- On oversimplified political ‘theories’
It may be too early to give a verdict one way or the other, but the protesters may have gone a bit too far for their own good this time around. For this edition of the protest was against everybody at the same time – never a great strategy. (Besides, it isn’t quite clear what the government had to do with the court judgment.) Alternatively (or additionally) Khadim Rizvi may have just had his first lesson in the law of the diminishing returns. Be that as it may, the stalemate has ended earlier than anticipated (considering similar campaigns of the past). No signatures on the agreement by the ‘guarantors’; and no money distributed among the protesters would also point to an improvement of sorts. The school children and opposition parties are having none of it though: both have rejected out of hand the agreement with the protesters.
Especially the opposition parties and their supporters found themselves in an impossible situation. For obvious reasons it was hard to openly support Rizvi, but (barring Bilawal Bhutto) backing the government was equally difficult, again for obvious reasons. The government was therefore either too tough or (one day later) too lenient on the protesters, as far as they were concerned. Well, opposition parties will be opposition parties – they are doing nothing more (nor less) than their job: opposing the government. Therefore they, along with their avowed supporters, need not concern us any further.
What I would like to focus on instead is a certain (somewhat disturbing) tendency on the part of self-proclaimed politically neutral, educated men and women to summarise such political developments. (In this respect at least, the less educated and less ‘neutral’ make much more sense.) These thoughtful souls comprehensively summed up the protest by cockily observing that there was just no escaping one’s comeuppance, was there? That Imran Khan was facing precisely what he subjected Nawaz Sharif to, as if it were a law of nature.
The great merit of theories such as this one (using the word in its non-scientific meaning) is that they are simple enough to make sense to everybody. Their demerit though is that they end up demolishing themselves. For instance, ask a subscriber why Sharif found himself on the receiving end, and he would probably say because of what he did to Benazir Bhutto of course. Again, it makes a certain kind of sense but play along. Ask him what Bhutto, in turn, had done to deserve it, and he is sure to remark something like, ‘Well, she was an innocent victim.’ (Believe me, I have had the above conversation.) So much for the mukaafaat-e-amal theory, which is obviously arbitrary (at best). Anybody who has observed international or national politics with any sort of objectivity will have no hesitation in concluding that politics isn’t bothered by your favourite moral axioms. Show me a politician who doesn’t compromise on his ideals, who is not opportunist, who never lies; and I will show you a man who forfeits his security deposit in every election he contests.
Few objective observers would dispute that expediency and convenience (as opposed to morality) are the governing factors in politics. Some people object to this as giving a very bleak picture of humanity
That’s not to say that there are no rights and wrongs in life – there are. The trouble is that politics – whether local or global – isn’t an armchair activity; it needs to be done on the ground. Consequently, the first thing that becomes a casualty in politics is textbook notions of right and wrong. Sure, some arenas afford more glaring examples of this than others but it’s a matter of degrees. It’s important that fairy tales learnt in childhood be forgotten when it comes to analysing political developments. Many people find this difficult. Of course, you can always suggest to politicians what should and shouldn’t be done. But don’t be shocked when you find them indifferent to such advice. Even when (sometimes) ‘moral’ decisions are taken by them, that’s because they are expedient or convenient under the circumstances – not because they are morally correct. Good and bad certainly have a role to play when philosophers, writers and teachers help turn public opinion one way or the other – public opinion being one of the many factors that politicians can’t ignore with impunity.
Few objective observers would dispute that expediency and convenience (as opposed to morality) are the governing factors in politics. Some people object to this as giving a very bleak picture of humanity. Belief in a fair life may be a very pleasant one, but the real world – the political world at any rate – doesn’t work that way. It’s not a matter of what makes one feel better – it’s about what explains ground realities better.
The sooner political commentators unlearn fairy tales heard at their mothers’ knee, the better. Does it paint a bleak picture of mankind, especially politics? It sure does. But the very point of being an adult is to know that life is not a fantasy or a formula film.
