentment against Bhutto.

Benazir and Nawaz could not become the leader in their own right; and due to paucity of substance; ads of these two parties had to repeat the same ideas and due to thread bareness of substance number of ads declined. Ads are the part of election campaign, and election campaign is part of the democratic process. There was the large number of ads from PPP in 1988 ‘invoking democratic ideals’ and emphasizing ‘commitment to them’ but when democracy proved to be another empty concept in its rule, the number of them declined.

In democracy, government draws its power from people to get elected and sustain itself in power, but in Pakistan when dwindling of public support occurs not because failure of attempt to deliver but because of failure to make any such attempt, both democratic government of Benazir and Nawaz turned into Fascist state, it saw the ruthless application of power important for their survival. And when they were sacked they found themselves on desperate search of substances for ads.

Different opinions exist to approach problems. Government demonstrates through action justification of its opinion and runs media campaign to highlight the achievement of ‘this action’, thus counter opinion is countered. But if government prefers to suppress than counter dissension, then it will prefer state apparatus not media and that preference will spell the end of government itself.  As no ‘achievement of action’ exists ads have only one subject to protest the action of deposing. The non availability of subject not only reduced the number of ads but also deprived ad of any appeal.

Democracy was developed through trial and error to suit the genius of European nations. It was gradual betterment of system thought to be better alternative right from beginning to dictatorship. But in Pakistan democracy was imported system imposed on nation, and nation had to undergo the process of trial and error to indigenize it; but leaders were indifferent to practice even Western democracy let alone develop it through trial and error.

If democratic system delivered, and people found stake in it; the sense of belonging to democracy could develop, but existence of democracy as a shell, an empty concept during democratic period never allowed nation to take democracy as better alternative to dictatorship. Absence of this sense rendered people apathetic to the election and understandably to all activities associated with it.