Here we are, new powers in play, throwing down the gauntlet
The die has been cast, and Caesar has decided to cross the Rubicon and confront the Pompey in the very citadel of power. A million shall march onto the city of elites and snatch away the lamp incarcerating the genie distributing wealth, and be the lords of their own destiny. All that makes for an enthralling story but for a small fault in the plan – there is no plan.
If democracy were a rule of the majority, and utilitarianism the collective good of the most numbers, then there is no bigger a farce than allowing a million or two, or even ten to topple the government voted in elections with quite a decent turnout and in a historically transparent manner. The immediate fact that Caesar refuses to acknowledge the credibility of people after having trusted them with his life and liberty, Musharraf and Iftikhar et al, raises doubts about his ability to judge a person’s character.
Is there then no space forspeculation that the cohort Caesar is leading could potentially be hiding a Brutus or two?
But there are bigger lessons to be invoked here than any potential attempt at empire building or a plausible hijacking attempt at any stage. The lessons that have been manifested in very short history of this land demonstrate that when the politicians choose to challenge the rule of the majority, either a Bangladesh is created or a Zia-ul-Haq adorns the pulpit.
Given our precarious history, and the repeated nihilistic ventures to serve the personal interests of individuals and institutions alike, one needs to have been circumspect about such showmanship to prove a point. Riding the tide of popular politics, many a statesman has been led astray. Caesar, for all his faults, would not fancy being counted amidst undemocratic instruments.
Given our precarious history, and the repeated nihilistic ventures to serve the personal interests of individuals and institutions alike, one needs to have been circumspect about such showmanship to prove a point.
No matter the criticism heaped upon Pompey, accusing him of lethargy and indifference, he proved that patience can bear fruits that no amount of political rhetoric could yield. And yet here we are, new powers in play throwing down the gauntlet. What is amiss is the understanding of history and the political acumen that which should have guided the gait, thereby compelling hasty decisions and thus wrong moves inplenitudes.
Ambition is an extremely desirable quality when bridled by proprietary, but leave it uncontrolled and it can serve to stand the holder in decidedly bad stead. This dilemma should not have been lost on Caesar, himself privy to the fall of a democratic government as well as a dictator in his long stint as a politician. Unfortunately, the lust for being in a position of authority compels the otherwise reasonable head to shun the same.
Let there be no bones about the fact that if the government is toppled merely a year into its constitutional stint, this would be the initiation of a musical chair of governance, and the return to the repugnant politics of 1990s. The army may, or may not, depending of course on its mood and the personal whims of the generals, usurp power. But civil-military imbalance would once again become conspicuous in its tilt towards the armed forces. The generals currently engaged in a reputation building exercise in the shape of a deadly war would attain the moral high ground.
There is not much debate about what follows. If the institutional head does not assume the role of the king himself, he becomes a veritable kingmaker, shaping the national policy and important security and defence paradigms in shadows.
Let there be no bones about the fact that if the government is toppled merely a year into its constitutional stint, this would be the initiation of a musical chair of governance, and the return to the repugnant politics of 1990s.
That Caesar would not enjoy being a puppet leader, despite his popularity and struggle, is not hard to construe. Why then are all the pains being taken to oust the government firmly in place, when the same efforts could much easily have been expended in ridding the Gaul of Gallic dissidents, and establishing a system of governance that would have been a subject of envy for the rest of the Roman Republic? The victor of Gaul, after all, has all the resources at his disposal to vindicate his statesmanship. The difficulty of the task should have only served to make the desire to succeed fervent.
It is not to state that agitation of any sorts is bad, but a confrontational politics which challenges the actual writ, giving legitimacy to one’s own existence, could only be internecine. The advisors of the great orator would do him a great service by reminding him of the dictates of history, and by dawning upon him the possible consequences of his acts. What lies ahead is a perilous path which can easily lead to fall of the structure built by years of persistence and tolerance.
A better alternative would be to resort to more compromising standpoints, and go from one to another, in incremental steps. As is evident from French, Russian and Iranian revolutions, progress made in revolutions is ephemeral, easily reversible due to cultural lag (the society’s reluctance to redefine its own structures quickly enough). The evolution handily beats any revolutionary advances. Too ambitious a plan leads one nowhere.