From a crisis state on the verge of collapse to a failed state, Pakistan has been called everything but a stable democratic polity. This does not seem unjustified, for the country has jumped from one crisis into another since its inception.
Being the crisis state it is, Pakistan is in the midst of yet another political crisis. The PDM-led government and Imran Khan are locked into an unending power struggle with no end in sight. The military establishment and the Judiciary remain the main power brokers having high stakes in these political theatrics. Political polarization remains at a record high. The politics of the country has become a zero-sum game with every side pursuing a maximalist approach and showing not even a tinge of willingness for a compromise.
Enough analysis of the current political crisis has been done by analysts and journalists on various late-night talk shows and social media platforms. Nevertheless, no explanation of the current conundrum offered and no solution suggested thereof has any theoretical underpinnings. They remain rhetorical at best and speculative at worst.
What the country needs is a solution that is grounded in political theory. To break the deadlock and return to normalcy, one can borrow from the philosophy of Friedrich Hegel and Adam Smith. This might seem odd to many people, for Hegel was a philosopher whose abstract philosophical concepts are often beyond the understanding of a layman. Similarly, Adam Smith was an economist whose ideas revolved around the working of markets and the economy. Therefore, one might wonder how the ideas of these 18th-century philosophers are relevant in Pakistan’s case and can be applied to the current political crisis it is confronting.
Nonetheless, the ideas of these two thinkers, like many others, have wide-ranging applications in the modern world. Not only their ideas are relevant, but they also present a plausible explanation of Pakistan’s current predicament and possible remedies which, if applied, can put it on the path to stability and democracy.
Pakistan has been called everything but a stable democratic polity. This does not seem unjustified, for the country has jumped from one crisis into another since its inception.
The specific ideas with which this article is going to concern itself are Hegel’s theory of dialectic historicism, and Adam Smith’s idea of the “invisible hand.” Before delving into their political application, it is imperative to shed some light on these ideas.
Hegel’s theory of dialectic historicism provided a philosophical method to understand the progression of history and the development of ideas. It involved three stages: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The thesis represents an initial idea or position, while the anti-thesis represents a contrasting or opposing idea. The synthesis is a product of the resolution of the contradiction between the thesis and anti-thesis. According to this theory, through this dialectical process, contradictions are resolved, and progress is made toward a better state.
Smith’s idea of the invisible hand, contended that government intervention in the economy should be minimal and that the markets should be allowed to function on their own. In the absence of government intervention, the market will be regulated by the forces of demand and supply which he referred to as the “invisible hand.” According to him, the economy would function at its best when people are free to make their own economic decisions guided by the market forces such as supply and demand, competition, and self-interest.
Political polarization remains at a record high. The politics of the country has become a zero-sum game with every side pursuing a maximalist approach and showing not even a tinge of willingness for a compromise
Now it’s time to demonstrate the political application of these theories. History is rife with examples of when countries became more democratic than they previously were as a result of the clash between opposing ideas and positions, what Hegel called thesis and anti-thesis. The USA took a giant leap towards democracy when it abolished slavery. This came after the four years long civil war between the Southern and Northern states, each fighting for and against slavery respectively. Similarly, it took another leap forward when Congress gave women the right to vote in 1920. This itself was a product of more than half a century’s struggle between Suffragettes and anti-Suffragettes. These were possible because they were guided by the invisible hand, which in this case is the ability of the citizens to express their preferences through political participation. Moreover, States tend to easily overcome political crises when non-political institutions remain aloof and allow the process to take its natural course. In such countries, the end of such a political crisis leads to a more democratic dispensation.
Coming towards explaining Pakistan’s current quandary through these theories. Pakistan has been in a perpetual state of turmoil because of the intervention of the military in the natural evolution of its historical development. This intervention obstructed the development of democratic culture and institutions in the country. Through their artificial and cosmetic projects of instituting specific forms of political ideologies and institutions, the military regimes in Pakistan interrupted the natural evolution of the political system, thereby, destabilizing it and making it severely anomalous. The popular will was rarely allowed to regulate the political system, as the theory of Adam Smith would have required. Consequently, the country has not been able to overcome the state of political stagnation it keeps finding itself.
The solution to this predicament is obvious. Let the popular will decide the outcome of the current crisis. It is high time that non-political institutions, including the military and the judiciary, withdrew from the political scene and let the events take their natural and due course to put the country on the path of natural political evolution regulated by the invisible hand of the popular will. The thesis and anti-thesis have to be allowed to clash naturally for a better synthesis to arise. There is a need to realize that disturbing the natural turn of events through forced experiments can only make the polity chaotic and democracy elusive. If it happens, Pakistan will undoubtedly rise as a more democratic and resilient state from the ashes of this and other such crises it might find itself facing in the future.
About The Author
Muhammad Sharif Jakhrani is a Political Science graduate from GC University Lahore, where he developed a passion for studying the politics of religion and ethnicity, conflict resolution, and counter-insurgency, and can be reached at muhammadsharifj65@gmail.com or on Twitter @SharifJakhrani
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the original author and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views of Rationale-47.
Rationale-47 