Sheepthink: Presenting Problems as Solutions

Source: godtreasure.net

One of the most fundamental aspects of politics that you can observe is that it works mostly by the manipulation of human emotion.

And why not. With its practitioners being the guardians, as well as traders, of morality and justice, it becomes all about addressing the grievances of the wronged, given the incessant tendency of the human kind to be drawn to conflict and violence.

The imperfect state of affairs and the injustice and inequality caused by the abuse of power and authority all over the world in one way or another only fuel the tensions among people who feel they have been deprived and cheated.

Therefore, since there are always people who are deprived and even oppressed in some way, there will always be platforms that would offer help, genuinely or not. And often those platforms would ultimately resort to the same ills they have been claiming to liberate people from, should they have their way.

Such is the terrible cycle of politics, call it a deliberate system or a natural random occurrence.

However, in a bid to change the society for the better, greater control of the government is often proposed as a remedy to the prevalent inequality and injustice. Yes, what but the government is the solution to every wrong on earth?

Government control is absolutely necessary when it comes to providing security and protecting fundamental rights, consumer rights and the environment from abuse and malpractice. But more often than not, invitation to greater regulation results in taking a yard when an inch is offered. Arguably the same is true for certain private entities, but it remains to be the very occupation of the government.

Often the solution which is supposed to liberate people from the clutches of evil capitalistic oppressors are the very vehicles of the corruption ensuing this misery.

So is completely abolishing either private enterprise or government regulation the solution?

In the meantime, people would continue to be exploited by political emotional blackmail in one way or another. I would not mind as long as they would at least understand the value of their individual liberty, which they are gladly willing to give away in exchange of an imaginary utopian orgasm.

Establishing social justice by infringing on people’s right is nothing but sheepthink.

Maybe the only solution is just not dropping your guard.

The Minimum Responsibility

Source: ISPR

Pakistan is probably the only country in the world where coups are always unmistakably bloodless and unopposed.

But there is a slight problem with such carte blanche bloodless coups. It has become somewhat of an accepted practice, and one which is almost taken for granted. Just like how rapists are turned into grooms in a conservative society.

There has been recent news that the Pakistani government is to try General Pervez Musharraf for treason for abrogating the constitution. I think it is encouraging that finally the authorities are taking note of people abrogating the constitution. However, there is a problem with it.

First of all, I am, by no means, implying that such a trial should not be held and am surely not apologizing for the General. But I would only support it to be symbolic as long as the barbaric law of death for treason remains in effect. I would also like the prosecution to include other personnel to establish the minimum responsibility for the charge, of course with the degrees of responsibility and offense taken into consideration.  

While discussing the illegal and unconstitutional take over of the government by Musharraf, we must also try those who were directly responsible for preventing it. Now I am not saying that we should not hold people accountable for breaking the law, as some supporters of Musharraf would like to do, by demanding obstruction to a trial because a lot of other people were involved too. Especially when Article 6 of the constitution includes the clause of those aiding in the abrogation of the constitution. If the trial goes on at all, that is.

There is a reason why minimum responsibility should be established in this case and why it is not equivalent to inaction in other moral problems, because it has a legal basis. This is because army officers are responsible as per their oath to uphold the Constitution of Pakistan. This is why at least the Armed forces corps commanders should be responsible to stop the Army Chief from abrogating the constitution and taking over the country.

Arguably this should also be true for judges, civil servants and politicians, but given the precedence of military might in Pakistan in terms of politics, that is a relatively unrealistic demand, but a reasonable one and certainly not without basis in legal logic.

Furthermore, who are the only ones who have any real power to prevent someone from their ranks abusing the law and the constitution of the country? It is indeed none else but the army leadership. And to be more accurate with establishing the minimum responsibility, the corps commanders, probably.

Why it is that all the corps commanders apparently seem to be fine with the idea of their chief or even one of them arresting the Prime Minister and taking over the government? Why do they not defect from this defecting and technically treasonous faction of the state and prevent an action that is not only unlawful, but malicious to the Republic?

Why can the military not disobey all the unlawful commands of their corrupt superior and actually arrest the one person or a few who are actually the ones who need to be removed? It is only they who can prevent  this unconstitutional and dictatorial atrocity from occurring. After all, it is only they who have the necessary force to commit the crime in the first place.

But no, our military officers would be under the delusion of genuinely believing that the military rule is what the country really needed, believe it or not.

Or afterwards, when a democratic government is installed, they would justify their complicity by citing the blind military discipline to be the reason when they follow the unconstitutional and illegal commands of their superiors, such as arresting the elected Prime Minister and the cabinet.

What becomes of the blind military discipline when military commanders plan and act to stage coups? What becomes of the blind military discipline when the top military brass decides to supersede the authority of those who they are answerable to?

Army officers following unconstitutional and illegal orders from their superiors is neither discipline nor responsibility. It only makes them a party to a crime which is in clear violation of their oath, which also makes it a professional failure, surely a greater problem than jeopardizing democracy.

Let us establish at least the minimum reasonable responsibility for treason for the October 1999 coup, if we are to try for it at all.

Let us try all the corps commanders and commanding officers carrying out unconstitutional and authoritarian measures of force. And those who failed to prevent them. In that order and, if found guilty, penalizing with the respective degree.

But let us first remove the ridiculous penalty of death for the charge of treason.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 58 other followers