“[W]ho allowed the Americans to come to Pakistan and carry out this attack?”
- Imran Khan
This author has made it clear that he is no fan of the ex-cricket player turned political commentator, Imran Khan, who has spent his valuable time campaigning for the upcoming Pakistani elections and chastising the current state of the game of cricket in his homeland. His recent politically organized anti-drone sit-in highlights the vague sense of Pakistani nationalism that he has consistently promoted throughout the region. In a recent article to the Independent, Mr. Khan expressed the humiliation he feels that the United States circumvented Pakistani authority and captured the most notorious international terrorist in human history. Make no mistake, he is correct to feel that Pakistan was (or rather “has been”) essentially a puppet of America’s war on terror rather than a fully ordained partner.
And so we arrive here:
“…who allowed the Americans to come to Pakistan and carry out this attack?”
Yes, he used the term “allowed.” As if American forces were to have ever spoken openly and in earnest to Pakistani intelligence. As though there were some unspoken agreement between the Pakistani government and the Obama administration. As if Pakistan hasn’t simply been a bullied force of American intelligence agencies for the past decade. While this language may inspire indignation in those not accustomed to the impetus of political bodies, the fact remains that international affairs consist merely of political rhetoric designed to distract from practical leverage. These polemics should be reserved for the floor of the United Nations, but please don’t play games with us.
However, in the same article, Khan is correct to acknowledge that the rest of the world will recognize the comfort in which bin Laden was kept during his final months. He did not reside in squalor or ostracized in the border regions, but only an hour away from the heart of the Pakistani capitol, which simply begs the question: “How?” Not just how did Osama bin Laden survive for so long behind enemy lines, but how does the Pakistani military not actively gather intelligence within their own country?
President Obama was quick to assure the American press that Pakistan was in no way harboring the international killer. Fine. Acceptable answer. Why would Pakistani intelligence hide the hottest international criminal so close to a military academy? But why did the ISI not know he was there? Mr. Khan correctly disparages the Pakistani military as corrupt, but this is not nearly as accurate as comparing the ISI to a leaky bucket, through which American intelligence reaches the ears of its enemies. American Navy SEALs infiltrated Abbottabad on Sunday night without notifying the ISI and even went so far as to jam the country’s radar system to avoid detection. The entire operation was based in Bagram, a military base in Afghanistan. These are not the actions of allies. The operations that occurred and the location in which they took place only serve to highlight the disparity between Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s statements that Washington and Islamabad are working closely to pressure Al-Qaeda.
One can almost summon the image of General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani dandling on the knee of Uncle Sam who nurses him with a $36 billion bottle. And yet, Gen. Kayani holds no love for the American intelligence in his heart. He has made his impression of U.S. foreign policy clear when he declared earlier this year that America’s sole concern for Pakistan is to reduce its nuclear arsenal, accusing the U.S. and its allies of "double standards and discrimination."
It is clear that the support system establishing the fantasy that Osama bin Laden was not residing in the confines of Pakistan originated in one of three places, all of them Pakistani. Either bin Laden was disguised by the military, the state, or society in general. In any of these scenarios, the answer for Pakistan lies not in a “Pakistani” solution. In short, nationalism is not the answer here. Globalism, however, solves both the economic decline and the domestic terror threat. The expressed understanding that no book, none, is correct in its explanation of the human person or the proper governance of society, will lead Pakistani officials to direct the country in a manner that allows economic growth and greater civil rights.
Independence from the West, I agree, is the first in a grand scheme to free Pakistan from corrupt and ineffective military control. As long as foreign nations are allowed to frame Pakistan’s foreign policy, the internal chaos will elude the grasp of true reformers. Yet many would be mistaken if they are under the impression that terrorism will disperse through a revitalization of either “Islam” or “national pride.”
So what are Mr. Khan’s plans for dealing with the American bully? Simply put, he has none. He wishes to implement counter terrorism efforts via… tribal warfare? Clearly his presidential agenda is to release Pakistan from the artificial bonds placed on it by the Western powers and loose his nation into a purlieu of… Muslim nationalism? There is no middle ground when dealing with the terrorist organizations that have infiltrated Pakistan. These groups may exist along a radical fringe of Islam, but they view themselves instead as the last remaining bastions of pure Mohammadian theology. Any deals with Saudi Arabia would be viewed as a betrayal of Islam. Any condemnation of the act of Hamas would be viewed as a betrayal of Islam.
The struggle between Pakistan and fundamentalist Islam is neither unique to the country or the terrorists hoping to infiltrate it. The fight against Islamic terrorism is waged, not by the West, but by secularism in general. The fear I have of Imran Khan gaining control derives from the same emotional branch that provided me with anger over the complacency of Benazir Bhutto. Standing up for the vocabulary of woman’s rights is invariably different than actually standing up for women’s right; of which she did nothing (I take great pride in noting that the female-oriented reforms Bhutto simply parroted were finally adopted into law by the tyrant Gen. Musharraf). The inability of Muslim politicians to promote themselves to the level of “Muslim philosophers” can be traced to their belief that the “right way” is the “Pakistani” way. As an American, I can easily claim that the correct way to maintain security and a viable economy within a state is not the “American way” or the “Christian way”, but the secular way. I repeat here again, as President Obama alluded to in his announcement speech, that secularism in no manner reduces the role of Islam in an individual’s life.
I must also say here that it is a shame that we, as Americans, have allowed Pakistan to become the battlefield for the response we have mustered to Al-Qaeda. While Americans crowd the street in celebration and adopt the collective mindset that the war on terror (at least in one phase) has concluded, Pakistani civilians truly have much to fear in the form of vengeful reprisals. It can never be overlooked that Pakistan has always been on the radar of Islamic fundamentalist groups. When Bhutto came up against the might of the Taliban in the 1990s, her political resolution was to allow a quasi “two-state solution,” allowing conservative Muslims the right to dictate applied law throughout specific regions with no reprisal from the official government. Many have argued that we are witnessing a similar scenario unfold under Karzai’s Afghanistan. As secularism is adopted in Pakistan (as it must eventually be adopted despite overwhelming disapproval by even moderate Muslims within the argument), fundamentalist Islam will continue to oppose, not the culture, but Pakistan itself as a sovereign nation.
The theocratic delusions of Islamic fundamentalism have advanced for so long because they have gone unchecked (or often encouraged) by authoritarian governments in the region. The fact is that bin Laden picked on an enemy he could not defeat. When American troops responded, he fled to a country within which he could hide. It was Pakistan’s inherent weakness, brought on by generations of corruption and an inability to unify the nations many outlying tribes, which enticed bin Laden. He has claimed on multiple occasions that he personally financed the downfall of the Bhutto administration. Why not the Musharraf regime? Why not the Bush administration? Imran Khan seeks to free Pakistan from foreign interference, but we must challenge him on this. Will Pakistan find itself free to roam a secular and intellectual purlieu? Or will it revert back to the corruption and shortsightedness that mired Pakistani progress that has defined the nation for the past seven administrations?
The lame attempts by Imran Khan to summarize the problems of Pakistan by arguing that they are not his Pakistan do nothing to correct, or even alleviate, the pressing threats to Pakistani sovereignty. Namely, that Pakistan can be allowed to govern itself and can remain free from fundamentalist Islam without American drone attacks.
Soon-to-be-replaced director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, stated simply, "Either they're involved [in the hiding of bin Laden] or incompetent." I'm sure we can all assume its the latter.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Friday, November 12, 2010
"Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall."
“[The law] should be adopted in such a manner to the people for whom they are made, as to render it very unlikely for those of one nation to be proper for another.”
- Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu, Book I 3.12
“Rational Drug Design” is a term coined by pharmacologists to illustrate the process of medication construction in relation to a preexisting biological disorder. Wholly pragmatic, this process seeks to solve the genetic discrepancies of a patient, not by “squaring the circle” but by fashioning the chemical solution to fit the problem. The political philosophers at the time of the Enlightenment spent much of their time attempting to unlock the core of human nature in order to build a secure system of government and greatest freedom for its subjects.
Writing in Christian France during the Enlightenment, Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu may have admittedly oversold the concept of the Divine in an attempt to appease the authorities (although one could argue that the issuing of a political philosophy intended to weaken the power of the government is hardly an act of “appeasement”). In fact, when dealing with the subject of the Divine, Montesquieu references, not holy scripture or the saints, but instead the pre-Christian philosopher Plutarch. He uses this testimonial to argue that even God (should he exist) would be locked in his understanding of “justice.” Even the laws of physics, Montesquieu argues, are directly tied to a concept of Divinity, neither of which can be removed or altered in the slightest (I 1.6). Laws, and therefore, justice are “necessary relations derived from the nature of things” (I 1.1). Therefore, whether or not Montesquieu truly is a Deist appears to be irrelevant to his philosophy. While there is no justice in the state of nature (or no natural justice), there certainly exists a need for justice. Thus, both the atheist and the Christian can live under the same laws with no discrepancies in their worldviews.
Human nature, according to Montesquieu and in direct compliance with Hobbesian philosophy, is primarily one oriented around self-preservation. Qualities like fear serve to fuel this goal, however, unlike Hobbes, Montesquieu recognizes that fear, as a predominant trait of man in a state of nature, could never have allowed for the creation of modern society, as it would be constantly wracked with permanent struggle between individuals (I 2.7). Indeed, the political state of man comes after society has been formed, which means that although fear may be present in the hearts of man, it certainly does not take the definitive role that Hobbes envisioned. The desire for superiority, for example, comes out of a societal, or artificial, nature. One can only wonder how complete his philosophy would have been had he access to current studies in evolutionary psychology. The Spanish monk and political philosopher Francisco de Vitoria would have disagreed with Montesquieu on the natural state of the political life. Like Hobbes, he viewed the political life of man as intrinsically natural. Society is viewed as a natural, not an established, aspect of human interaction.
With regards to the establishment of governmental powers, Vitoria would find much to agree with in Book 24 of The Spirit of the Laws as Montesquieu quickly draws a connection between the Catholic faith and the supreme form of government: a monarchy (XXIV 5). And although both authors would unite in criticizing Bayle’s claim that it is better to have no religion than a false one, Montesquieu separates from his phantasmic counterpart in arguing that piety can indeed be problematic with regards to civil society. Although he claims to “have never…[made] the interests of religion submit to those of a political nature” (XXIV 1.4), Montesquieu seems to spend the entirely of the subsequent book hoping to transform religion into a more mediocre shadow of its current form. While religion may help rival and check a despot, a Monarchy brings with it an inherent virtue that balances the power of the king. Once again, we can see that not all combinations of government and religion are compatible. This appears to be the most important dividing line between the two philosophers as Montesquieu recognizes that human nature will not be deterred by a set of religious code, but rather but a common law.
In Vitoria’s worldview, material good, or gain, is not the equivalent of the common good. Consequently, to sacrifice the spiritual direction of a society simply to fulfill the values of utilitarianism would be ill advised. One can see the discrepancies of their philosophies once the interaction of nations on the international realm comes into question. Montesquieu argues that governments have not only a right, but also a duty, to defend their nations. War is not meant for policing other nations or vengeance, therefore is an irrational risk if conducted for any reason other than self-preservation. Vitoria would find this view almost offensive. For the Spanish friar, the only focus is a spiritual one and therefore governmental powers are simply temporary. As the great theologian Thomas Aquinas would understand it, all citizens are merely stewards of their land, not owners. Therefore all borders are illusory and international law is truly just Natural Law on a broader scale. Christians are compelled to war only when innocents are being victimized in foreign lands. The motivation for this claim stems directly from the preaching of Christ, not rationality or necessity as Montesquieu would have undoubtedly preferred.
The worldview that Vitoria embellishes upon is the Thomistic doctrine of Catholicism laid down by Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. In this compendium, Aquinas laid out a hierarchy of differing laws, the greatest of which is the Divine Posited Law, law revealed by God through revelation. Indeed, his religiocentrism (or to be generous, his strong faith) is revealed in his opinion that Christian missionaries should be allowed into other nations to preach the true religion while the proselytizers of other faiths are commanded to remain outside Christian borders. Surely, Montesquieu would not agree or accept the favoring of one religion over another simply because it is considered “true” by its adherents. Montesquieu actively seeks to find the best applicable religion to infuse into the state as we see in Book 24, Chapter 6. This is important, because he argues that the veracity of a religion does not determine its place in the government; not all nations can adhere to the same moral code. Self-defense however, is universal.
This primary focus on the metaphysical is not unique to the Thomistic doctrine by any means. The famous Koranic “verse of the sword” reads thus: “slay the idolaters wheresoever’s you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place (9.3-14). Therefore, we see the root problem with introducing religious ordinance into the state is its positive postulation of “Divine Law.” We remember that even though Montesquieu might be a Deist, he easily disagrees with the imposition of any Divine Law into governmental powers, especially when they serve to disrupt the social well-being as he draws a line between the nature of the government and the principle of its action (III 1).
To his credit, Vitoria is known to be very critical of the church’s intrinsic “right” to conquer and rule heathen nations simply because their religion is incorrect. Yet, Vitoria still upholds the veracity of the Catholic religion and recommends the exporting of missionaries to “heathen” cultures as long as they remained peaceful. One could easily call to mind the most famous work of Vitoria, On the American Indians, a treatise that condemned the violent ambitions of Spanish colonizers and the actions taken towards the natives in America. This view seems remarkably contradictory, however, to Vitoria’s earlier claims that the “material good” must not interfere with the spiritual warfare for souls. This author would argue that such are the inconsistencies with his worldview. Vitoria is clearly more cautious in advancing war while Montesquieu views war as a utilitarian endeavor as we remember from earlier in the essay.
When combined with the concept of a Divine Posited Law, society then becomes centered on the conscience of man and directed towards the salvation of the soul, as opposed to the regulations and restrictions placed on human nature, as Hobbes would prefer. In the view of Vitoria and Aquinas, Divine Law safeguards against Natural Law because fallen human nature is intrinsically self-centered. Since the natural inclination for men is self-preservation, he must be constantly reminded that there are more important aspects to Christian life than avoiding death.
The separation of religion, or at least the diminution in fervor among the faithful, is part of Montesquieu’s pragmatic design of government using human nature as his foundation. Vitoria’s misunderstanding of human nature and emphasis on the Divine Law forces him to irrationally design the political sphere as it pertains to multiple nations. A good pharmacologist, Vitoria would not make.
- Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu, Book I 3.12
“Rational Drug Design” is a term coined by pharmacologists to illustrate the process of medication construction in relation to a preexisting biological disorder. Wholly pragmatic, this process seeks to solve the genetic discrepancies of a patient, not by “squaring the circle” but by fashioning the chemical solution to fit the problem. The political philosophers at the time of the Enlightenment spent much of their time attempting to unlock the core of human nature in order to build a secure system of government and greatest freedom for its subjects.
Writing in Christian France during the Enlightenment, Charles de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu may have admittedly oversold the concept of the Divine in an attempt to appease the authorities (although one could argue that the issuing of a political philosophy intended to weaken the power of the government is hardly an act of “appeasement”). In fact, when dealing with the subject of the Divine, Montesquieu references, not holy scripture or the saints, but instead the pre-Christian philosopher Plutarch. He uses this testimonial to argue that even God (should he exist) would be locked in his understanding of “justice.” Even the laws of physics, Montesquieu argues, are directly tied to a concept of Divinity, neither of which can be removed or altered in the slightest (I 1.6). Laws, and therefore, justice are “necessary relations derived from the nature of things” (I 1.1). Therefore, whether or not Montesquieu truly is a Deist appears to be irrelevant to his philosophy. While there is no justice in the state of nature (or no natural justice), there certainly exists a need for justice. Thus, both the atheist and the Christian can live under the same laws with no discrepancies in their worldviews.
Human nature, according to Montesquieu and in direct compliance with Hobbesian philosophy, is primarily one oriented around self-preservation. Qualities like fear serve to fuel this goal, however, unlike Hobbes, Montesquieu recognizes that fear, as a predominant trait of man in a state of nature, could never have allowed for the creation of modern society, as it would be constantly wracked with permanent struggle between individuals (I 2.7). Indeed, the political state of man comes after society has been formed, which means that although fear may be present in the hearts of man, it certainly does not take the definitive role that Hobbes envisioned. The desire for superiority, for example, comes out of a societal, or artificial, nature. One can only wonder how complete his philosophy would have been had he access to current studies in evolutionary psychology. The Spanish monk and political philosopher Francisco de Vitoria would have disagreed with Montesquieu on the natural state of the political life. Like Hobbes, he viewed the political life of man as intrinsically natural. Society is viewed as a natural, not an established, aspect of human interaction.
With regards to the establishment of governmental powers, Vitoria would find much to agree with in Book 24 of The Spirit of the Laws as Montesquieu quickly draws a connection between the Catholic faith and the supreme form of government: a monarchy (XXIV 5). And although both authors would unite in criticizing Bayle’s claim that it is better to have no religion than a false one, Montesquieu separates from his phantasmic counterpart in arguing that piety can indeed be problematic with regards to civil society. Although he claims to “have never…[made] the interests of religion submit to those of a political nature” (XXIV 1.4), Montesquieu seems to spend the entirely of the subsequent book hoping to transform religion into a more mediocre shadow of its current form. While religion may help rival and check a despot, a Monarchy brings with it an inherent virtue that balances the power of the king. Once again, we can see that not all combinations of government and religion are compatible. This appears to be the most important dividing line between the two philosophers as Montesquieu recognizes that human nature will not be deterred by a set of religious code, but rather but a common law.
In Vitoria’s worldview, material good, or gain, is not the equivalent of the common good. Consequently, to sacrifice the spiritual direction of a society simply to fulfill the values of utilitarianism would be ill advised. One can see the discrepancies of their philosophies once the interaction of nations on the international realm comes into question. Montesquieu argues that governments have not only a right, but also a duty, to defend their nations. War is not meant for policing other nations or vengeance, therefore is an irrational risk if conducted for any reason other than self-preservation. Vitoria would find this view almost offensive. For the Spanish friar, the only focus is a spiritual one and therefore governmental powers are simply temporary. As the great theologian Thomas Aquinas would understand it, all citizens are merely stewards of their land, not owners. Therefore all borders are illusory and international law is truly just Natural Law on a broader scale. Christians are compelled to war only when innocents are being victimized in foreign lands. The motivation for this claim stems directly from the preaching of Christ, not rationality or necessity as Montesquieu would have undoubtedly preferred.
The worldview that Vitoria embellishes upon is the Thomistic doctrine of Catholicism laid down by Aquinas in his Summa Theologica. In this compendium, Aquinas laid out a hierarchy of differing laws, the greatest of which is the Divine Posited Law, law revealed by God through revelation. Indeed, his religiocentrism (or to be generous, his strong faith) is revealed in his opinion that Christian missionaries should be allowed into other nations to preach the true religion while the proselytizers of other faiths are commanded to remain outside Christian borders. Surely, Montesquieu would not agree or accept the favoring of one religion over another simply because it is considered “true” by its adherents. Montesquieu actively seeks to find the best applicable religion to infuse into the state as we see in Book 24, Chapter 6. This is important, because he argues that the veracity of a religion does not determine its place in the government; not all nations can adhere to the same moral code. Self-defense however, is universal.
This primary focus on the metaphysical is not unique to the Thomistic doctrine by any means. The famous Koranic “verse of the sword” reads thus: “slay the idolaters wheresoever’s you find them, and take them captive or besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every place (9.3-14). Therefore, we see the root problem with introducing religious ordinance into the state is its positive postulation of “Divine Law.” We remember that even though Montesquieu might be a Deist, he easily disagrees with the imposition of any Divine Law into governmental powers, especially when they serve to disrupt the social well-being as he draws a line between the nature of the government and the principle of its action (III 1).
To his credit, Vitoria is known to be very critical of the church’s intrinsic “right” to conquer and rule heathen nations simply because their religion is incorrect. Yet, Vitoria still upholds the veracity of the Catholic religion and recommends the exporting of missionaries to “heathen” cultures as long as they remained peaceful. One could easily call to mind the most famous work of Vitoria, On the American Indians, a treatise that condemned the violent ambitions of Spanish colonizers and the actions taken towards the natives in America. This view seems remarkably contradictory, however, to Vitoria’s earlier claims that the “material good” must not interfere with the spiritual warfare for souls. This author would argue that such are the inconsistencies with his worldview. Vitoria is clearly more cautious in advancing war while Montesquieu views war as a utilitarian endeavor as we remember from earlier in the essay.
When combined with the concept of a Divine Posited Law, society then becomes centered on the conscience of man and directed towards the salvation of the soul, as opposed to the regulations and restrictions placed on human nature, as Hobbes would prefer. In the view of Vitoria and Aquinas, Divine Law safeguards against Natural Law because fallen human nature is intrinsically self-centered. Since the natural inclination for men is self-preservation, he must be constantly reminded that there are more important aspects to Christian life than avoiding death.
The separation of religion, or at least the diminution in fervor among the faithful, is part of Montesquieu’s pragmatic design of government using human nature as his foundation. Vitoria’s misunderstanding of human nature and emphasis on the Divine Law forces him to irrationally design the political sphere as it pertains to multiple nations. A good pharmacologist, Vitoria would not make.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Why Pervez Musharraf was beneficial for Pakistan
As one peruses the Pakistani political commentary found via the application “notes” on Facebook, a pattern of youth activism arises. Encouraging as this may sound, it is important to note what precisely it is that such an emboldened youth seeks to implement in their native country. More often than not, one finds unequivocal support of Imran Khan, the former cricket player and subject of Hamilton’s previous posting.
It would not be brash to hypothesize that if a poll were taken amongst the supporters of Khan, one would find opinions of rampant nationalism and Islamic ethnocentrism. Perhaps this is because such sentiments are precisely what Khan brings to the table in terms of political debate. And that is all. The quantity of anacolutha found on these profiles is inversely proportionate to the quality of message.
The reason this mentality is particularly dangerous when concerning the upcoming elections is because it achieves neither philosophical nor legislative goals. For example, Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister before Musharraf, once famously proposed the Shariat Bill in Pakistani Parliament, an attempt to base the infrastructure of Pakistan on the holy Qu’ran and the Sunnat. Why the economy under Sharif plummeted during his first term should come as no surprise. I guess “The Economist” is not one of Allah’s innumerable titles.
Under Nawaz Sharif, the vast majority of Pakistan’s budget was being used to roll over debt in an attempt to prevent sovereign default. Needless to say, this style of economics only serves to freeze the private sector and frighten away whatever foreign speculators might happen to venture into the choppy waters of militant-ruled Pakistan. As Sharif’s rule came to a close, both national and internal debt had doubled.
Every financial adviser before Musharraf’s control (including the late Benazir Bhutto herself) had been hired based off his or her educational résumé and alma mater. Clearly an inadequate strategy, this nepotistic system had to be eradicated. What better way then to correct the incessant “can-kicking” of national debt than to hire a banker skilled in the art of international financial obligation? Musharraf was the first Pakistani leader to appoint his finance minister from the business sector. As the head of Citibank’s Global Wealth Management, Shaukat Aziz earned his right to govern Pakistan’s economics as the only finance minister whose educational résumé is weaker than his professional one. This is the first sign that Musharraf was more appropriately adapt at fixing Pakistani woes than the career politicians who had aided in their nation’s bankruptcy.
Under the financial direction of Aziz, Pakistan’s economy, per capita income, general revenue and exports doubled which led to his being honored by the IMF. Furthermore, foreign investment in Pakistani markets quintupled. Since no bank can have a higher credit rating than its mother nation, Pakistan is now able to seek foreign loans on a much wider scale. Their derivatives are based on counterparty deals, which allows for greater expansion economically. This is, however, a blessing and a curse. Now that Pakistan can reach above and beyond its financial means, another corrupt politician who steals from the general coffers would create too much derivative exposure and sink the country into a level of bankruptcy not seen since its days as a commonwealth. Now more than ever, a similarly secular-minded leader must proceed the economic success of the Musharraf regime. It should not be such a secret that any politician screaming “Qur’an, Qur’an, Qur’an” is unfit to rule.
The most ironic element inciting the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état was Nawaz Sharif’s accusations that General Musharraf was responsible for the rising conflict between India over the Kashmir dispute. Most notably since under Musharraf’s authoritarian regime, Pakistani and Indian relations reached an unprecedented level of peaceful negotiation. Furthermore, under his reign, Musharraf quelled rampant corruption, allowed greater mobility for women and permitted the press to openly criticize his politics with no indication of retribution. Democracy is only valuable when freedoms like these are empowered. But when a democracy refuses them and an autocrat allows them, whose evil shall we deem as lesser?
As Fareed Zakaria explains in his manual on illiberal democracy, The Future of Freedom, democracy should not be implemented dogmatically throughout the world lest individual countries fall prey to excess corruption. Political experts could hardly identify the government of the Bhutto administration as “democratic” without involuntary irony. Benazir Bhutto has two famous marks to her name: embezzlement of Pakistani funds and furthering relations with the anti-democratic Islamic fundamentalists. Zakaria himself praises Musharraf saying, "if genuine liberalization and even democracy come to Pakistan it will come not because of its history of illiberal democracy but because it stumbled on a liberal autocrat."
As a basic principle of the Enlightenment and thus, a facet of this site, dogmatism is wholly unhealthy and the dogma of Wilsonianism has been abused before. Yet prior to the establishment of liberal democracy in Pakistan there must first exist the seeds of Enlightenment thinking. Unfortunately, like most Eastern countries, they show no signs of even tilling the soil. Imran Khan has raised a banner declaring separation between the secularized West, their materialistic views and the religiosity he considers necessary to political governance. The politically active youth have exposed themselves as adherents to any strict Islamic upbringing and encourage alarmist language among their politicians. Whether they simply rebel against the perceived moral failings of the West or honestly believe that the works of Muhammad are the only texts worth analyzing, the (admittedly caricaturized) Pakistani youth seem to apply no value to an increase in freedom and financial opportunity.
A flood recently devastated Pakistani citizens; the man who disavows materialism will not be the man to feed them. Unfortunately for Khan, man can live on bread alone. General Pervez Musharraf understood this, but it does not look like the Pakistani youth will support an adequate substitute for his economic proficiency. How much longer will it take to save Pakistan?
It would not be brash to hypothesize that if a poll were taken amongst the supporters of Khan, one would find opinions of rampant nationalism and Islamic ethnocentrism. Perhaps this is because such sentiments are precisely what Khan brings to the table in terms of political debate. And that is all. The quantity of anacolutha found on these profiles is inversely proportionate to the quality of message.
The reason this mentality is particularly dangerous when concerning the upcoming elections is because it achieves neither philosophical nor legislative goals. For example, Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister before Musharraf, once famously proposed the Shariat Bill in Pakistani Parliament, an attempt to base the infrastructure of Pakistan on the holy Qu’ran and the Sunnat. Why the economy under Sharif plummeted during his first term should come as no surprise. I guess “The Economist” is not one of Allah’s innumerable titles.
Under Nawaz Sharif, the vast majority of Pakistan’s budget was being used to roll over debt in an attempt to prevent sovereign default. Needless to say, this style of economics only serves to freeze the private sector and frighten away whatever foreign speculators might happen to venture into the choppy waters of militant-ruled Pakistan. As Sharif’s rule came to a close, both national and internal debt had doubled.
Every financial adviser before Musharraf’s control (including the late Benazir Bhutto herself) had been hired based off his or her educational résumé and alma mater. Clearly an inadequate strategy, this nepotistic system had to be eradicated. What better way then to correct the incessant “can-kicking” of national debt than to hire a banker skilled in the art of international financial obligation? Musharraf was the first Pakistani leader to appoint his finance minister from the business sector. As the head of Citibank’s Global Wealth Management, Shaukat Aziz earned his right to govern Pakistan’s economics as the only finance minister whose educational résumé is weaker than his professional one. This is the first sign that Musharraf was more appropriately adapt at fixing Pakistani woes than the career politicians who had aided in their nation’s bankruptcy.
Under the financial direction of Aziz, Pakistan’s economy, per capita income, general revenue and exports doubled which led to his being honored by the IMF. Furthermore, foreign investment in Pakistani markets quintupled. Since no bank can have a higher credit rating than its mother nation, Pakistan is now able to seek foreign loans on a much wider scale. Their derivatives are based on counterparty deals, which allows for greater expansion economically. This is, however, a blessing and a curse. Now that Pakistan can reach above and beyond its financial means, another corrupt politician who steals from the general coffers would create too much derivative exposure and sink the country into a level of bankruptcy not seen since its days as a commonwealth. Now more than ever, a similarly secular-minded leader must proceed the economic success of the Musharraf regime. It should not be such a secret that any politician screaming “Qur’an, Qur’an, Qur’an” is unfit to rule.
The most ironic element inciting the 1999 Pakistani coup d'état was Nawaz Sharif’s accusations that General Musharraf was responsible for the rising conflict between India over the Kashmir dispute. Most notably since under Musharraf’s authoritarian regime, Pakistani and Indian relations reached an unprecedented level of peaceful negotiation. Furthermore, under his reign, Musharraf quelled rampant corruption, allowed greater mobility for women and permitted the press to openly criticize his politics with no indication of retribution. Democracy is only valuable when freedoms like these are empowered. But when a democracy refuses them and an autocrat allows them, whose evil shall we deem as lesser?
As Fareed Zakaria explains in his manual on illiberal democracy, The Future of Freedom, democracy should not be implemented dogmatically throughout the world lest individual countries fall prey to excess corruption. Political experts could hardly identify the government of the Bhutto administration as “democratic” without involuntary irony. Benazir Bhutto has two famous marks to her name: embezzlement of Pakistani funds and furthering relations with the anti-democratic Islamic fundamentalists. Zakaria himself praises Musharraf saying, "if genuine liberalization and even democracy come to Pakistan it will come not because of its history of illiberal democracy but because it stumbled on a liberal autocrat."
As a basic principle of the Enlightenment and thus, a facet of this site, dogmatism is wholly unhealthy and the dogma of Wilsonianism has been abused before. Yet prior to the establishment of liberal democracy in Pakistan there must first exist the seeds of Enlightenment thinking. Unfortunately, like most Eastern countries, they show no signs of even tilling the soil. Imran Khan has raised a banner declaring separation between the secularized West, their materialistic views and the religiosity he considers necessary to political governance. The politically active youth have exposed themselves as adherents to any strict Islamic upbringing and encourage alarmist language among their politicians. Whether they simply rebel against the perceived moral failings of the West or honestly believe that the works of Muhammad are the only texts worth analyzing, the (admittedly caricaturized) Pakistani youth seem to apply no value to an increase in freedom and financial opportunity.
A flood recently devastated Pakistani citizens; the man who disavows materialism will not be the man to feed them. Unfortunately for Khan, man can live on bread alone. General Pervez Musharraf understood this, but it does not look like the Pakistani youth will support an adequate substitute for his economic proficiency. How much longer will it take to save Pakistan?
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Why Imran Khan would further the despotic reign of Pakistan’s political elite and delay its Renaissance
It was the Muslim poet Allama Iqbal who compared the oft-mislabeled “virtue” of faith to a bird, limitless in scope and vision. I agree whole-heartedly although in doing so, see no reason why this does not undermine the entire concept as superfluous to human existence. Science and reason serve to ground us from our otherwise "bird-like" tendencies and Iqbal himself admits that the bird of faith is “unattended by intellect.” Fowl is a fine metaphor for artistic expression, but like the bird, we do not expect it to lead us to truth although this man is hardly the beacon of logic, having once labeled science a “dogma.” One must ask, which is worse: the poet who entertained illogical premises, or the internationally famous candidate of the next Pakistani elections who said about the dreamer, “Shakespeare…was fine, but no Allama Iqbal”?
In his recent article entitled “Why the West craves materialism & why the East sticks to religion,” the potential next Prime Minister of Pakistan and former cricket player, Imran Khan betrays either his ignorance or his political savvy when he marks Darwin as merely a “philosopher” and his esteemed theory of Evolution as “half-baked.” We can never be sure which classes the cricketeer slept through at Oxford, but one might not be far off if “Biology”, “Chemistry” and “Geology” were postulated. Yet Oxford is a prestigious institution, and surely the mighty cricket player picked up something. Clearly that something was not a degree in psychology. If one inquired into Imran Khan’s psychological prowess, they need look no further than his claim that animals can be “drilled,” but the homo sapien (which I must assume leaped out of the animal kingdom in the past few hours) require convincing on an intellectual level. Despite this claim being completely untrue (from Pavlovian classical conditioning to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), it begs far too many philosophical questions to be accepted prima facie.
“But Kahn,” one might ask, “if human civilization attached itself solely to reason, then why are there so many religions scattered so far over the Earth with no sign of unification in sight? They cannot all be correct, as their tenets are mutually exclusive.” A professor of theology might respond that religion does not appeal to reason, and that, as Iqbal stated, religion is “unattended by the intellect.” But alas, the response of Imran Khan is instead the intellectually disheartening mantra “That is why the Qur'an constantly appeals to reason.” If this is how Khan approached the works of Iqbal, then I beg him: study your Shakespeare just a little more.
He continues to make a psychological piñata of himself when he presumes that the Western world is inferior by stating, “Such a [non-religious] culture is bound to cause psychological problems in a human being, as there was going to be an imbalance between the body and the soul.” What statistics or studies he is using for these “facts” one can only guess (although I doubt his constituency would truly demand evidence for any of his claims). I personally thank Khan for alerting me to the fact that I was in a state of emotional flux I had never before noticed. Without intending to bludgeon a rotting horse, how can Imran Khan be considered even the slightest bit of a scientifically literate man when is caught having written the sentence: “Yet, amazingly in modern psychology, there is no study of the human soul.” Yes…amazingly.
While this could be the perfect time to educate Mr. Khan on the theory of falsifiability and evidentiary-based claims, I would prefer to attack Mr. Khan's rather blatant ideological dogmatism. Khan's holistic focus on the topic of Islam as a superior moral bastion for civilization reeks of the attempt to manipulate his constituency by fueling an already present inferiority complex. Which would explain the midsection of his article consisting of remarkably, if not horrifyingly, inaccurate claims about life in West. From inappropriately labeling racism as “increasing” to the claim that Switzerland and Sweden contain the highest suicide rates in the world (neither of which even place in the top ten), Khan paints the west as a decaying, depraved pit yearning for moral guidance. For example, the argument that western scientists have genetically deduced that black civilians are “less intelligent than whites” does not even deserve refutation let alone the time spent retyping it. Perhaps Oxford is not for everyone.
Furthermore, Khan exposes his inability to critically analyze statistics as he notes the high immigration rate out of Southern Asia into the “immoral” West. One could accuse him of special pleading in accurately noting that there were racially motivated attacks against these immigrants once they arrived since there now exists specific terminology to describe gang-rape perpetrated by teen immigrants on native born European girls. I am not here to point the blame or call out a specific culture, just to criticize the hypocrisy of Imran Khan when he reverts to this repellant fallacy. To be fair, Khan (reluctantly) attributes the West with its recognition of civilian rights and judicial equality (no doubt wondering how they could have picked up such an Islamic view the whole while).
As concerns his vitriolic attack on Salman Rushdie, I know not how an educated individual could so much as entertain the notion that the fundamentalist Islamic response was in any way honorable. A more ethical description of the events would be a simple condemnation of the repulsive notion of fatwa by the Ayatollah Khomeini. But I wouldn’t expect such an enlightened assertion from the man who claims, “[A] society that obeys [the] fundamentals of Islam has to be a liberal one.”
The remainder of his post is filled with the usual religious drivel of “becoming a better human being” by loving others. Why Islam is necessary in his life for charitable conduct is itself a quandary that only the religious can overlook. For example the statement “I have become a tolerant and a giving human being who feels compassion for the underprivileged” should be frightening to all who read it. No doubt he will be given a pass while we “Western heathens” who act in this manner despite belief in a commanding deity will be condemned, once again, as “immoral”. I find it wholly disconcerting as well that Khan believes the current trend of Western atheism is a reactionary movement (as though citizens in the 21st Century would bemoan the atrocities of the clergy in an era before even their deepest descendants were born) and not one based on rationally and the realization that there is more to life than allowing the bird of faith to lead one by the nose. However, I'll excuse him this illogical sentiment as the vast majority of believers fail to understand the refutation of a deity and thusly the atheistic movement.
The following paragraph seems to reveal that the cricket player also did not study the economy of the free market in his time abroad. Khan announces that the scarce economic resources in the country that just underwent a national disaster would be best spent on individuals who study (wait for it) Islam. “[T]he group on whom the greatest proportion of our educational resources are spent in this country must study Islam properly.” For some boding reason I feel that this cricketeer would not be the best choice for a Pakistan with high economic aspirations.
There can be no doubt that Khan is preying on the weak and uneducated when he advances the dichotomy between logic and religion, noting: “While science, no matter how much it progresses, can answer a lot of questions - two questions it will never be able to answer: One, what is the purpose of our existence and two, what happens to us when we die?” How either of these questions are relevant, let alone answered by any institution, are never accurately addressed although one needn’t exhaust the imaginative muscles in hypothesizing that Khan remains as ignorant on these subjects as the most educated of philosophers. Someone should inform the man that quoting the homeopathy-supporting Prince Charles is perhaps not the best way to win over the minds of the educated.
In dealing with politics in the Pakistani region, it should understood that the way to progress will not come about from the further decline into the superstition and tribal conservatism. It is a shame that Khan cannot separate the objective value of the Western world from his dogmatic, rather Kantian perception of it as “inferior” in its morality. He should instead be discussing free market economics and scientific progress. He should instead be considering the shaky alliance between the West and his nation. He should be addressing the tremulous peace between India and his home. No. Instead Khan addresses issues of supernatural inanity and pretending that the way to peace and prosperity will come through the furthering of “family values.” What can one expect form a man who once stated that fundamentalist terror squads are bad, but foreigners on Pakistani soil is just a little worse?
In conclusion, what we have received from Imran Khan can be best categorized as “typical political drivel,” inflating the ego of a population while promising truths that could not possibly be attained. That any one could take these words seriously simply reveals the mind-altering powers of partisan vocabulary. The Pakistani people should wake up before it is too late and ask the potential ruler if he will continue to tax the poor and let the wealthy slide in memoriam of his predecessors. Why should the Pakistani people believe that this man will rule in a different manner has certainly not been answered by the man himself.
While disavowing the West might make the ears of religious adherents tingle, it can hardly be called a comprehensive political strategy to achieve anything more ambitious than simply getting elected. Educating the masses in Islamic tradition will hardly solve the problem of ridding Pakistan of the Islamic fundamentalists. The changes that are needed in Pakistan are complex but not hidden. Economic reform is needed to take the burden off of the poor. Freedom of expression with regards to religion must finally be instituted and the judicial branch be held increasingly responsible. One can only hope that the glamorous cricket player with his eyes on the even more glamorous world of Asian politics is simply appealing to the excess number of Muslim households in Pakistan with such ignorant rhetoric simply to sway voters. Although I can honestly say I’m not sure which is worse.
I will leave you with this parting seed of wisdom from a man who should spend a little more of his life on the cricket field and less time disrupting Pakistan’s bid for entry into the 21st Century: “If Pakistan's Westernized class starts to study Islam…it will…make them realize what a progressive religion Islam is.”
In his recent article entitled “Why the West craves materialism & why the East sticks to religion,” the potential next Prime Minister of Pakistan and former cricket player, Imran Khan betrays either his ignorance or his political savvy when he marks Darwin as merely a “philosopher” and his esteemed theory of Evolution as “half-baked.” We can never be sure which classes the cricketeer slept through at Oxford, but one might not be far off if “Biology”, “Chemistry” and “Geology” were postulated. Yet Oxford is a prestigious institution, and surely the mighty cricket player picked up something. Clearly that something was not a degree in psychology. If one inquired into Imran Khan’s psychological prowess, they need look no further than his claim that animals can be “drilled,” but the homo sapien (which I must assume leaped out of the animal kingdom in the past few hours) require convincing on an intellectual level. Despite this claim being completely untrue (from Pavlovian classical conditioning to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs), it begs far too many philosophical questions to be accepted prima facie.
“But Kahn,” one might ask, “if human civilization attached itself solely to reason, then why are there so many religions scattered so far over the Earth with no sign of unification in sight? They cannot all be correct, as their tenets are mutually exclusive.” A professor of theology might respond that religion does not appeal to reason, and that, as Iqbal stated, religion is “unattended by the intellect.” But alas, the response of Imran Khan is instead the intellectually disheartening mantra “That is why the Qur'an constantly appeals to reason.” If this is how Khan approached the works of Iqbal, then I beg him: study your Shakespeare just a little more.
He continues to make a psychological piñata of himself when he presumes that the Western world is inferior by stating, “Such a [non-religious] culture is bound to cause psychological problems in a human being, as there was going to be an imbalance between the body and the soul.” What statistics or studies he is using for these “facts” one can only guess (although I doubt his constituency would truly demand evidence for any of his claims). I personally thank Khan for alerting me to the fact that I was in a state of emotional flux I had never before noticed. Without intending to bludgeon a rotting horse, how can Imran Khan be considered even the slightest bit of a scientifically literate man when is caught having written the sentence: “Yet, amazingly in modern psychology, there is no study of the human soul.” Yes…amazingly.
While this could be the perfect time to educate Mr. Khan on the theory of falsifiability and evidentiary-based claims, I would prefer to attack Mr. Khan's rather blatant ideological dogmatism. Khan's holistic focus on the topic of Islam as a superior moral bastion for civilization reeks of the attempt to manipulate his constituency by fueling an already present inferiority complex. Which would explain the midsection of his article consisting of remarkably, if not horrifyingly, inaccurate claims about life in West. From inappropriately labeling racism as “increasing” to the claim that Switzerland and Sweden contain the highest suicide rates in the world (neither of which even place in the top ten), Khan paints the west as a decaying, depraved pit yearning for moral guidance. For example, the argument that western scientists have genetically deduced that black civilians are “less intelligent than whites” does not even deserve refutation let alone the time spent retyping it. Perhaps Oxford is not for everyone.
Furthermore, Khan exposes his inability to critically analyze statistics as he notes the high immigration rate out of Southern Asia into the “immoral” West. One could accuse him of special pleading in accurately noting that there were racially motivated attacks against these immigrants once they arrived since there now exists specific terminology to describe gang-rape perpetrated by teen immigrants on native born European girls. I am not here to point the blame or call out a specific culture, just to criticize the hypocrisy of Imran Khan when he reverts to this repellant fallacy. To be fair, Khan (reluctantly) attributes the West with its recognition of civilian rights and judicial equality (no doubt wondering how they could have picked up such an Islamic view the whole while).
As concerns his vitriolic attack on Salman Rushdie, I know not how an educated individual could so much as entertain the notion that the fundamentalist Islamic response was in any way honorable. A more ethical description of the events would be a simple condemnation of the repulsive notion of fatwa by the Ayatollah Khomeini. But I wouldn’t expect such an enlightened assertion from the man who claims, “[A] society that obeys [the] fundamentals of Islam has to be a liberal one.”
The remainder of his post is filled with the usual religious drivel of “becoming a better human being” by loving others. Why Islam is necessary in his life for charitable conduct is itself a quandary that only the religious can overlook. For example the statement “I have become a tolerant and a giving human being who feels compassion for the underprivileged” should be frightening to all who read it. No doubt he will be given a pass while we “Western heathens” who act in this manner despite belief in a commanding deity will be condemned, once again, as “immoral”. I find it wholly disconcerting as well that Khan believes the current trend of Western atheism is a reactionary movement (as though citizens in the 21st Century would bemoan the atrocities of the clergy in an era before even their deepest descendants were born) and not one based on rationally and the realization that there is more to life than allowing the bird of faith to lead one by the nose. However, I'll excuse him this illogical sentiment as the vast majority of believers fail to understand the refutation of a deity and thusly the atheistic movement.
The following paragraph seems to reveal that the cricket player also did not study the economy of the free market in his time abroad. Khan announces that the scarce economic resources in the country that just underwent a national disaster would be best spent on individuals who study (wait for it) Islam. “[T]he group on whom the greatest proportion of our educational resources are spent in this country must study Islam properly.” For some boding reason I feel that this cricketeer would not be the best choice for a Pakistan with high economic aspirations.
There can be no doubt that Khan is preying on the weak and uneducated when he advances the dichotomy between logic and religion, noting: “While science, no matter how much it progresses, can answer a lot of questions - two questions it will never be able to answer: One, what is the purpose of our existence and two, what happens to us when we die?” How either of these questions are relevant, let alone answered by any institution, are never accurately addressed although one needn’t exhaust the imaginative muscles in hypothesizing that Khan remains as ignorant on these subjects as the most educated of philosophers. Someone should inform the man that quoting the homeopathy-supporting Prince Charles is perhaps not the best way to win over the minds of the educated.
In dealing with politics in the Pakistani region, it should understood that the way to progress will not come about from the further decline into the superstition and tribal conservatism. It is a shame that Khan cannot separate the objective value of the Western world from his dogmatic, rather Kantian perception of it as “inferior” in its morality. He should instead be discussing free market economics and scientific progress. He should instead be considering the shaky alliance between the West and his nation. He should be addressing the tremulous peace between India and his home. No. Instead Khan addresses issues of supernatural inanity and pretending that the way to peace and prosperity will come through the furthering of “family values.” What can one expect form a man who once stated that fundamentalist terror squads are bad, but foreigners on Pakistani soil is just a little worse?
In conclusion, what we have received from Imran Khan can be best categorized as “typical political drivel,” inflating the ego of a population while promising truths that could not possibly be attained. That any one could take these words seriously simply reveals the mind-altering powers of partisan vocabulary. The Pakistani people should wake up before it is too late and ask the potential ruler if he will continue to tax the poor and let the wealthy slide in memoriam of his predecessors. Why should the Pakistani people believe that this man will rule in a different manner has certainly not been answered by the man himself.
While disavowing the West might make the ears of religious adherents tingle, it can hardly be called a comprehensive political strategy to achieve anything more ambitious than simply getting elected. Educating the masses in Islamic tradition will hardly solve the problem of ridding Pakistan of the Islamic fundamentalists. The changes that are needed in Pakistan are complex but not hidden. Economic reform is needed to take the burden off of the poor. Freedom of expression with regards to religion must finally be instituted and the judicial branch be held increasingly responsible. One can only hope that the glamorous cricket player with his eyes on the even more glamorous world of Asian politics is simply appealing to the excess number of Muslim households in Pakistan with such ignorant rhetoric simply to sway voters. Although I can honestly say I’m not sure which is worse.
I will leave you with this parting seed of wisdom from a man who should spend a little more of his life on the cricket field and less time disrupting Pakistan’s bid for entry into the 21st Century: “If Pakistan's Westernized class starts to study Islam…it will…make them realize what a progressive religion Islam is.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)