Since the protests in Tunisia and Egypt began, many have celebrated the power to the people, the expression of opinions and the impending change. All of that, to a large degree, makes sense. Tunisia and Egypt have had oppressive regimes and the gentleman at the helm of affairs in Egypt has outlived many of our dictators. Hosni Mubarik is insisting that he will not stop serving the people whereas the people seem to have had enough of his service. His humility has been on full display while he has been ordering for the tanks to be rolled out. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt must definitely be rubbings its hands with glee and their agenda (whatever little is known of it so far) can legitimately worry policy makers and leaders in the West. But, for now, everyone is supportive of the stand against years of oppression.
Many in Pakistan though are going a little overboard with their comparisons and the associated linkages with matters here at home. There is no shortage of people who are issuing warnings and indeed hoping that we are next. This leaves me profoundly worried. What sort of change or revolution do these people want in Pakistan? Altaf Hussain clearly sees no difference between a peoples uprising and calling on the military to take over again. Journalists who have built their careers supporting the establishment or a conservative Pakistan are now warning politicians to expect another Egypt/Tunisia. Democracy is a weak child in Pakistan and is just learning to walk. Over the years, the Pakistan Army and now the Taliban have been bullying it. But we, the people, need to look after our child.
Electricity or gas will not be more readily available if there is a revolution, neither will it be cheaper. Inflation will not end and our problems will not automatically be solved by lynching our elected office holders. But pressurising our representatives to pay greater heed to Balochistans concerns and the disillusionment caused by the Punjabisation of Pakistan might help. The hard fact is that we are neither Tunisia nor Egypt. For all our failings, we have political parties that can legitimately claim to represent the interests of people spread throughout the Federation. You can call those leaders bad policy makers, often corrupt and myopic but you cannot accuse the civilian leadership of Pakistan (barring the MQM) from running a system based on fear and oppression.
We have a relatively free press and, even though a free media is not necessarily a fair media, it does have the power to create awareness and put politicians on the spot and cause embarrassment. You and I have the power to hold our politicians accountable and that is something we did for the entire world to see in the last elections. The power to vote people out rests with us and we need to focus on that rather than heed the calls for overthrowing the system.
There is many a thing that is wrong with this system but whose responsibility is it to change it? Furthermore, every movement is a work of interpretation regarding what is important to/for those for whom you purportedly act. Who decides that an improvement of the system is a less viable alternative than a new system? What on earth will we replace the existing system with? Raising the slogan of a new system is a burden always easier to discharge than working within the system.
Since the electronic media sees itself as being outside the system of public opinion, public pressure, ballot and re-election, it seems to have taken it upon itself to infuse our lives with the discourse of revolution. They see flaws with the system and paint it as too corrupt and hence too conservative to provide the change that we need. But we are better off settling our disputes within this framework rather than without. More importantly, our issues/problems have a better chance of being solved by institutions that we can ultimately hold accountable. Will it take time? Yes. But here is how I see it: a delay in achieving results isn’t necessarily fatal here, but haste might very well be.
Imagine three cars speeding down the road; one each driven by a politician, a journalist and a mighty judge. If you’re trying to cross the road, only one of these drivers will stop at your signal. The other two don’t really give a toss whether they run you over or cause damage. Well, the journalist might step down and take photos to grab a story. The judge might use the opportunity to write a judgment on contributory negligence. But your preservation is not their concern. They aren’t really looking whether you’re there or not since they don’t have to. In fact, they couldn’t care less. And that one driver who cares? It is the (often) semi-educated, opportunistic, god-awful politician; but he is your man to count on for change. Do not allow anyone to make you believe otherwise.
The writer is a Barrister of Lincolns Inn and practices in Lahore. He has a special interest in anti-trust/competition law. He can be reached at [email protected]
