Tahira Khan
Nation building is a sort of inherently subjective and inter-subjective term which emphasizes on bringing about a broader ethnic national identity overcoming the regional or provincial ones. State building is all about political system, political structure (most importantly) and the infrastructure of state institutions which explains the smooth running of administrative setup. If we give it a deep introspection both are mutually constitutive to each other, fortunately or may be unfortunately.
When we try to look into the evolutionary background of political structure we came in contact with intermittent system (e.g., Eskimo political system), traditional ones (Patrimonial, patriarchal and feudalistic), historical bureaucratic empires and, last but not the least, the modern structures.
The evolutionary process was staged being based on two things i.e., cultural secularization and structural differentiation. From cultural secularization we mean the pragmatic and empirical approach being exhibited by attitudes of general masses towards their respective political system. As far as structural differentiation is concerned, it deals with role differentiation i.e., every objective is having some particular actor being specialized in the field having required autonomous powers.
With these two things in hand, one could expect the political system, along with the internal dynamics of state, to be functioning progressively having peace and order as well.
State building includes the whole evolutionary procedure which constitutes the development of political system. Crux of the development lies in the working of sub-systems (Political parties, mass-media etc) which are, entirely, asking for the establishment of purely democratic norms and values. Thus, we can say that public opinion will be entertained in a political system if and only if there exists some proper political infrastructure.
When state building is not appropriately set up on firm basis there appears a vacuum which is usually filled by the politics of morality. Certain stakeholders try to craft specific but rigid ‘Moral standards’ in order to envisage their undemocratic agenda in pursuit of their self-centered objectives. This particularly happens in states where democracies are in transition and by challenging their so-called morality they, actually, victimized the democratic norms.
This is what happening in Pakistan since 1947 or may be even before that. The fact is, we doesn’t even know how to differentiate between being moral, political and religious. All three dimensions have been intermixed in order to have purified soul and the only way to achieve high standards of being pious. The recent incident at Mardan University is an explicit example of the case.
Almost every major political rhetoric is coloured in moral/religious domain. Every enemy is labelled as a threat to moral, cultural and religious fabric whereas every friend and character is good if and only if he meets the required notion of being ‘very clean’. The overall scenario depicts nothing but extremism of every type i.e., religious, cultural, moral etc. Don’t know about morality and culture but one thing is sure; Islam never constructed the theory of extremism in any case.
Every military intervention took place with moral justification but in actual these undemocratic forces disrupted the procedures of parliament and enforces their authoritarian rule. Zia is a textbook example of this whole melodrama where his regime labeled him as ‘Ameer-ul-Momineen’ changed the very basic structure of political system to extremism clouded under the faithful cover of religion. The recent incident of women protection bill is also shedding light on the issue but no one bothers to think-out-of-the-box. Everyone is busy in being pious.
What does it mean when it is said that military is not giving space to political parties in order to flourish the democracy in full spirit? In real sense, there is no space for the political parties and other interest groups to establish their moral credentials and nothing else. There is no such thing that our politicians are in dire need to exercise extensive political socialization in accordance with the progressive and developed world.
Yes, it is pathetic indeed.
Same is the case with our judiciary which is required to differentiate between being legal and moral. The sole custodian to ensure the secularization of system but, unfortunately, the contrary could be witnessed in our country. Most frequently, judicial segment tries to avoid questioning the moral government and have been found on the same page with them, most frequently. Media is following judiciary in its footsteps and largely demonstrate or have focused on elevating the moral obligations of concerned authority. No one seems concerned with the notion of duty and rights or legality and justice.
This is how extremism has prevailed in the state because of which different monsters have been surface to engulf the peaceful societal order and, spread chaos and fear. The story doesn’t end here. It has started fragmenting the idea of nation as well.
The bottom line is we are divided only because of the absence of pragmatic and democratic structures where extremism is now taking roots along with the politics of morality which has inculcated emotional response in the society. It must be noted no emotions has ever united any nation. It’s good for nothing.
Is the developed states progressing because of emotions only? Certainly, not. Are they having their functioning democratic structures? Most probably, yes.
“There can’t be a firmly established political state unless there is a teaching body with definitely recognized principles. If the child is not taught from infancy that he ought to be republican or a monarchist, a catholic or a free-thinker. The state will not constitute a nation; it will rest on uncertain and shifting foundations; and it will be constantly exposed to disorder and change.” (Napolean 1, 1805)
Let’s move towards the other side of the story.
Yes, nation building has led to the formulation of state building and the best possible exercise could be witnessed in the exemplary politics of Gandhi. Gandhi brilliantly annexed both the radicals and moderate under an umbrella of single national party i.e., INC (Indian National Congress). He then linked the progressive momentum of the party with General masses by involving the participation of later in civil movements. That’s how a civilized and democratic society emerged which then moved to proper state infrastructure. This is, also, why India didn’t bore the brunt of military interventions which became the fate of Pakistan. Undoubtedly, they’re also facing the moral extremism but their infrastructure is also working in parallel in order to avoid complete surrender to abysmal conditions.
The writ-up concludes one simple argument that both the nation and state building are mutually constitutive and if somewhere vacuum appears the politics of morality will emerge to fulfill the required gap. This is what Pakistan has been witnessing since its inception and this is where we need to work out if and only if we want to get rid of the monster of extremism which will, if not controlled, engulf the remains of society, one day.
Writer is a team member of Balochistan Voices and a Student of BS (Hons) Political Science in University of the Punjab, Lahore. She hails from Loralai District. Click here to read previous articles written by the author.
Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article are those of the author and Balochistan Voices not necessarily agrees with them.
Share your comments!
