Failing Leadership in a Failed State

By Syed Ali Dayan Hasan

"And as long as we rely on the hammer when a file is needed and press Islam into service to solve situations it was never intended to solve, frustration and disappointment must dog our steps... our politicians must understand that if Divine commands cannot make or keep a man a Mussalman, their statutes will not."

Chief Justice of Pakistan Mohammad Munir.
The Munir Report, 1954.

Pakistan holds a unique place in the history of the modern nation-state. First, it justifies itself as a geographical entity by rooting itself in a primordial identity (Islam) that negates geographical boundaries. Second, 50 years after the event, the state still feels obliged to define itself through what it is not, the other- India. Third, it is perhaps the only "nation-state'' in modern history where the majority felt constrained to ''secede'' from the minority. It has yet to come to terms with the fact that actually as a state it is less than 30 years old. Pakistan, as we know it, came into existence in 1971 as the result of a bloody and bitter civil war. Fourth, the state, a prisoner of its own rhetoric, remains caught in a historical time-warp, desperately seeking to legitimise itself through a moment in time (Partition) long in the past. No real debate exists in this environment because contemporary debate cannot, by definition, exist in parameters determined by historical accidents. Fifth, the make-belief world of state- ordained dictate, all its coercive powers notwithstanding, may be able to suppress ground realities but it cannot do away with them. Thus, the diverging strands of reality and rhetoric, unresolved since at least 1971, are on a collision course in Pakistan. Finally, there is Nawaz Sharif, a creature of state- sponsored claptrap and heir to its authoritarian traditions, desperately and genuinely attempting to preserve conceptions of power that may not have lost their oppressive potency but are simply no longer viable. Brutal repression or graceful concession are the options available to him. Thus far, totally unsurprisingly, he appears to be choosing the former. Clearly, there is something rotten in the State of Pakistan.

It is perhaps ironic that Sharif appears to be styling himself on the last great civilian autocrat Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. There is one crucial difference, though. Bhutto created a parallel political rhetoric, even if everything he actually did was geared towards undermining the principles it espoused. Sharif has no such devices at his disposal. He is a creature of the status quo through and through. The outrage of the pitifully mediocre intelligentsia of Pakistan in the face of the recent behavior of the Sharif government can only be viewed with bemusement. Nothing the PML government has done is either inconsistent with or contrary to its political and intellectual antecedents.

If anything, Nawaz Sharif's machinations are so boringly predictable that, viewed historically, they can only elicit a big yawn. After all, the man is just trying to maintain the pre-existing institutional distribution of coercive power and economic patronage. Cosmetic redistribution aside, Bhutto succeeded. Ziaul Haq perfected and enhanced it and did away with the cosmetic redistribution in the bargain. The period between 1988 and 1997 is viewed as a period of misgovernment precisely because it failed to efficiently protect the dispensation of the status quo.

Governments were dismissed because they failed to " deliver" What they actually failed to deliver, above all, was the smooth running of the old order. Amidst loud cries of thanksgiving by the same intelligentsia, these governments were booted out or (as in the case of the first Benazir Bhutto government) their anti status quo tendencies firmly curbed. So, "good governance", "stability" and "progress" are sincerely what Nawaz Sharif is striving towards. Sadly, what these concepts translate into in Pakistan are the stifling of all dissent and centralising powers of coercion and economic patronage. Sharif then is no monster. He is the logical conclusion of a warped and perverted process.

Of course, this is a dangerous argument. For, it can be read as the story of an unintelligent product of a moribund system just trying to do the job assigned to him. Personal responsibility vanishes amidst talk of historical precedent, institutional frameworks and the trajectories of mainstream political discourse. Such a reading, however, would not only be incorrect, it would be criminal. Leadership demands vision. Leaders cannot justify their actions as creatures of history. It is their cardinal duty to shape and transform history. Mitigating factors serve as explanations for failure but cannot be used to excuse and acquit. Benazir Bhutto has yet to accept this and Nawaz Sharif yet to understand.

Pakistan is indeed a failed state. A state that does not have enough self-confidence to take criticism can only be described thus. A state that feels constrained to legalise bigotry and exclusion, extremism and prejudice, coercion and oppression in order to survive is certainly not presiding over a vibrant, successful and self-assured society. When mediocre opportunists start looking and sounding like heroes, it is time to unequivocally condemn those whose venality is responsible for the moral schizophrenia enveloping society. The responsibility for this situation ultimately rests with the failing leaders of Pakistan. Sharif is not just one of them - he may well be the worst of them.