Distinguishing between State & Govt
By Hamid Alvi

THE crisis triggered by the unceremoious dismissal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan last March and the ensuing confrontation between executive and judiciary compounded by the lawyers movement and assassination of a top ranking politician have drawn the nation into a state of dismay, disillusionment and never ending frustration.

As if this was not enough, the violent terrorist attacks on sensitive targets have caused immeasurable feelings of insecurity and distress. Many experienced political columnists keep reminding us that Pakistan has landed in a multi dimensional crisis whose magnitude is unprecedented- even in the strife-torn history of our Islamic Republic.

The crisis has touched all segments of society, one of its unfortunate features is criticism of the state of Pakistan. Frustrated and hopeless members of society could be heard in any gathering saying that there was “no justification for the creation of a separate Muslim state in British India”.

With them if there is corruption in Prime Minister’s office it is “fault of Pakistan”, if such and such ruler flagrantly violated constitution it is because “Pakistan’s origin was wrong”; if the media was gaged by some unscrupulous leader and people deprived of the freedom of expression Pakistan ought to be blamed.

People’s grievances are surely there and citizens have the right to complain against authorities, but one must learn to differentiate between state and government, and learn never to forget that the real culprit is the government not the state.

People have the right to change the government if it fails to meet their aspirations but they should not be attacking the state. At this particular time people of Pakistan are pouring their anger against all those who ruled for eight years and left the people in a state of misery.

As the Q-League was walking out of office people found there was no flour in the market; gas supply was reduced; electricity disappeared from small town and was available for limited hours in the big cities. It is surprising that the PML (Q) would leave such a mess behind while it was seeking reelection.

The cynics however in their haste to blast the Q-League also took a snip on the state. For instance they attribute the ongoing constitutional crisis to the faulty existence of the Republic. This is an unfortunate and devastating attitude.

From the standpoint of its geographical moorings and economic resources, Pakistan has been universally recognized as a viable state. It was true when Bangladesh was not created and it is true when it is there. Even with the separation of Bangladesh the viability factor has not changed. If anything it proved that both wings are viable as individual states. Therefore a criticism of Pakistan, based on the viability factor is irrelevant.

During the height of struggle for Pakistan, it’s opponent used to argue that Pakistan wont be economically viable and that the new state will collapse “within months”. Around the time of independence leaders of Congress, including Gandhi Jee, Jawahar Lal Nehru and Vallabhi Patel had predicted that the Muslim state will not last very long.

Their views were endorsed even by Mountbatten. Such predictions however were to prove wrong. Not only did Pakistan survive, it did better than India in the economic field. Critics are advised to recall the Korean war when to the chagrin of both India and Britain, Pakistan refused to devalue its currencuy whereas the former were compelled to do so. India tried to punish Pakistan by cutting off trade with it. In the subsequent years the state passed through many crisis but managed to stay on the map of the world.

Admittedly the current crisis have no parallel and the people are rightfully disturbed. In this state of consternation and multiple suppression they are rejecting many things. As they tend to identify the government with the state their loyalty towards the latter is also weakening day by day. People have reasons to disapprove more than one policies of the government including the search for military solution in the insurgent north-west. Paradoxically the terrorism has multiplied instead of subsiding with the increase in military operations.

The fact that anger and disillusionment with government policies are emasculating the citizen’s loyalty towards the state, the men with authority must take remedial measures to stop the process. Democracy provides an outlet if it is genuinely practiced. The Americans who have been frustrated with their President’s policy partly on the same issue Pakistanis are frustrated with, are about to throw out their President’s party.

True Pakistanis dont get such opportunities, but then the rule to respect public opinion comes into play. In the modern times it is difficult to govern without the support of public opinion. A wise ruler therefore would go with what people want, and would even quit office if so doing would ensure security and integrity of the state and society.

Dissrespect for the public opinion is taken as an insult by the masses. Gradually it is turned into disillusionment and rejection of both the Government and the State. A perpetual state of suppression could also lead to violence. We had said early on, that to shift the blame of bad governance from government to state is a mistake. We want to add that ultimate responsibility for the creation of that kind of situation rests with the government.●