Helplessness before medieval mindsets

Enemies of enlightened moderation can be identified as traditional mind sets, erroneously confused with Islamic orthodoxy. They take medieval customs and mores to be Islam of medieval period. Current facts are that Islam presents one cultural face in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. In Egypt it wears a different look; in Cairo meet the eastern and western traditions just as they do in Pakistan with superimposition of Indian customs. In Far East it is yet another face. The position of women in Pakistan is somewhat different from that in the Maghreb or Egypt.

Women suffer more disabilities in Pakistan. Latest example is the religious parties' attack on women who ran in a mini-marathon race in Gujranwala. Islamic rioters beat some women and misbehaved with others. When the police tried to save women there was a regular riot against the police with casualties. The net result was that scheduled marathon races in many cities were cancelled or their locations changed to inside the sports stadia. The basically military government's retreats all along the line can become a route.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

Why is the government so helpless? What common people see is a contest between the Maulvi and the sarkar. The Mullah is seen as gaining the upper hand. The government has nothing to show for its endeavour to promote enlightened moderation. Reasons for it are several. A priori, governments do not reform societies. Law and the police cannot enforce a social reform that has grown from within the society. Intellectuals, artists, writers et al lead the moment. Social reform is also a function of education and culture.

Crudely, the central element of the whole trouble is attitude towards women. Enlightened moderation gives equal human rights to women, with freedom to engage in any profession or work. This is not acceptable to medieval minds that abound. Medieval societies are generally hierarchical. At the top of the heap are landed aristocrats while others are required to obey them. Lower down the scale, common men are superior to their women folk. Indeed, women are treated as chattel. They are disposed of in marriage by male guardians. They remain inferior throughout life, having to do the bidding of their fathers, brothers or husbands or even uncles.

How can a change be effected is the question. Historically in Europe enlightened moderation resulted from the Enlightenment movement and also partly from Reformation. The way to enlighten people is paved with the effort to change the hierarchical society by leveling down the social field. Such a change is associated with human rights' concept; ordinary men and women are empowered by abolishing the domination of landed aristocracy. In short, a liberal democratic revolution is the main means through which an enlightened and egalitarian society is created. Women's emancipation is a necessary part of that revolution.

It is not achieved by a government passing a law or enforcing its preconceived notions of social reform. There has to be a concrete social basis for creating human equalities between the sexes and to all minorities without discrimination of sex, race, sect or religion or class. In short, democracy is the outward sign of a liberated society. Thus, the road to progress lies through society's democratic leveling and abolition of medieval forms of land holding. So long as the social supremacy of landed aristocracy lasts, human equality cannot be practised. Attacks by MMA zealots on women point to this inequality fomenting society's refusal to embrace gender equality. More such troubles lie ahead.

The morale of the Mullahs is high now. Pakistan has a democracy of sorts. It is not one in which the voter is sovereign, making and breaking governments. Expression of Musharraf's power is actually independent of voters that held the election and managed results. While there are physical institutions of a democracy, they lack norms and spirit of true democracy. Behold: there is the hardware of democracy but no software inside. Spirit of democracy is expressed through Parliament's sovereignty in the parliamentary system and sovereignty of Constitution and laws in presidential types. Both are democratic, if the administrative apparatus does not queer the pitch for voters. Free, fair and transparent elections, reflecting supremacy of Parliament-made laws, become the chief manifestation of democracy in which the government is totally subordinated to the Constitution and laws made under it.

Current facts are that the Army as an institution is the true locus of power and authority. No matter what laws and Constitution say, or what democratic norms and practices demand, will of the Army prevails. Task in Pakistan is to ensure that soldiers remain confined to their barracks and parade grounds. How to ensure that is not clear. In Pakistan, Army rule is based on ignorance and docility of common man and the open or secret support to, and from, religious leaders. How to change these two bases?

One way is persuasion and the other is forcing the change. Now forcing involves some kind of a violent revolution. And that is not about to happen. There are no revolution-making leaders in Pakistan; the Army's image of power is a guarantee that power will stay with it. Persuasion is perhaps the only way that might do the trick, though it has its limitations. Why should Army listen to sermons about giving up power? Pakistanis may be fated to see the final results of an unavowed Military-Mullah alliance to preserve basically Medieval social structures. Enlightened moderation is just fine rhetoric -- for foreigners.

Some MMA leaders indignantly deny there is a Military-Mullah alliance. Many others tersely comment that they are protesting too much. Didn't MMA vote for Musharraf's LFO? The opposition to Musharraf retaining the job of COAS looks suspect after so substantially supporting the military. In the germination of the very idea of MMA the COAS seemed to have had a role. There is also the long history of cooperation between religious parties and the military all these decades.

There are morphological reasons sustaining this alliance, with its family quarrels. Both forces are deeply conservative, committed to preserve the social structures that sustain both. Military needs Mullahs to help indoctrinate troops besides leading prayers. Moreover, Pakistan Army has been in politics; lacking in legitimacy, soldiers in power are always on the defensive. They rely on Mullahs, the prayer leaders, to mitigate some of it. The most glaring examples of Military-Mullah alliance was seen in East Pakistan during 1971 and in Gen. Zia's regime during 1970s and 1980s. Even President Musharraf preferred JUI Chief as a safer Leader of Opposition. The two are natural and historical allies.

It is thus hard to be optimistic about the future; enlightened moderation cannot visit Pakistan so long as authoritarianism prevails here. Why would Army relinquish power, if it cannot be forced to do so? Can we rely on religious parties to establish the ultimate supremacy of free voters? Is civil society or democratic forces strong enough to send the Army back to barracks? The more Pakistan changes the more it remains the same.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.