When I first heard the news Saturday morning I really wanted to blog about the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan - after making sure that everyone I knew was okay (although that's a pretty minimalist definition of okay that I'm operating with here - as in physical well-being) + getting to all the news I could to ensure that the law and order situation in the country hadn't deteriorated further. To be fair, it rarely does when the troops are out and more or less in charge - sad as that may sound that's the way it has been so far.
I never got around to blogging because in between trying to follow the news - including President Musharraf's address - and talking about it with friends I continued to realize that I'm still grappling with what happened. I didn't simply want to be another one of those voices in the blogosphere that took to a missive leaving the larger problem unexamined and unquestioned.
Right now, grading and writing seem to warrant greater immediate attention this Monday morning. That, and to be honest, I'm still processing my own thoughts.
But I did want to at least acknowledge the current goings-on here at LTLWI. Among the multiple things that I find boggling about this entire mess (which I think it is for reasons that go beyond the failure of the democratic process or obstacles to it - both of which I'm sure apply since people are talking about them but I wonder if anyone is pausing to think what it means to be democratic and applying more than the minimalistic definition of holding elections and giving the impression of a democratic process), is the continued appreciation for the role of the judiciary of the country becoming part of the protests. This is not to say that I necessarily agree with Musharraf's dismissal of the Chief Justice and imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan - presuming that the reason as "they" say was the fact that a final decision on his presidency and being "in uniform" was to be announced this week. I refuse to be that cynical because I have no way of knowing if that was indeed his motivation. [I'm usually amused and at other times hover somewhere between being livid to being unable to believe it when folks have commentary to offer on what we conventionally call politics without having access to a lot of information that would be crucial to the puzzle]. It might well be but I simply do not know. But I digress.
Back to the point I was making about the judiciary, color me seriously uncomfortable about the involvement of this body in leading protests etc. There's a great deal of jubiliation about all of this that I just can't comprehend. Even if those folks are the ones who best know the law, isn't one of the ideals involved here related to the ability of the judiciary to preside over court proceedings that might be related to all of this? Doesn't the direct involvement compromise their ability to be as impartial as possible? Granted that's an ideal and none of us can ever be truly objective. Even if the judiciary isn't involved in protests etc, the individuals are bound to have some kind of opinion. There's no way around that. But I do believe that it's messier if they're the ones at the forefront of any kind of massive political uprising and are using their office as a platform to do so.
Color me idealistic or naive, but I truly believe that as much as we want to admire these folks for the political spirit and beliefs and courage we ought to be concerned about the way in which this transforms their official role as the judiciary as well as how problematic their involvement, in its present iteration, is. I color me extremely disconcerted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't know much about Pakistani politics, but would be interested to hear what prompted Gen. Musharraf to declare emergency law. I came across the following in another blog and wanted to know if you agreed with this. Many thanks!!
"I'm not really angry with Musharraf for his crackdown--he's a barely legitimate dictator who took power in a coup trying to hold on to power and keep his fractured country together. Like so many in his position before him, he sees his country in danger and thinks that only he can hold it together, so he holds onto power and takes what steps he can to eliminate the most pressing threats to his power."
I am curious about this passage I guess because it of the ease with which it can transparently (if not authoritatively... despite desperately trying to) account for Pakistani politics and reduce it as an equivalent to other instances such as Chavez etc... How does one respond to this? Is this merely one instance of someone who is not really familiar with IR/poli sci sounding pompous, or is it reflective of a more widespread orientation in poli sci/IR?
Anonymous: Thanks for stopping in and sharing your thoughts. The cynic in me would probably think that the second instance you point is what this person is likely. It appears there is a widespread tendency within the discipline to apply categories and concepts without thinking much about how they apply in a given context. A counter-response to this kind of thinking is perhaps Chakrabarty's "Provincializing Europe". However, that too is guilty of essentializing a whole different set of categories. I'm more inclined to try and make sense of how things happened by turning to discourse analysis for the reasons that Brubaker talks about - avoiding a conflating of "categories of analysis" with "categories of practice". In other words, trying to explain X rather than explaining with it. For example, the assumption that Musharraf's rule isn't legitimate because we don't think military dictators should be in power is one that is socially negotiated over time rather than a cardinal rule. More on emergency rule in Pakistan in subsequent posts. Thanks again for your question.
Post a Comment