Feudalism in Europe originated after the fall of the Roman Empire. After passing through different historical processes, it developed its unique character and formulated a culture that dominated the European society for centuries to come.
Feudalism in France had a different history and culture. French society was divided into three estates with the nobility or feudal lords being the first, the clergy second; followed by the rest of the people.
To show their power and riches, the nobility built chateaux and castles on their landed property where they resided along with their family, retinue and domestic help. They belonged to the privileged class, enjoyed a high status in the society and were exempted from taxation. In the church, they sat on special seats separate from the commoners.
The peasants were regarded as their subjects and had to pay a number of taxes to the nobility. If they baked bread in the lord’s oven or pressed wine from his brewery, they had to pay a certain amount of money to the lord for using these services. Moreover, they were obliged to work on his land three days in a week without payment. As a result, they were reduced to poverty while the landlords accumulated wealth and spent it lavishly on their own comfort and luxury.
While the feudal system dominates our politics, culture and society, we still live in medieval times
Time and again, the French peasants revolted against these injustices, but the rebellions were crushed because the peasants did not have weapons and military training to fight against the professional and well-equipped army.
Louis XIV, the most powerful ruler of France who succeeded to the throne in 1638 weakened the power of the feudal lords by asking them to live at the court of Versailles, where he kept an eye on them and reduced their influence on their estates. At Versailles, they had to spend a lot of money to maintain their high standard of living. Instead of opting for lesser luxury, they began to extract more money from the peasants who remained in perpetual debt.
The outbreak of the French Revolution changed the entire political and social condition of France. On July 14, 1789, a Parisian mob attacked the fortress of Bastille and demolished it and marked the beginning of the revolution. The news of the fall of Bastille reached the countryside which electrified the peasants who, encouraged by this act, decided to take advantage and revolted against their landlords. They raided the chateaux, burned the documents of their dues as well as the property of their landlords. They scorned and humiliated them, while some of them were dragged and abused for their misdeeds. The clergy were not spared either since they were also a privileged class and possessed agricultural land.
By the time, the news of the peasants’ rebellion reached Paris, many important events had already occurred to further deteriorate the order set by the ruling classes. While a session of the national assembly was in progress, an angry mob stormed the galleries of the assembly in Paris to watch its proceedings.
Fearing the mob and pressurised by the peasants’ destructive activities in the countryside, a member of the national assembly was forced to take a radical decision on Aug 4, 1789 and others followed him. One by one, members of the nobility stood up and announced the surrender of their privileges and dues owed to their peasants. It was a spectacular scene where the nobility abolished feudalism voluntarily.
A member expressed his sympathy to the peasants and lamented their poverty. He requested his fellows not to treat them as drafted animals but as human beings. Some of the nobles disagreed with the proceedings and asked the members to stop but such was the enthusiasm of the deputies that they continued the session for the whole night and passed the decrees to abolish feudalism.
Initially, the king refused to sign the documents saying that he would not allow the nobility or clergy to be destroyed but in the end, he succumbed to the pressure of the mob and signed his approval. This is how feudalism came to an end in France and as a result, society evolved on the basis of equality.
Although feudalism in Pakistan has changed its character, it is still politically, socially and culturally dominant. All efforts of land reforms have failed and feudalism remains unchanged in Sindh and southern Punjab, where most of the feudal lords claiming to be be descendants of the Sufi saints have inherited spiritual power; which is a great hindrance in the development of the society.
There is no hope that these feudal lords will realise the changing situation globally which has no space for the redundant institution of feudalism. It has become outdated and lost its utility. Only when feudalism is abolished, talented people will emerge and contribute to the development of society. If it is not done voluntarily, perhaps violence would come in the end to eliminate it.
Mubarak Ali - dawn.com
Admit it, whenever Imran Khan is on TV, you do stop in your channel surfing tracks and listen to him. You do that, don t you? No matter how much you criticise him or ostracise him, love him or hate him, you do listen to him, don t you?
The problem with admitting that you are an Imran Khan fan especially in front of the wise ones, is that you can t do so without being labelled and stereotyped. If you are an Imran Khan fan then you are bound to be either a starry eyed undergrad waiting for Pakistan to happen or a retired wannabe with shattered delusions of grandeur, and no sense of the world at all. And if you are a woman fan (God forbid) then you may as well make the word gullible your second name! The female fan stereotype glares you in the face and all your arguments go down the stereotypical drain. What you are left with in the end, is a concluding statement that begins with the phrase: But I know it in my heart that...
Talk about feeding the stereotype.
So here is a scenario. You are sitting down for a drawing room chat on Pakistani politics. There is Left on your left, Right on your right, and then there is the leftover American tail in the middle. (Or was it the leftover, American helicopter s tail in the middle?) Well, whatever it is, you are sitting down to chat and suddenly you, in your naiveté, make the pronouncement: I think Imran Khan should win the next election.
The left turns right, the right turns left and the leftover American tail turns a beet root red. Everyone starts talking at once, and nobody can make sense of what s going on.
The right has reservations about Mr Khan s past left wing affiliations (social as well as familial). The left, on the other hand, has reservations about Mr Khan s present right wing associations (Jamaat-e-Islami any one?). The leftover American tail has just plain flight reservations (of the business class variety), and all these reservations along with his past and the present and the leftover American tale (not tail mind you) together make a case against Imran Khan s politics.
And then pitch in the conspiracy theorist and the liberal sceptic. He doesn t know it but he is being used by the establishment , says the liberal sceptic. His dharnas are nothing but ISI sponsored advertisements for PTI and the jihadist media, it asserts.
And the jihadist media is actually the Zionist Indian nexus with links in the establishment having links with the Al-Qaida people who, by the way, are all non Muslims because autopsy of the dead bodies of the suicide bombers say so (wink), says the conspiracy theorist.
Duh! says the American tail.
Thud, says the indignant Right.
And all you can do is to ignore the rest, just look at the liberal sceptic and wonder if it would be the same thing to call a liberal sceptic, a sceptical liberal.
But before one digresses into the linguistic nitty gritties of what better captures the essence of a liberal sceptic, let s get back to the bottom line. And the bottom line is that Imran Khan might sound like a broken record, especially if you listen to him three days in a row, yet Imran Khan is the one person(along with Sheikh Rasheed of course) who does stop you in your channel surfing tracks and makes you listen.
He is the only person who talks about justice, humanity and self-esteem, the next best slogan after unity, faith, discipline and better than roti kapra aur makaan, don't you think?
And then he is the only person who gives you unconditional hope for a better future.
And my question for the left and the right and the liberal sceptic is: What is wrong with giving hope to our people?
I repeat the question: What is wrong with giving hope to our people?
Actually the idea of a progressive road map for Pakistan is so ridiculous for some that the talk of a better future becomes a symbol of foolishness. For others, the minor glitch that Imran Khan used to have girlfriends in the 80s is an obstacle that might hinder the progress of Pakistan until the curse is over. This might make you wonder at the eternal question of why the right is so afraid of girls and girlfriends, but then again I warn you, you d seriously digress if you take that route.
The only places where you would find unflinching support for Imran Khan and plenty of counter arguments for the left and the right and the liberals of all kinds, are the places of learning and education; the places where you find young people who compete for grades, write research essays and dream of making money; who are fond of books, sports, American TV serials and social networking, and have ideals for a better future for Pakistan. Diverse combination of things, I know, but better than rigid and self-made markers of good and bad. These people are not necessarily against girls and girlfriends either, and believe that Pakistan has much more sinister things to worry about than considerations of a cricket sensation s love life in the 80s.
And these are the people who tell you that Imran Khan is a cricketer par excellence, an orator who inspires them, and a philanthropist who makes them optimistic. These are the people who would post on facebook those pictures of him sleeping on the floor in the middle of a sit in; unafraid, undeterred, and without bulletproofing or security of any sort.
And these are the people who don t turn, right or left or a beetroot red when you tell them that you think Imran Khan should win the next election. They simply turn around and say;
You think so too?
Cool!
By Adiah Afraz, an academic. Email: adiahafraz@ gmail.com
KARACHI- Pakistan's opposition leader Imran Khan has said that the United States' war on terror is breeding extremism and terrorism and termed US drone attacks in the tribal regions a breach of country's sovereignty.
Attack on naval base precursor of threats to nukes: Imran
Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf Imran Khan Monday said that the attacks on the key naval base could be a precursor to further such attacks on our strategic assets including Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.
He stated this on Monday, while reacting to Sunday’s night Karachi tragedy in which 11 personnel of Pakistan Navy and four of the terrorists perished besides destruction of two high-tech aircraft in PNS. “At a time when our internal security stands compromised due to hundreds of Raymond Davises roaming the streets of Pakistan with an international agenda to declare Pakistan a failed state, the Mir Jaffars and Mir Sadiqs ruling Pakistan are bending over backwards to destroy the country to remain in power on foreign crutches,” he observed.The PTI chairman said that the massive participation of people from all walks of life in the PTI sit-in (Dharna) at Karachi is proof of the fact that the people of Pakistan are united in their efforts to regain the lost national sovereignty. They want to bring an end to the murderous drone attacks, and stop the double-faced politics practiced by the ruling party and the so-called opposition in parliament, he added. The Karachi Dharna condemns the continuing drone attacks in the face of the Joint Resolution of the Parliament which was yet another attempt to hoodwink the people by the incumbent rulers, fully aided and abetted by a complicit opposition.
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf chief Imran Khan has announced the ‘Pakistan Bachao Aur Hukoomat Hatao Tehreek’ (Save Pakistan and Remove the Government Movement) and expressed no confidence in the resolution passed in a joint session against drone attacks.
He was addressing a gathering on the second and concluding day of the sit-in on Sunday on the Native Jetty Bridge to block Nato supplies and drone attacks.Thousands of people joined the two-day protest.
The movement, he said, will start from Lahore and appealed to all like-minded political parties to join hands with the PTI to get rid of the corrupt rulers.
In the second phase, Khan said, we would protest in Islamabad and besiege the Parliament House. He said the parliament had failed to get its resolution against drone attacks implemented as on the very next day of passing of the resolution, drone strikes killed several innocent people in the trial area.
He condemned the hypocratical attitude of the government, saying on the one hand it is adopting a resolution against drones while on the other it has ‘fixed its match’ with the United States.
The prominent political leaders who attended the sit-in included Jamaat-e-Islami leaders Mohammad Hussain Mehanti, Dr Meraj-ul-Huda Siddqui, Sunni Tehreek Chief Sarwat Ejaz Qadri, Anwer Gujjar and the Sindh National Front was represented by Mumtaz Ali Bhutto who read out his message conveying that Sindhis are with Imran Khan as they see him as only saviour who could steer deprived Sindhis out of the present turmoil. Qamar Bhatti of Sindh Taraqqi Pasand Party also shared similar sentiments that Sindhis are fed up of the corrupt rulers and wanted to get rid of the present government for which he supported Imran Khan and vowed to continue supporting him.
Imran Khan said that the rulers are corrupt therefore they would avoid accountability against any state institutions and officials. He said that his party would emerge victorious in the next general elections as people are tired of hypocrite and dishonest rulers. He said that the success of todayís congregation has proved that masses wanted a revolution and not only change of faces to run the country.
Today country is facing severe crisisî he said and asked the gathering that under these circumstances which option is opened to them. The crowd present on the occasion pointed fingers on Khan who they see as the savior of the country.
Reacting on Obamaís recent interview that the US would again act unilaterally inside Pakistan if another militant was found in the country, he said which law on earth allows any one to violate sovereign territory and integrity of other country.
He said the sit-in had heralded a new era which has proved that people wanted revolution and they would support PTI, which is the only ray of hope in darkness. The protest has sent a message to the US that people of Pakistan are not coward and would retaliate if the territorial boundaries of the country were violated.
He said that drone attacks were carried out with the assistance of three- president, prime minister and Army who ëfixed matchí with the United States. He said the protest would convey to the US that ìwe will not be cowed down by drone attacksî.
Khan said that if his party were came into power it would finish the terrorists and assimilate the tribal people into the mainstream. He said it was the worst time for the country and the nation had been made subservient to the Americans. The killing of nine people in Quetta, including a pregnant woman, at the hands of our military has sent a wave of anger amongst the people. He said the rulers and military were continuously telling lie that they were terrorists.
The May 2 incidents had brought shame outside Pakistan and disgrace to oversees Pakistanis who are the assets of the country as they transact large amount of foreign reserves. For the sake of their own vested interests they made nation subservient to the US.
Khan also mustered the support of some of the right-wing parties, including the Sunni Tehrik and Jamiat-i-Ulema Islam, and the Sindh National Front and Jamat-e-Islami. They were carrying PTIís flags and photographs of Aafia Siddiqui and chanting anti-America slogans on the occasion.
Drone strikes were a comparative rarity when President Bush was in office, but have been dramatically and repeatedly escalated by President Obama, usually in retaliation for attacks by militant groups. This has led CMC to term the .
Drone strikes were a comparative rarity when President Bush was in office, but have been dramatically and repeatedly escalated by President Obama, usually in retaliation for attacks by militant groups. This has led CMC to term the..
When a society becomes politically unstable, economically weak and socially disintegrated, people become concerned about reformation and change. Pessimists regard the situation as bleak and hopeless with revolution seen as the only solution.
History bears examples of the French, Russian, and Chinese Revolutions which changed societies by abolishing outdated systems and traditions. Discussions and debates in socio-political circles often overlook the fact that each revolution in history had its own characteristics particular to that society. In Cuba, where the state was captured through armed struggle may not be a workable option for many countries.
In the 50s and 60s, armies in the Arab World staged coups in Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and Syria with the objective of modernising these countries and to rescue them from Western imperialism. However hopes of any reformation were dashed to the ground.
In most cases where attempts were being made to change the society, the motive of leaders was to abolish the old order and bring about a change from above. Since they were overly concerned about preserving their own political power, they imposed so many restrictions that the countries were converted into fortresses. Consequently, these oppressive governments became exhausted and collapsed without bringing about any change. Some became despotic while in some cases, power struggle led to bloodshed creating even more turmoil and chaos.
Another way to bring about a change in the country is to form a political party, involve people, contest election and after winning the majority of seats in the parliament, the system is changed through new legislature. This approach requires the participation of people to introduce reforms.
Considering the present political situation of Pakistan, suitable options must be analysed to bring about a change in its political, social and economic structure. A revolution is hardly possible because of the lack of ideas and strategy. Moreover, there is no chance of capturing the state through an armed struggle because in both cases, a well organised, disciplined, trained and radical party is required. Revolution is not only meant to abolish the outdated system but also to construct institutions on a ground-breaking model which would herald a new era. Intelligence, talent, innovation, and ingenuity are needed to construct new institutions and one sees no such attributes in the Pakistani society.
Since Pakistan is a feudal and tribal society where landlords and tribal leaders are the winning candidates, there is little or no chance for a radical or reformist political party to win the elections. Feudals have a strong hold on their permanent constituencies and no one stands a chance against them. Political parties seek feudal support to win elections and therefore join hands with them to maintain status quo. Under these circumstances, it is well-nigh impossible to succeed for any political party whose manifesto is to uproot corrupt institutions and reform the society.
Violence, insecurity, uncertainty and chaos has become a disturbing but regular feature of life as a result of the social, political, and economic breakdown in Pakistan. At this juncture, people are ready to change their traditional mindset.
To bring about change is a gradual process but there is a crucial need to create political awareness among the young generation. Given the immigration scenario, there are little or no opportunities for the young and educated people to pursue careers in developed countries. They must realise that their only chance to have a respectable and good life is in their own country and hence it is their responsibility to bring about the change.
A democratic and secular [why not real Islamic, not Taliban model] society is what we need to survive. If our society fails to avail this opportunity for change, it may take a long time to get rid of the confusion and chaos. It is high time for the Pakistani society to decide whether to continue to observe old traditions or adopt relevant values and an institutional framework which would lead to progress.
The influence of religion in society has become increasingly contentious in recent years. In the past few centuries, most stable societies have been underpinned by a single religion. There have been competing factions, organisations and sects contained within a society. Often, as in the case of different sects, there has been a division within the society on religious grounds as well.
Nevertheless, there have been indisputable conflicts, often politically based. These have been present in all the major religions of the world for several centuries. A number of factors have led to the importance of religious divides in recent decades.
Religion has influenced societies mainly through two kinds of religious organisations — reformist and political.
A reformist organisation generally has a flexible framework. There is no hierarchy and the leader does not have absolute authority. As merely the head of an organisation, he remains obscure and does not assert authority. There are no low or high ranks and all members have equal status with membership open to all. The only restriction is to strictly devote their time to the organisation; the main approach being to change a society immersed in corruption and worldly affairs. [Videos on Tablighi Jamat]
A reformist organisation believes in an evolutionary process to change the minds of the people, emphasising mainly on simple preaching for the misled. The best methods advocated to convert people are meditation and praying. The organisation holds its general gathering regularly to bring all its members and sympathisers together which creates a social bond. One of the best examples being the Tablighi Jamat, an organisation founded before partition by Maulana Ilyas in 1926. Its main task was to counter the Shudhi movement to reconvert those Muslims who had reverted back to Hindu practices.
To restore Muslim communities to Islam, Maulana Ilyas adopted the simple approach of asking them to repeat the kalima saying that the person believed in God and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). He did not force them to forsake their tribal customs or cultural practices. After partition, the Jamat continued to work both in India and Pakistan. Every year a large congregation is held where thousands of people participate to show their devotion to and sympathy with the organisation. Besides, their members travel in delegations to different cities and towns to preach religion.
The Jamat does not believe in propaganda. Its motive is ‘na kharcha, na charcha, na parcha’ or no expense, no propaganda, no pamphlets. They are not interested in politics and stay away from political disputes. They are not in favour of issuing statements on Palestine or Kashmir and do not condemn any country as imperialist, nor as an enemy of Islam.
Their belief is to convert the whole world to Islam, and that would ultimately solve all disputes and would, in their opinion, bring about world peace. Their policy therefore is tolerance, not violence. They do not interfere in the country’s politics, neither support any political party in elections.
Being non-political, they devote their energies to reforming the corrupt society. They remain silent on government matters and do not criticise democracy or dictatorship. Since they are in no conflict with the government, their non-political character suits every type of government.
The Tablighi Jamat’s popularity is increasing in Pakistan. This is indicated by the huge public attendance at their annual gathering. It attracts retired civil and military officials who can not only find time to go on trips and missions to different parts of the country and abroad but can also bear their own expenses.
The main reason for their success is that the Jamat communicates with the common man. Since they believe that human nature is basically good, therefore it is possible to change the people from evil to virtuous. The Jamat is not looking for radical change or revolution but only for people who join and promote its mission sincerely and not for any personal or political benefits.
The other type of religious organisation is politically oriented and wants to transform society from the top. Many believe that human nature is evil and can only be reformed by force and coercion. They are well organised, have a systematic structure where the leader enjoys absolute power and authority and all its members are obliged to obey him.
Since the political organisation has an advisory board or council, its membership is based on certain requirements: one should be religious according to their standards alone, which makes the organisation hierarchical. The main agenda is to achieve power by any means, be it through a revolution, armed struggle or democracy.
A political religious organisation propagates its agenda, uses all available sources of publicity and often has its own publications. It organises public meetings and processions. Its policies include supporting causes like Palestine and Kashmir and condemning America and other powers as anti-Muslim.
The Jamat-i-Islami is an example of such a politically oriented religious organisation. It has contacts with similar organisations in the Muslim world such as the brotherhood in Egypt. They have compromised in the past with dictators to share political power in order to change and reshape society according to their manifesto. They form a coalition with different parties to contest elections and are intolerant of liberal and secular groups.
Such religious organisations have an impact on all political parties which include religious issues in their manifestos. Moreover state institutions such as bureaucracy and the army are heavily influenced by their religious teachings and make attempts to impose Shariah. Though religious parties cannot win an absolute majority in elections, even the so-called liberal political parties are prepared to be partisan to their agenda.
Comments: Allah does not need us to spread Islam, it is for own good that we ourselves practice and invite/remind others about message of Islam. How to do it, it is clearly known through Quran and Sunnah of Prophet (pbuh) and his noble companions. All those who are sincerely committed to the cause of Islam according to their best of understanding are doing good job, Allah knows it & may reward them. It is trendy to criticize while we do nothing ourself.
There be no compulsion in religion.
The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. [Quran:2;256-257]
If Allah wanted He could have made all of you a single nation. But He willed
otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you; therefore try to excel
one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to Allah; then He
will show you the truth of those matters in which you dispute.[Quran;5:48]
Invite
(all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue
with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knows best who
have strayed from His Path and who receive guidance.[Quran;16:125]
Anti-Americanism is a global phenomenon: from the proverbial Arab street to the remote regions of Chile—the loneliest country of the world, as Pablo Neruda called his homeland—and from the tree-lined streets of Paris to those of desiccated Qandhar, there is no place on earth where Americans are not passionately hated. There is nothing sensational in this statement and Americans are the ones who are most aware of this global reality. Consequently, they have devised mechanisms to deal with it.
Like all things American, this is not an ad hoc arrangement brought to bear on certain incidents; it has a fully institutionalized policy, with its own budgetary head. Americans know that they cannot eliminate anti-Americanism, so the job of the American strategists is to keep anti-Americanism within a “comfort zone”.
The comfort zone of anti-Americanism is clinically defined along with a convoluted premise: anti-Americanism is a fact of life, its existence to America is not a threat per se as long as it is kept from bringing about any change which will threaten American interests. If it can be managed, anti-Americanism is actually good for America.
The global hatred against America thus transforms from a genuine and legitimate response of helpless people against overt and covert American actions and policies to a strategic management issue. Management requires direct and active American participation in the ebb and flow of anti-Americanism around the world. Americans long ago decided that the most economical way of doing so is to divide the world into regions or zones, based on the reasons, frequency, and historical patterns of anti-Americanism. South America is one zone, Europe another; the two American neighbors, Canada to the north and Mexico to the south, form yet another region. Non-Muslim parts of Africa are of least interest to Americans in this regard, both because of the low impact factor in global affairs and because of relatively low geo-strategic importance. For the purposes of managing anti-Americanism, the entire Muslim world is taken as one large zone within which there are several smaller regions.
Former American President Richard Nixon advised America’s policy makers to tackle the Muslim world with utmost attention. In his influential 1992 book, Seize the Moment: America’s Challenge in a One-Superpower World, he strategized the American plan to manage anti-Americanism by construing this global phenomenon as pressure in a boiling pot and he explained that this pressure needs safety release valves so that, from time to time, its destructive power can be dissolved. Destructive power, as far as Americans are concerned, would be the ability of this pressure to bring about a genuine change in the leadership of the country where anti-Americanism has reached dangerous levels.
One of the most important pieces of advice he gave to American policy makers was to orchestrate such political action within these countries which would provide vents for the release of built-up anti-Americanism before it exploded and become out of hand. This is widely practiced. Thus, from time to time, one sees mass rallies against America in countries such as Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, and even American-occupied Afghanistan. The purpose of these rallies is to provide an emotive release to the pressure so that it remains ineffective.
In most of these rallies, fiery speeches are made against America. Threats are given to immediately stop this or that policy or otherwise such and such action will be taken. Masses show up in these rallies by the thousands. They are then let loose on streets. They break traffic signs, loot banks and stores, break windows, destroy cars, security forces beat them, and then all becomes calm. Most of the leadership which orchestrates these rallies is paid by Americans in various ways. Sometimes a few innocent newcomers join these shows, but mostly it is master-minded by American managers. Over the decades, this strategy has worked wonders for Americans. Death and destruction caused by such rallies is, of course, mere collateral damage.
Seen from the American lens, there is nothing in this. Whether it is drone attacks in Pakistan, which continue to this day, the indiscriminate bombing of cities like Baghdad and Kabul, the use of lethal, radioactive ammunition in the Gulf war, or the scorch earth policy in Vietnam, Americans see nothing wrong on their part; anti-Americanism for them is other people’s problem; it has nothing to do with what they do.
What is utterly immoral in this whole affair is the American denial of the genuine response of the oppressed people of the world to a global power which has so much blood on its hands that no other power in history can match it. The world has paid a heavy price for America’s rise to become the lone superpower of the world during the last sixty years. The history of American crimes against other people has yet to be written, but just the main events of this global crime are enough to condemn this rouge state to become the object of perpetual hatred of people from around the world. Americans have killed more people in the world than any other country in covert and overt operations which have covered continents, not just countries.
South America is now coming out the dark era of bought military generals, and its people are slowly discovering the damage done to their environment and how their natural resources were plundered. The Muslim world is nowhere close to the emancipation from America which the South Americans have achieved through a series of revolutions which have brought the next generation of leadership to the forefront.
As opposed to the politically enlightened South Americans, most of the Muslim world is still ruled American-appointed kings and Amirs or emotionally charged mass-politics where pseudo religious leaders whip up anti-Americanism in mass rallies on behest of their masters in Washington, let up on the release valves, and then go back to their comfortable villas bought with American money. It may take another generation before Muslims can begin to understand and use the genuine response of masses to American actions and bring about a permanent change in their countries.
Comments:
Even in the so called democracies like in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan etc, the corrupt rulers are kept in power with American support covert or overt. It is in their interest to keep exploiting the Anti American feelings among masses to boost American support vital for their survival.
One doesn’t have to be a fan of the PTI to appreciate the party’s rally in Karachi. Despite the flurry of flags generally found in the city, despite all the talk about the city being divided along many lines, Karachi is woefully under-politicised in a number of ways. The culture of fear that has permeated the city generally prevents parties - other than the one that has the run of the place - from freely carrying out rallies, even if other parties do manage to gather crowds occasionally.
Yesterday’s was a free rally, not much fighting to get it organised, as opposed to Imran Khan’s earlier attempt at the same during the first stint of the lawyers’ movement. His team, it has to be commended, did a good job of zeroing in on its support base and utilising modern tools
to reach out to them, the use of Imran Khan’s pre-recorded invitation audio-messages being but one of them.
Rallies are flawed indicators of electoral performance. If a party can manage one, it has a good shot at the other. Not a sure shot. The Jamaat-e-Islami is a case in point; lots of street power that seems to vanish into thin air come election time. It is in this regard that a strength of the PTI’s can become a weakness. The PTI puts up too good a spectacle; an attendant, therefore, cannot be an assured voter. The Kasur rally, for instance, is not going to be let go of by political satirists any time soon.
The bulk of the actual voting class makes up its mind after being reached out to by local tier party activists who talk about local issues. An association with as unpopular a leader as general Pervez Musharraf was in ’08 did not prevent the PML(Q) from becoming the third largest parliamentary profile. This wouldn’t have been the outcome of flashy manifestos but assurances on dull, local issues. Imran Khan has been drawing electables to his party of late. The urban middle-class fans of his party speak out against the inclusion of these tainted “old faces” little realising it is they and their affiliate lower support networks that will translate into votes, not rallies. http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/12/karachi-too/
The term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people. Those opposed to elitism are considered supporters of anti-elitism, egalitarianism, populism or the political theory of pluralism.Elite theory is the sociological or political science analysis of elite influence in society - elite theorists regard pluralism as a utopian ideal.
Alternatively, the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite — a select group of people with intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.
Elitism may also refer to situations in which an individual assumes special privileges and responsibilities in the hope that this arrangement will benefit humanity or themselves. At times, elitism is closely related to social class and what sociologists call social stratification. Members of the upper classes are sometimes known as the social elite. The term elitism is also sometimes used to denote situations in which a group of people claiming to possess high abilities or simply an in-group or cadre grant themselves extra privileges at the expense of others. This form of elitism may be described as discrimination.
Egalitarianism: Elitism endorses the exclusion of large numbers of people from positions of privilege or power. Thus, many populists seek the social equality ofegalitarianism,populism,socialism, orcommunism. They may also supportaffirmative action,social security,luxury taxes, and highlyprogressive taxesfor the wealthiest members of society. All of these measures seek to reduce the difference of power between the elite and the ordinary.
Pluralism: Pluralismis the belief thatpublic policydecision(s) should be (or are,) the result of the struggle of forces exerted - directly or indirectly, - by large populations (workers, consumers, retirees, parents, etc.). This contrasts with elitism; which is the belief that decisions are, or should be, made essentially according to the ideals of the elites.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One per cent of Pakistan’s population — the elitist class — had contrived to rig the market and hijacked the state for their own benefit. This small minority was able to enjoy its unjust accumulation of wealth in the midst of widespread poverty. I wrote in book "Pakistan: The Economy of an Elitist State". Little did I realise that this phenomenon would spread from Tunis to Sanaa and from Sydney to Seattle.
The Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street movement may have originated for ostensibly different reasons but their root cause is the same — growing disenchantment of the majority of the population that is suffering from weak economic growth, high unemployment, tough austerity measures and anxiety about the future. Meanwhile, the number of billionaires is expanding at an unprecedented rate across the world.
Whether the elite classes are led by dictators, monarchs and rulers as in the Arab world, or dominated by bankers, high-paid executives and businesses as in the western world, social networking media and instantaneous communication have coalesced the disorganised majority. The rage and fury of those disenchanted with the present system is spilling across national boundaries. ‘Contagion’ is no longer a word confined to the international financial system; it is equally applicable to social movements.
The inability of Arab countries to create jobs for their youth has been a major source of discontent behind the uprisings. In the West, youth unemployment has reached 17 per cent in the US and 21 per cent in the European Union. As the Economist has pointed out: “Young people — and not just those on the streets — are likely to face higher taxes, less generous benefits and longer working lives than their parents. More immediately, houses are expensive, credit hard to get and jobs scarce.”
Besides growing unemployment, income inequalities have widened in most countries pinching the low-income and lower-middle classes. The richest one per cent of the people in the world get nearly 14 per cent of global income while the poorest 20 per cent receive just over one per cent. In the US, the top one per cent have captured 58 per cent of the real economic growth of the past 30 years. Fear and economic insecurity about the future is another factor. A commentator has aptly observed: “Is it fair that those who suffer the most from global downturns have their safety nets cut, while those who generate the volatility are bailed out by the government?”
The problem has arisen because of the changes in the nature of relationship between the state and the market. The market allocates scarce resources efficiently but rewards only those already well endowed, i.e. those who possess land, capital, natural resources or skills. The uneducated, poor, handicapped or unskilled are left out.
The state taxes a fraction of the incomes earned by the wealthy and transfers that income to the poor through public expenditures on basic services and social safety nets, etc.
State institutions set the legal and regulatory framework and the rules of the game under which private businesses operate, and ensure macroeconomic stability, adequate competition and acts against collusion. The state adjudicates and arbitrates in disputes and contracts between private parties.
But trouble arises if the state ceases to perform any of these functions effectively or if state institutions are captured by the powerful elite. In the absence of a neutral umpire, the markets are rigged producing inefficient outcomes. As the state is also controlled by the elite, inequities become commonplace. The rich evade taxes or their taxes are cut, public expenditures do not reach the poor, excessive corporate profits accrue to big private owners but their losses are borne by the state. No wonder, eight out of 10 Americans mistrust their government. The situation in most other countries is no different.
In such a society where wealth is concentrated in a few hands and the state is indifferent to the plight of the poor, there is hardly any alternative but to take to the streets. Those worst affected resort to peaceful demonstrations or in some cases to violence. The unrest in the Arab world is a revolt against traditional power structures that favour a select few. Protests such as Occupy Wall Street are a manifestation of the inequities that have become too entrenched. In the Arab world, dictators or rulers perpetuated themselves with the help of the rich and powerful inflicting huge pain and misery upon the population. In the western world, the regulators permitted the bankers to take excessive risks with other’s money resulting in the scrapping of millions of jobs, indebtedness and a decline in the living standards of vast numbers.
The executives, meanwhile, earned hundreds of millions dollars in bonuses, and severance packages. The unemployment rate climbed up from 5.2 per cent in 2007 to 9.2 per cent in the US but the share of the top one per cent went up. In Europe, austerity measures have resulted in cuts in public expenditures, layoffs and retrenchments, salary freeze, etc. At the same time, the bailouts of banks by the public sector would cost billions of euros.
What needs to be done to avert the spread of the present wave of discontent?
The imbalance in favour of the unregulated market and weakened state has to be adjusted. The state and its institutions have to effectively regulate the markets by enforcing competition, penalising excessive risk-taking, protecting consumers, reforming the compensation structure in the corporate sector and strengthening the banks’ capital and governance.
Oligarchic or crony capitalism has to be replaced by a fiercely competitive system. The system should tax the rich and subsidise public services for the poor. Economic opportunities for the youth have to be expanded by investing in education. These opportunities must grow as fast as the profits of big businesses.
Finally, public policies should boost growth that distributes the benefits in a broad-based manner. Wage stagnation must come to an end, and the earnings of lower-income groups have to keep pace at least with the overall growth in the economy. Jobs for low-skilled labour and reduction in income and regional inequalities have to be ensured through public policies, public investment and incentives for the private sector. In case this imbalance is not corrected the world will become a more tumultuous place to live in and social upheavals will be more difficult to control.
By Ishrat Husain: The writer is director of the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi.
