Dialogic relationship between state and society
A young man, a student of literature, recently asked me if Pakistan is a failed society. His argument was based on his refutation of the premise that postcolonial societies are failed states. He contended that the failure of postcolonial states is the failure of a society that does not respect the individual’s space.
While his assumption was simplistic in its formulation, it has since caused me to ponder over the relationship between the state and the society in the postcolonial context. In a postcolonial dispensation, the society has constantly been reworked in the image of neo-colonial postulates. That process is carried out at the expense of the collective will of the populace, reflective of the continuity in historical tradition and autochthonous values rooted in local ethos.
In such a dialectical relationship between state and society, interstitial space is generated in which individual finds a space to assert his/herself. In case of the state having established complete sway over society, which happens during the authoritarian rule, the space for individual is considerably squeezed. However, in an egalitarian setting, the state and society generally complement each other, which is fast becoming a rarity.
A vibrant state-society relationship is one where these two forces form a synthesis, without one necessarily being the anti-thesis of the other. It is the primary job of a society, in a country like Pakistan, to counteract the regressive and reactionary apparatus of the state. It is never in the interest of a postcolonial state to allow a progressive social dispensation. Social and societal forces are considered progressive when they interact with prevalent state narratives to create a balance.
In such a situation, state must be amenable to the demands of the social formation.
In the developed world, society and state are always in a state of constructive conflict, but never at destructive loggerheads. This is the force that ensures that if state ideology and apparatus lock horns with the liberal social order, eventually saner elements would rule the day.
The success of developed states and societies lies in this that they have followed this model of society-state communication. In a model of the welfare state, the social responsibilities are usually taken over by the state. Social security system, education and health care fall into the domain of the state. Scandinavian countries are illustrative of such a model.
Once the Objectives Resolution was promulgated in Pakistan in 1949, the bureaucratic state by instrumentalising the clergy, wrested disproportionate power which impinged upon the social sphere. Their ideological legitimacy was derived not from an understanding of history and traditions rooted in the soil, but from a failed sense of a golden age that they imagined to have existed somewhere in the past.
Such a trend got intensified under the authoritarian regimes particularly in the 1980s. Thus, abstraction got precedence over hard historical realities.
On the contrary, developed societies derive their legitimacy and ideological foregrounding in their sense of history and their perspective on traditions. Postcolonial societies like Pakistan have decided to detach themselves from their history without finding any alternative logos to understand their socio-cultural context. Ironically, Pakistani nationalism which has been peddled through the Urdu media and school textbooks is on a collision path with the traditions emanating from the soil and the local history.
Instead the nationalistic aspirations of Pakistani state are extra-territorial, making it into a freakish polity.
One of the main reasons why Pakistani society may be considered a failed society is that a flawed sense of community and belonging has been engendered here. Due to this flawed sense of community, sectarianism has now become so deeply embedded that society allows itself to be identified only along sectarian lines. One other manifestation of an unnatural social order is the unhealthy obsession we have with biradari. Pakistani society is divided into sects, biradaris and the ethnic groups. Discrimination along these lines has naturally led to nepotism, inter-personal loyalties over growth of institutions, and an even more regressive state apparatus.
In Pakistan, a way forward may be found by looking at the revisionist and post-revisionist perspectives of history that have been articulated in the academia. Left-leaning intellectuals like Sibte Hassan and Ali Abbas Jalalpuri constantly engaged with attempts to understand the relationship between state and society, and argued for the primacy of society over state. Due to the lack of such a progressive outlook and the absence of debate in the academia, the state has been allowed to acquire unprecedented power, and its counterproductive ideology has now been dogmatically accepted as the only possible narrative.
Where can the solution to this failed social order emanate from? For the creation and perpetuation of a progressive society in Pakistan, the leadership must necessarily stem from academic circles, i.e. the universities.
A predominantly regressive ideology has now become the raison d’etre of the Pakistani state. Progressive social forces have been relegated to the side-lines of Pakistani society. The essence of a university is that it should propagate liberal and secular ideals which then shape the dialogic relationship between society and state. The constant dialogue between society and state is necessary for the kind of progressive social order that I think is required to address our social problems.
One important aspect of a society’s revolutionary reorganisation is to focus on the individual who stands in contrast to established norms of morality. In Pakistan, such an individual would be considered as a delinquent, exhibiting deviant behaviour. However, by allowing the individual challenging societal and state narratives a space in the academia to advocate his views, it could help restructure the society.