The myth of the ideal leader

The word on the grapevine, dear reader, is that democracy has failed. Political parties, it appears, are by and large peopled with lazy, corrupt, and inefficient money-launderers, hoarders, smugglers and feudals. They’ve exhausted all the chances we have given them to redeem their lot.
Perennially, they seek election to political office to commit the same blunders and crimes against the very people who have vested their entire trust, nay their entire futures, in the hope that the vote will secure lasting peace and happiness for them. Perennially, the people have been hoodwinked. It’s time for a change, and a solution is at hand; across Pakistan, in lunch rooms, on roadside tea stalls, at your local grocers, in expensive cafes or in the private salons of the rich, the broad contours of that change appear to have been unanimously agreed upon.
But before we delve into the specifics of the proposed solution, let us briefly consider how the historical conceptions of statehood and governance apply to our 67-year experience till now. The origins of modern politics and forms of statehood begin with the Greeks and their philosophers. The political writings of the star philosophers of the Greek pantheon, Plato and Aristotle, were deeply influential in the formation and evolution of modern statehood and governance. Plato favoured an aristocracy, but since that is what democracy in our country seems to resemble – rule by a few who happen to be part of a privileged class – we don’t want it; since that privileged class also happens to be filthy rich we could venture to say that our democracy is a cross between an aristocracy and a plutocracy.
And that simply won’t do unless you happen to be part of the elite of this country. We have also experienced a form of oligarchy every time a man in uniform has taken charge, for his views are inevitably informed, and his hand guided by, a small group of influential men, also in uniform, surrounding him. While the jury may still be out on the relative benefits and losses of the last experience of that kind, it is certain that the 11 years of Ziaul Haq were a disaster.
Aristotle, unlike Plato, favored monarchies and autocracies above any other form of government, and was only grudgingly convinced about democracy, through a process of elimination of the negative aspects of the remaining forms of governance. We can’t have monarchies, since that conflicts with our religious ethos and so, what we are left with, is autocracy. And since across the length and breadth of the Land of the Pure, we are today convinced that the fundamental problem – ignoring the impact of language, ethnicity, sect or religions – is financial corruption, we are left with Aristotle’s second option, the most intoxicating concept of the stern, God-fearing, honest, male administrator. And that’s the solution everyone in Pakistan is chomping at the bit for.
What kind of a man will this saviour be then? It is here that opinions may become divided but let us, for the sake of simplicity, consider primarily the upper urban middle class view, since it is the powerful one, and power, as we know, prevails: he will be a stern man, disciplined, professional and blessed with a naturally authoritative air. He will have no tolerance for mediocrity or dishonesty and will be willing to take radical, often violent, measures to punish any and all forms of corruption.
Modern in his outlook, he will favour modes of production that are industrial and capitalist, and therefore, will squarely pit himself against feudalism and rural backwardness. He will carry a club of reform that will come down hardest on the masses who first and foremost need to be whipped into shape to join in a grand national journey, aimed at the swift and efficient modernisation of the state. Since he will be secular personally, his solution to the antagonisms born of differences of ethnicity, sect, religion and language will also be coercion; and force, punishment and imprisonment will be used equally, to increase the tax base, end terrorism and solve the circular debt crisis.
With the rich and the privileged he will engage only in polite dialogue as they will readily join him to realise his benevolent vision for the country.
To matters of foreign policy and economics, his approach will be that of a die-hard nationalist. He will end the reliance on foreign funding, adopt an uncompromising take-it-or-leave-it approach with the IMF and the World Bank, and refuse to further the imperial designs of the evil west or their Middle Eastern and Arabian stooges. He will then seek to partner with other stronger economies in the region, barring of course our erstwhile eastern neighbour, to whom his only response will be a gesture towards his holstered and chambered automatic and an eyebrow raised in warning.
Having been educated in the western tradition, his language of choice will be English, though he may occasionally be caught speaking his native tongue. Having seen enough of the good life he will have a taste for the finer pleasures it offers including a penchant for foreign travel, good food and expensive clothing, but will desist from making a public show of his extravagance; his public demeanour will thus always be a mixture of grim ascetic impassivity, with only his close family and friends trusted to be in on the joke. Finally, in appearance, since we are obsessed with form over substance, it will not do for him to be pot-bellied, or bald, or squint-eyed, or dark or short. He will have Aryan good looks and physical stature, will be the envy of men and the romantic ideal of all women.
By and large the above also fits in with the conception of a saviour in the minds of the lower classes. Their Superman, however, will above all be a simple God-fearing, practising Muslim man. He will dress and live simply, avoid all temptations and work with a singular sense of purpose – to alleviate the plight of the masses. In so doing he may have to take up arms against the oppressors, the sinful rich whose misdeeds and evil ways are the sole cause of the ailments that have befallen what is otherwise surely the chosen country of the chosen people. He will engage in violence, therefore, only to the extent necessary to establish a just order for the mass of the people. And it does not matter how he deals with other countries or with sects and religions or provinces as long as he can ensure three square meals a day, shelter, and a dignified existence for the underprivileged. In this he will have to combine an authoritarian bent with a socialistic, inclusive and egalitarian outlook.
The image of the ideal saviour described above is riddled with contradictions. In philosophy, it fits in closely with Nietzsche’s idea of the Ubermensch, and in part, is inspired by the concept of the Spartan state, both of which represent fundamentally flawed and incomplete conceptions of governance. At its core, it recognises that governance is a function of power and control over private property – something that democracy also seeks to address; but it fails to account for competing interests, and the irreconcilable differences imposed by language, ethnicity, sect and religion – important elements that only democracy can address . It further incorrectly assumes that foreign actors, including governments and institutions, will only play passive and acquiescent roles in response.
The authoritarian model, as an institution and as a personal adventure of swashbuckling despots has failed across the passage of our modern human history. We would do ourselves a favour to desist from immaturely fantasising about such fascist solutions to our problems. Having said that, the ball now lies squarely with political parties and politicians. To not perform and to not, therefore, deliver results to the people, may this time around signal the final curtain call for electoral politics. It may also signal the end of the hope for a stable, peaceful, progressive and deradicalised Pakistan.
The writer is a partner at anaccounting firm.­
Email: kmushir@hotmail.com
Twitter: @kmushir