And why they keep harming their own cause
It seems that being liberal now consists of little more than paying lip-service to gay- and transgender-rights, freedom of speech, secularism, minority rights, or some such social issue. Today’s liberals seem to have forgotten that there used to be another – more important – side to being liberal. It involved fighting for and bringing about a fairer distribution of wealth. Remember?
The last Democratic presidential primaries afforded a good way to illustrate this point. Sanders found out to his dismay that his campaign based on economic justice had fewer takers than Clinton’s based on an ad-nauseam repetition of her undying commitment to social issues such as racism. Realising that racism was more a result of economic injustice than that of being a minority, Sanders probably thought it best to focus on the root cause. Clinton on the other hand decided to be much more direct, and prevailed. The liberal commentators and opinion-makers in the US had obviously failed to educate their liberal audience.
This is not to say that the social issues championed by the liberals are not important – they undoubtedly are. Democracy, constitutionalism, and continuity of system are great things, but without economic justice gains in any of the above are rarely worthwhile – just ask a starved Sindhi child about his views on the benefits of sovereignty of the parliament.
Imran Khan’s economic agenda of a fairer wealth distribution would have been be an ideal rallying cry for the liberals, had some of his socio-political views on subjects such as women rights not come in the way. So much so that I have seen many otherwise mild and good-humored liberals literally foam at the mouth at the mere mention of Khan. Most liberals are economically comfortable themselves, and therefore social issues are all that actually matter to them. At the peak of a global antipathy to US imperialism around 2010, some of Khan’s social stances were obviously too much for the liberals, hence the singling out for the ‘Taliban Khan’ label. (Jeremy Corbyn faced a very similar fate at the hands of his compatriot liberals.) While Khan too has often been guilty of being overly socially conservative, he can hardly be faulted for not alienating a conservative majority in favor of a liberal minority, albeit a vocal one.
Khan’s loss turns out to be Nawaz Sharif’s gain. Who would have thought that this embodiment of status-quo would one day become progressive liberals’ favorite! Sharif’s politico-social stances such as civilian supremacy (only when in power), and things such as the women protection bill and Abdus Salam Center for Physics (when in trouble) are absolutely lapped up by the liberals. Not that many liberal commentators would admit it in so many words. The ‘subtle’ way many of them criticise Khan is instructive to say the least. Of course for neutrality’s sake they criticise Sharif and Zardari too, but there’s a certain palpably heartfelt quality to the criticism of Khan.
Lumping together is a common technique. Irfan Husain, for example, in a recent article wanted to know who foots the bill for our politicians’ extravagant lifestyles. Khan is a public figure and, to be sure, these are legitimate questions that must be asked of him. But when they are asked by painting Khan, Sharif and Zardari in a wide stroke of the same brush, and just when a damning corruption case against the PM is being heard in the highest court of the country smacks of obscurantism.
Khans and Sharifs come and go. We will be grappling with our problems long after both are gone. But the liberals will continue to harm their cause unless they start focusing on the economic side of liberalism and stop being content with symbolic concessions on the social side. They would also need to set more realistic standards for the flag-bearers of their cause, and focus more on being correct than being politically correct. Until that happens they will continue, consciously or unconsciously, being tools for the forces of status quo. The liberal intelligentsia especially needs to play its part. This will be important because liberals, despite being a minority, are important when it comes to setting the narrative. Will the liberals do the needful? For the sake of the liberal cause, I hope the answer is yes.
Over the years, the term liberalism has come to be thought synonymous with enlightenment, eco-friendliness, secularism, gender-equality and physical fitness. It is hoped that the term soon becomes synonymous with a fairer economic system too, for without it the former are hardly worthwhile. Though the projection isn’t very good, the fingers are crossed.
