Media in all its forms, was a reliable source of information and knowledge, however, it has now morphed into a cause of anxiety and tension for those who consume it. Witnessing the extremely intolerant and unaccommodating attitudes and behavior of friends and family over a span of few months, which often resulted in the use of foul language, has forced me to reflect on the cultural transformation, or should I say cultural deterioration, in our society.
This quest took me to Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist philosopher who wrote extensively on political power and political culture. For Antonio Gramsci, the values, beliefs, and attitudes of a society are shaped by the dominant groups in that society, who use their power to create a political culture that serves their own interests. Gramsci explains that these dominant groups have the ability to influence and control the political culture in ways that benefit their own interests and maintain their own power. Thus, Gramsci argues that the political culture of a society reflects the interests of the dominant social classes within it.
It is said that politics defies all principles of taxonomy; politics in one breath is about vision and aspirations for society, and in the same breath, there is the politics of despondency and dejection. By nature, the tectonic plates of politics are always shifting, where politics is more than just the words of politicians and yet at the same time, it has the ugly face of scheming power-hungry monsters.
Before putting in the hard yards to fathom the murky waters of political culture and constitution, it is worth the grind to understand the linkage between a state and its political system. A state is defined by its political system, such as democracy or autocracy. The political system is in fact a combination of state institutions, the rules of business and the procedures that govern the exercise of power within a society. It is defined as the interaction between political institutions and political culture, where political culture is the societal makeup of attitudes, values and belief systems. Therefore, political culture is the soul of the political landscape of a state. The Constitution on the other hand is an essential document in any state, as it outlines the fundamental principles that govern its functioning. It describes the various institutions of the state, such as the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and how they operate in relation to each other. It also establishes checks and balances on the exercise of powers by these institutions to ensure fairness and justice. Further, it outlines the rights and duties of citizens as part of the social contract. The political system, constitution and state institutions develop political culture, which includes a general political awareness among the masses and how they further evolve their approach to participate in the political process of the country.
The political culture of a state can affect the thinking process of society towards politics and government, and it has the propensity to be long-lasting, in that it is transmitted from one generation to another. It influences how citizens participate in the political process. Moreover, political culture also affects the development of political institutions, such as government, the political parties, interest groups, and the media. The political culture of a state can influence the way these institutions function, and the extent to which they are effective. A healthy political culture is essential for successful governance and the maintenance of a stable society; conversely, a dysfunctional political culture can lead to political instability and decreased effectiveness of the government. In a dysfunctional political culture, citizens may have a weak sense of political identity, and political actors may lack accountability.
Let me indulge in an unusual, and if I may say, an unpopular question to start with: has Pakistan’s political culture been undemocratic in its core values, orientations and political attitudes, that has not supported democracy to flourish and prosper in this country?
With a chaotic beginning, Pakistan’s early democratic experience had a turbulent start, especially in the wake of no Constitution for almost a decade. Even Jinnah, despite being a staunch supporter of democracy, had to rely on concentration of power in himself as Governor General. Jinnah had no other options within the backdrop of a bloody divide and dearth of leaders. Unfortunately, he did not live long enough to explain that these were temporary measures till the situation stabilized. Consequently, his successors took that concentration of power in a person to their advantage and abused it ruthlessly to undermine civilian cabinets and legislature. Governor Generals’ arrogance of power was reflected in the dismissal of the elected government in 1953 and later dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1954, duly endorsed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the “doctrine of necessity.” Those events, circumstances and the decisions haunt the political landscape of Pakistan even today.
The political system in Pakistan also carries immense colonial baggage, where political parties and institutions were trained under the British system of patronage. Since independence, Pakistan has been a patrimonial state, where the politics of push and pull with a lust for power, coupled with incompetence, nepotism and corruption led to four military regimes experimenting with different political models. History is witness to the fact that the majority of these trials were not only welcomed and celebrated domestically, but enjoyed tacit support internationally, especially by the US as part of the Cold War’s strategic calculations. The foundations of the newly born country were not laid on a democratic model. Whether civil or military, the grandeur of personality titles like Quaid-e-Millat, Field Martial, and Quaid-e-Awam became the order of the day, and became a part of the political culture and lexicon. Political culture carries infectious germs – they are transmitted from one generation to the other, shaping the behavior and attitudes of political institutions and the state for decades to come.
Another factor that has enabled non-democratic political culture was embedded in the super-structure of Muslim society. The construct of Muslim society, from its early years, has relied on military hierarchy, with the Caliph as the leader of the society, while any other rank structure is limited to their own area of influence and control. In the subcontinent, conquest by Muslims preceded the formation of civil administrations that followed a similar hierarchy. Present day Westminster democratic political system and political culture was unknown to Muslim society, and is possibly one reason for society’s ready acceptance of the military regimes. The falling of wickets of Prime Ministers in quick succession during the first decade of a newly born state was hardly ever contested and the pre-eminence of Parliament was never a high enough priority. Consequently, political culture accepted and adapted to the supremacy of the office of Governor General, relegating the Prime Minister as a ceremonial figure head. Bhutto changed this legacy, when he preferred the parliamentary form of government over the presidential form and since he wanted to remain in power, he gave up his presidency and opted for assuming the office of Prime Minister.
Most of the intelligentsia in Pakistan is still divided on the purpose and aim of the state. Should Pakistan be a modern state or a theological state? The complex balancing act between the sectarian, ethnic, regional, tribal loyalties versus national identity is one that goes awry far too often. Personal interests over national interests, regionalism over nationalism has been the major cause of heterogeneity. Resultantly, one political party blames the other for nepotism and corruption, and at the end all are compromised.
The masses who resonate the political culture have been looking for a Messiah to deliver on the promises and have been disappointed repeatedly. They have been misguided and mislead by political leaders that one single leader will deliver change, will change the system and bring an end to their miseries, without asking them to change themselves to be responsible citizens. Instead of looking towards the political processes and the efficacy of state institutions, the masses have placed their trust in leaders. The leaders on the other hand have failed to deliver, primarily due to a fundamental difference in what they preach and what is delivered. In principle, all politicians in Pakistan favor and talk about democracy, but when in office, all of them act with a feudalistic mindset, consolidating maximum power with no tolerance for opposing views. Hence, all leaders - civil or military - have been pulled down from their high pedestal over the due course of time. This helpless and despondent situation gives rise to a conspiracy theory culture, especially in a media savvy environment.
There has been a visible deterioration in the political culture of Pakistan over the last four decades, where instead of concrete political manifestos and long-term strategies for the country, especially in the wake of a changing geopolitical and geostrategic environment, leaders are hell bent on personal attacks on each other, involving swearing at their families and state institutions. This trend has carried over to the masses, where society is now extremely polarized, intolerant and myopic in its outlook. A society that does not possess a sense of ethos and is unable to differentiate between right and wrong cannot have a functioning political culture. Without values, principles, and ethics to guide the people, there is no moral compass. Without morality, the people are unable to be held accountable for their actions and are not adequately represented in the political system. The political culture in fact influences the societal makeup and vice versa. An abusive and slandered political culture should not surprise us to witness personal insults, derogatory calling of names, abductions, illegal confinements, harassments and even defamation of women from the families of leaders, political workers and even ordinary supporters.
It is no surprise that the same tactics are still being employed today by populist leaders. In the early 70s, we saw how political opponents were subjected to outrageous insults and derogatory language. Name-calling and the belittling of other political leaders, parties and state institutions were a trademark of populist leaders of the time. This was a way of stirring up their own supporters and discrediting their opponents. Today, the political leadership has given unprecedented fillip to derogatory political culture where street slang is the political lexicon of the day. In popular lexicon, the term "unparliamentary language" connotes the indecency in linguistic expression on the floor of the house, however, in the Pakistani context today, I feel it should be changed to “parliamentary language.” This is how our political culture has been shaped - with extreme polarization, social intolerance, extreme views, anxiety, and a defiance of the law. Street slang and swearing is common and rampant not only in political rallies, but its use has now become normalized on nationwide television networks and social media alike. Consequently, even the pillars of the state and jurists have lost their credibility in the public eye.
The nation building process is inextricably linked to the current state of our society. With the rising trend of intolerance, extremism, and violence in our national political culture, the schisms in our society have serious ramifications for the nation building process. The growing polarization that is being witnessed in the public discourse is a direct manifestation of the toxic environment that exists in the political culture. The divisions in public opinion have created an atmosphere of mistrust and animosity, which can prevent the nation from coming together and working towards a common goal.
Furthermore, the prevalence of extremism and violence in political culture can lead to further divisions, as people become entrenched in their own views and are unwilling to compromise or collaborate with others. Politics, as an institution, must evolve if it is to put the country’s greater interests before any individual’s self-interest. This requires political leadership to break out of their current thinking and put the nation’s priorities first. Efforts in clandestine operations to probe the private lives of political opponents, if directed towards national interests and strategizing to overcome the problems faced by the people of Pakistan would yield not only positive outcomes, but would also transform the sociocultural outlook of society.
This quest took me to Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist philosopher who wrote extensively on political power and political culture. For Antonio Gramsci, the values, beliefs, and attitudes of a society are shaped by the dominant groups in that society, who use their power to create a political culture that serves their own interests. Gramsci explains that these dominant groups have the ability to influence and control the political culture in ways that benefit their own interests and maintain their own power. Thus, Gramsci argues that the political culture of a society reflects the interests of the dominant social classes within it.
It is said that politics defies all principles of taxonomy; politics in one breath is about vision and aspirations for society, and in the same breath, there is the politics of despondency and dejection. By nature, the tectonic plates of politics are always shifting, where politics is more than just the words of politicians and yet at the same time, it has the ugly face of scheming power-hungry monsters.
A healthy political culture is essential for successful governance and the maintenance of a stable society; conversely, a dysfunctional political culture can lead to political instability and decreased effectiveness of the government.
Before putting in the hard yards to fathom the murky waters of political culture and constitution, it is worth the grind to understand the linkage between a state and its political system. A state is defined by its political system, such as democracy or autocracy. The political system is in fact a combination of state institutions, the rules of business and the procedures that govern the exercise of power within a society. It is defined as the interaction between political institutions and political culture, where political culture is the societal makeup of attitudes, values and belief systems. Therefore, political culture is the soul of the political landscape of a state. The Constitution on the other hand is an essential document in any state, as it outlines the fundamental principles that govern its functioning. It describes the various institutions of the state, such as the executive, legislative and judicial branches, and how they operate in relation to each other. It also establishes checks and balances on the exercise of powers by these institutions to ensure fairness and justice. Further, it outlines the rights and duties of citizens as part of the social contract. The political system, constitution and state institutions develop political culture, which includes a general political awareness among the masses and how they further evolve their approach to participate in the political process of the country.
The political culture of a state can affect the thinking process of society towards politics and government, and it has the propensity to be long-lasting, in that it is transmitted from one generation to another. It influences how citizens participate in the political process. Moreover, political culture also affects the development of political institutions, such as government, the political parties, interest groups, and the media. The political culture of a state can influence the way these institutions function, and the extent to which they are effective. A healthy political culture is essential for successful governance and the maintenance of a stable society; conversely, a dysfunctional political culture can lead to political instability and decreased effectiveness of the government. In a dysfunctional political culture, citizens may have a weak sense of political identity, and political actors may lack accountability.
Let me indulge in an unusual, and if I may say, an unpopular question to start with: has Pakistan’s political culture been undemocratic in its core values, orientations and political attitudes, that has not supported democracy to flourish and prosper in this country?
The political system in Pakistan also carries immense colonial baggage, where political parties and institutions were trained under the British system of patronage. Since independence, Pakistan has been a patrimonial state, where the politics of push and pull with a lust for power, coupled with incompetence, nepotism and corruption led to four military regimes experimenting with different political models.
With a chaotic beginning, Pakistan’s early democratic experience had a turbulent start, especially in the wake of no Constitution for almost a decade. Even Jinnah, despite being a staunch supporter of democracy, had to rely on concentration of power in himself as Governor General. Jinnah had no other options within the backdrop of a bloody divide and dearth of leaders. Unfortunately, he did not live long enough to explain that these were temporary measures till the situation stabilized. Consequently, his successors took that concentration of power in a person to their advantage and abused it ruthlessly to undermine civilian cabinets and legislature. Governor Generals’ arrogance of power was reflected in the dismissal of the elected government in 1953 and later dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in 1954, duly endorsed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the “doctrine of necessity.” Those events, circumstances and the decisions haunt the political landscape of Pakistan even today.
The political system in Pakistan also carries immense colonial baggage, where political parties and institutions were trained under the British system of patronage. Since independence, Pakistan has been a patrimonial state, where the politics of push and pull with a lust for power, coupled with incompetence, nepotism and corruption led to four military regimes experimenting with different political models. History is witness to the fact that the majority of these trials were not only welcomed and celebrated domestically, but enjoyed tacit support internationally, especially by the US as part of the Cold War’s strategic calculations. The foundations of the newly born country were not laid on a democratic model. Whether civil or military, the grandeur of personality titles like Quaid-e-Millat, Field Martial, and Quaid-e-Awam became the order of the day, and became a part of the political culture and lexicon. Political culture carries infectious germs – they are transmitted from one generation to the other, shaping the behavior and attitudes of political institutions and the state for decades to come.
Another factor that has enabled non-democratic political culture was embedded in the super-structure of Muslim society. The construct of Muslim society, from its early years, has relied on military hierarchy, with the Caliph as the leader of the society, while any other rank structure is limited to their own area of influence and control. In the subcontinent, conquest by Muslims preceded the formation of civil administrations that followed a similar hierarchy. Present day Westminster democratic political system and political culture was unknown to Muslim society, and is possibly one reason for society’s ready acceptance of the military regimes. The falling of wickets of Prime Ministers in quick succession during the first decade of a newly born state was hardly ever contested and the pre-eminence of Parliament was never a high enough priority. Consequently, political culture accepted and adapted to the supremacy of the office of Governor General, relegating the Prime Minister as a ceremonial figure head. Bhutto changed this legacy, when he preferred the parliamentary form of government over the presidential form and since he wanted to remain in power, he gave up his presidency and opted for assuming the office of Prime Minister.
Most of the intelligentsia in Pakistan is still divided on the purpose and aim of the state. Should Pakistan be a modern state or a theological state? The complex balancing act between the sectarian, ethnic, regional, tribal loyalties versus national identity is one that goes awry far too often. Personal interests over national interests, regionalism over nationalism has been the major cause of heterogeneity. Resultantly, one political party blames the other for nepotism and corruption, and at the end all are compromised.
A society that does not possess a sense of ethos and is unable to differentiate between right and wrong cannot have a functioning political culture.
The masses who resonate the political culture have been looking for a Messiah to deliver on the promises and have been disappointed repeatedly. They have been misguided and mislead by political leaders that one single leader will deliver change, will change the system and bring an end to their miseries, without asking them to change themselves to be responsible citizens. Instead of looking towards the political processes and the efficacy of state institutions, the masses have placed their trust in leaders. The leaders on the other hand have failed to deliver, primarily due to a fundamental difference in what they preach and what is delivered. In principle, all politicians in Pakistan favor and talk about democracy, but when in office, all of them act with a feudalistic mindset, consolidating maximum power with no tolerance for opposing views. Hence, all leaders - civil or military - have been pulled down from their high pedestal over the due course of time. This helpless and despondent situation gives rise to a conspiracy theory culture, especially in a media savvy environment.
There has been a visible deterioration in the political culture of Pakistan over the last four decades, where instead of concrete political manifestos and long-term strategies for the country, especially in the wake of a changing geopolitical and geostrategic environment, leaders are hell bent on personal attacks on each other, involving swearing at their families and state institutions. This trend has carried over to the masses, where society is now extremely polarized, intolerant and myopic in its outlook. A society that does not possess a sense of ethos and is unable to differentiate between right and wrong cannot have a functioning political culture. Without values, principles, and ethics to guide the people, there is no moral compass. Without morality, the people are unable to be held accountable for their actions and are not adequately represented in the political system. The political culture in fact influences the societal makeup and vice versa. An abusive and slandered political culture should not surprise us to witness personal insults, derogatory calling of names, abductions, illegal confinements, harassments and even defamation of women from the families of leaders, political workers and even ordinary supporters.
In popular lexicon, the term "unparliamentary language" connotes the indecency in linguistic expression on the floor of the house, however, in the Pakistani context today, I feel it should be changed to “parliamentary language.”
It is no surprise that the same tactics are still being employed today by populist leaders. In the early 70s, we saw how political opponents were subjected to outrageous insults and derogatory language. Name-calling and the belittling of other political leaders, parties and state institutions were a trademark of populist leaders of the time. This was a way of stirring up their own supporters and discrediting their opponents. Today, the political leadership has given unprecedented fillip to derogatory political culture where street slang is the political lexicon of the day. In popular lexicon, the term "unparliamentary language" connotes the indecency in linguistic expression on the floor of the house, however, in the Pakistani context today, I feel it should be changed to “parliamentary language.” This is how our political culture has been shaped - with extreme polarization, social intolerance, extreme views, anxiety, and a defiance of the law. Street slang and swearing is common and rampant not only in political rallies, but its use has now become normalized on nationwide television networks and social media alike. Consequently, even the pillars of the state and jurists have lost their credibility in the public eye.
The nation building process is inextricably linked to the current state of our society. With the rising trend of intolerance, extremism, and violence in our national political culture, the schisms in our society have serious ramifications for the nation building process. The growing polarization that is being witnessed in the public discourse is a direct manifestation of the toxic environment that exists in the political culture. The divisions in public opinion have created an atmosphere of mistrust and animosity, which can prevent the nation from coming together and working towards a common goal.
Furthermore, the prevalence of extremism and violence in political culture can lead to further divisions, as people become entrenched in their own views and are unwilling to compromise or collaborate with others. Politics, as an institution, must evolve if it is to put the country’s greater interests before any individual’s self-interest. This requires political leadership to break out of their current thinking and put the nation’s priorities first. Efforts in clandestine operations to probe the private lives of political opponents, if directed towards national interests and strategizing to overcome the problems faced by the people of Pakistan would yield not only positive outcomes, but would also transform the sociocultural outlook of society.