Where will the leadership come from?
Posted by Ethan Casey on June 25, 2012 · 7 Comments
This post is about both Pakistan and America. The two countries have more in common than any of us like to admit. For example, both societies tend toward paranoia and fondness for conspiracy theories. Another, very poignant common trait is that both nations were founded very self-consciously by high-minded idealists who believed it was both possible and desirable to engineer history and human nature. Both countries seemed like good ideas at the time, but the record since 1776 on the one hand, 1947 on the other, is largely one of history’s revenge on idealism.
Now, in both countries, we’re living amid the mess left over after the ideals have run out of steam. This larger context might help us better understand and respond to the crisis of leadership and institutional legitimacy that has been exposed by the Supreme Court’s recent dismissal of Pakistani prime minster Yousuf Raza Gilani.
If it’s true that, as we’re now hearing, newly appointed PM Raja Pervaiz Ashraf will be essentially a caretaker until an early election to be called before the end of this year, 2013 could well begin with new regimes in office in both Washington and Islamabad. That is not inherently a bad thing but, given the current situations and leadership voids in both countries, and the already severely strained relationship between them, it’s a prospect to anticipate with some dread.
If there’s any lesson we can glean from three and a half dispiriting years under Obama, it’s that “change” – his 2008 campaign slogan; also Bill Clinton’s 16 years earlier – isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. I will vote for Obama’s reelection in November because the alternative is truly frightening, but there’s little prospect of any progressive or otherwise positive direction being provided by the American federal government in either domestic or foreign policy, regardless of who wins the election. This does not mean that there’s no hope. It means, rather, that we – private individuals, members of society – must shoulder responsibility for finding and creating hope for ourselves and each other.
One reason we legitimize state leaders – whether by election or, as in the case of the initially popular Musharraf, by conquest endorsed by acclamation – is in order to keep ourselves at arm’s length from accountability. If – say – the Zardari government is corrupt or incompetent, or Obama is feckless, or the Republicans are ruthless, or Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry is overstepping his mandate, then we can blame them. Which is handy for us. What blaming the person whose rear end happens to occupy the seat of power doesn’t do is accomplish anything useful. The same goes for the way we first idolize, then vilify, plaster saints like Greg Mortenson when they turn out after all to be flawed human beings just like us, with the possible difference that they’re actually making themselves useful.
(Speaking of Greg Mortenson, 60 Minutes should be taken to task for rebroadcasting essentially unchanged its inflammatory episode about him on its show on Sunday night. Apparently that means that CBS News stands by its report, which is fair enough. But more than a year after its first airing, more needs to be said – not least by Greg himself – and 60 Minutes should not be allowed to get away with the perfunctory and self-congratulatory coda it tacked onto the episode when it re-aired yesterday. You can read my two articles on the subject published last year here and here, and I recommend Mahvesh Khan’s reply to me, “It is indeed about Greg Mortenson.”)
Anyway, if Romney wins the U.S. election, as is very plausible, he will be at least as incompetent as Obama, as well as intellectually inferior and, most important, completely hostage to an aggressive rightist party agenda. Obama for his part has proven overmatched by the challenges of our age – but haven’t we all? Zardari, for all his obvious flaws, has at least provided a simulacrum of civilian-led stability for more than four years. Anyone who knows Pakistan knows that it’s simplistic to chant (like the sheep in Animal Farm) “Civilians good, military ba-a-a-ad.” But it’s also true that a military takeover is not only far from out of the question, but likely only to make things worse.
So where can we look for leadership? The hard answer is: to ourselves and each other. Both Americans and Pakistanis of goodwill need to be working if not against our respective governments, then at least around them, and with each other. This goes for both domestic areas such as health and education, where both societies are in great need, and foreign policy, where we must find it in ourselves to remember and express our common humanity, as the nationalists in both capitals continue rattling the sabers.
ETHAN CASEY is the author of Alive and Well in Pakistan: A Human Journey in a Dangerous Time (2004), Overtaken By Events: A Pakistan Road Trip (2010), and Bearing the Bruise: A Life Graced by Haiti (2012). His next book, Home Free: An American Road Trip, is available for pre-purchase. He is also co-author, with Michael Betzold, of Queen of Diamonds: The Tiger Stadium Story (1992). Web: www.ethancasey.com or www.facebook.com/ethancaseyfans
Ethan, it is nice to hear from you after a long time. I thought I was dropped from your mailing list somehow. But you are raising some very important questions. Obama has failed and that was unexpected and disappointing. Zardari has failed to do anythng construcitve for the people and that was disappointing but not unexpected. It is not just the US or Pakistan but seems like the whole world is sitting on top of a volcano which is going to burst anytime now. After spending many years of my life with HDF and other non-profit groups, I have come to the conclusion that charity and NGOs are not going to cut it. You ask, “Where should we look for leadership?” And then you answer it, “to ourselves and each other.” I could not agree more. I believe that there has to be a grassroots movement where people especially the young are connected across all regional, ethnic, religious, gender and other false divides. There is a needs for an awakening of consciousness among them. Why should it be that with all the technological advances in education, healthcare, travel, agriculture etc. majority of the world’s population should go hungry, uneducated, sick, and poor? The only way to change this situation is to change the system. That is the only way to bring social, economic and political justice to the whole world. This world has become very interconnected through political and economic systems not to mention that we all share the same environment and world resources. The only way to change the system is for people to take charge and demand wht is rightfully theres. Never in the history rights were granted to any group (blacks, women, gays) without struggle.
For that reason, I am working with some people here in USA and in Pakistan to set up an organization, “Inetrantional Youth Movement” which is currently sponsored by the parent organization, “Rise for Pakistan”. We hope that we will have sponsors in other countries for this also and we can bring people on one platform. The web site is http://www.riseforpakistan.com. I hope that people will “Rise for…” where they are and support the International Youth movement.
And I must thank you for trying against all odds to speak the truth and raise the questions that you have been raising. It is only when all of us will speak and act when things will change.
The story behind the founding of these two nations could not be more far apart in its nature, ideology and struggle. Without going in too much detail suffice it to say that Pakistan from its origin has wondered aimlessly trying to figure out its idea or ideology for liberation. The so called two nation theory the supposed pretext for its existence now lays discredited. You my good man under what pain and duress or perhaps misguided chutzpah are comparing the oldest democracy to the oldest demagoguery?
You, my fellow human being, should first understand that Ethan is not discussing political theory. Infact, democracy wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the article. So why blame him for comparing something he’s not comparing at all? Perhaps it would have been a good thing if you went more into detail anyway.
About the article: isn’t idealism merely an expression of another underlying desire that any society may have, like following hero figures (Barack Obama, Imran Khan, etc.) that will lead them ‘out of the swamp’ in a way inspired by the story of the prophet Moses? That ‘swamp’ tends to be some extreme deviation in society’s presumed ideal state, like poverty (no elaboration required), social injustice (corruption and leaders breaking their promises), insecurity (authorities failing to protect their citizens from internal and external agression), social disorder, etc.!
The point I am trying to make is that we should find a way to understand – NOT restrain – idealist tendencies in any form. For instance, here in The Netherlands politics used to be boring business, appealing mostly to boring old folks. As soon as idealism found its way back into Dutch society in the form of Fortuyn, Wilders, Van Gogh (preaching to the people that ‘Islam is bad, immigration is bad’), things got a little more exciting. The only problem with this approach with regards to central stability, is that no Dutch cabinet managed to complete its tenure ever since. They all collapsed due to out-of-control polarization. Funnily, the modern Dutch voter appears to be voting on the basis of what he thinks is wrong with society, instead of a judgement on whether the government is actually doing its damn job in the first place.
Idealism ought to drive us to find a way out of the swamp. We ought to use it to come to a general consensus as a society. Yet on the one hand there’s ideas about different types of freedom to act against reaching an agreement together (the Western dilemma). On the other hand, there’s the law of the jungle (strongest one survives) where reaching a social consensus would be impossible altogether when lawlessness and corruption act as an assurance that people will remain divided and fighting to save their own skin (present-day Pakistan), under ‘leaders’ unwilling to act (mainly because they control the thugs that rule the streets these days).
While it’s true that such inequality amongst people was the case before Partition and Pakistan was meant as an escape for Muslims who felt discriminated in society, in today’s Pakistan many Pakistanis are subject to the same oppression, yet under their own ‘leaders’. Religious freedom packed a lot more punch as an ideology to unite the masses, compared to something silly like ‘corruption’ and ‘dishonest leaders’.
All we really need to learn is how to compromise. And frankly speaking: this is really the crux of all problems in US-Pakistan relations.
What a wonderful man, I have just read the book Three cups of tea’ and have never been so moved. His work is tisreles and his own material rewards are few but in his heart he must feel so fulfilled.Make him President for Gods sake.
I have read the article omitting Casey’s views on USA. As humans we have many commonalities. But there is a basic difference when it comes to international affairs. A superpower with a mindset to control the world on one hand and a poor third world country fighting for her survival on the other. USA will find a way out anyway.