Of other evils

The outrage expressed by several members of civil society (and the media) against parliamentarians and senators faking educational degrees, raises some interesting points for debate. Apart from the fact that it doesn’t take much to offend “civil” people, the repetitive knee-jerk response of “condemning” the perpetrator in crimes of corruption, violence and lies has become a catchphrase that reveals little or nothing about the deeper, interlinked issues. Most ironically in this case, the highest condemnation of false qualifications comes from academicians. This, after emergence of scandal and proof of academic corruption, fake degrees and plagiarism practiced by academics themselves in recent years.

Yes, the point is not that two wrongs make a right, etc., but the inherent hypocrisy. Also one concedes that electoral candidates themselves did not challenge the degree requirement as non-democratic and were, hence, complicit and agreeable to the degree prerequisite. So it’s a fair point that it’s not the lack of the degree itself but the intent to fraud that is contentious. There is no argument there. However, it’s the prioritising of protest that is of concern. Hence, academics who by their very job description require at least authentic proof of their ability, if not talent, to practice their profession, are somehow forgotten in this protest.

There are other concerns. Why has the particular requirement of educational qualification become a point of reference for lending accountability? Because forever, the panacea for all ills, according to the liberal, educated class itself, has been the vaguely defined tool of education. It has become a cliché that deflects all deeper methods and practices required to challenge and bring about structural change and/or social relations. As if educated men will stop beating their wives; will pay full taxes; will not cheat family members of their due inheritance; will not teach religious bigotry and ethnic hate to their children/students; and that an educated working class will undoubtedly benefit from upward social mobility. This, while we know that our class of privileged Pakistanis benefit not from our expensive educational acquisitions, not even from our acquired knowledge, but, in fact, from our social class position. What about other requirements of full disclosure, including tax information of electoral candidates –why just degrees?

If we really do object to the fraudulent degrees amongst parliamentarians, by the same token we need to demand full disclosure from other sectors too. By some inexplicable logic, our civil society has always held the public sector accountable for so much while accepting the immunity held by the private sector. This is due to the false capitalist rationale that the private sector runs an internal accountability and it does not affect the public. We pay taxes (?), so we raise our moral expectations from the public sector, while private interests exploit, cheat, lie, kill, misinform and escape all accountability. Most private-sector professionals will definitely be holding degrees, often higher ones. This qualification earns them the right to practice “credible fraud” under the guise of marketing, branding, advertising and generally profiting off people’s trust.

Our outrage should be equally consistently directed at those politicians who carry credible qualifications and the kind of politics they practice; or, indeed, their inertia and lack of activity. Members of the Senate, the house of learned technocrats, professionals and notables, acquire their seats on the basis of qualifications and political affiliations. Like academics, they have a kind of tenure not based on performance–just their degrees or positions in the socio-political hierarchy. Members such as Mir Israrullah Zahri should not be disqualified because of a fake degree but, really, because he is not a worthy representative and because he acquires power through nepotism and in order to provide unfair political leverage. It wouldn’t matter if he held a PhD. There has been no legal attempt to disqualify him under those more relevant conditions.

So the degree requirement has become an excuse to discredit politicians who cheat. But what about all the other unethical politicians and academics with tenure who are learned but who get to slip through the moral net because they hold a piece of paper? It is vital to expose fraud, certainly, just not selectively.

Meaningful protest should aim to stretch the net of accountability and demand that basic relevant credentials of all professionals, including authentic tax information and public documents should be available under the freedom to information ethos. The HEC needs to rethink the defunct and unworkable system of tenures. This fossilises rather than revolutionising education, methodology, research or thinking.

This and other reforms could make a degree, regardless of who holds it, a possibly genuine criterion to assess the quality of its holder, not just political aspirants’. Until then, collectively, our authenticity remains dependent on our performance, nothing more.

The writer is a sociologist based in Karachi. She has a background in women’s studies and has authored and edited several books on women’s issues Email: afiyazia@yahoo. com