MSc PAK STUDY AIOU solved Assignments 2019
ASSIGNMENT No. 1
MSc PAK STUDY AIOU Assignments 2020
CODE 537
Q 1 _ critically evaluate the history of muslim rule in india ? how far they deveop harmony with their hindu subjects
ASSIGNMENT No. 1
MSc PAK STUDY AIOU Assignments 2019
CODE 545
1 A pressure group is any group organized around a common set of interests that tries to influence government policy. The group may have a relatively narrow set of interests, as is the case with single-issue group, or it may have more broad-based concerns, as is the case with some special interest or public interest groups. Some pressure groups may offer select benefits to their members.
2 The term has a degree of overlap with ‘Interest Groups’ and other professional organizations. Despite this commonality between the two concepts, both are different in nature. Interest Groups are “associations formed to promote a sectional interest in the political system.”
3 Thus trade unions, professional associations, employer’s organizations and motoring organizations are usually referred to as Interest groups. Pressure Groups, on the other hand, are voluntary organizations formed “to promote a cause or political position in society.”
4 These groups can operate in a number of different ways. They seek to exert pressure at a number of different points in the political system.
However, themselves, they neither directly seek elective office nor put forward a programme covering the whole range of governmental activities. The methods which pressure groups utilize have various forms under variable situations. These methods range from ‘the strike’ which is used by the trade unions or the student's organizations and the direct action frequently used by the movements which feel marginal to the political system as a whole, ‘withdrawal of co-operation’ is another method used by the pressure groups. A variety of tactics may be used by the pressure groups. They can be direct or indirect. Trade unionists may threaten to withdraw their labour from work. They can go on strike in order to achieve their objectives. The students’ organizations can exert pressure on the administration of the educational institutions to accept the demands as the representatives of the students’ community. They can go on strike. At times they go for agitation against the policies of the administration. Among the direct tactics, mass rallies, marches and demonstrations are very effective methods. Sometimes indirect methods are used as well to advance their cause. Lobbying is another tactic used by the pressure groups. In this way, the pressure groups and interest groups have become a key element in understanding the political system. Among them, the students’ organizations are potentially very significant and effective pressure groups.
Throughout the 20th century, the students’ organizations have been one of the leading actors of the political system in many countries of Asia, Europe and the Americas. Their potential sensitiveness to the political development earned them the protection of the political parties and their leadership. Many of the political movements in Asia and Europe were strengthened by the involvement of the students’ organizations. The idea of pressure groups was first developed in the United States where it served as a basis for studying the actions and influence of private groups and organizations on public power. At first, the idea of pressure groups referred only to “private” groups, but there is a growing tendency to expand the concept to include “public” groups.5 Generally, pressure groups have the least connections with political parties. However, some have occasional relations during an election or a strike. Still others have an organic relationship with a political party, which is to say, there are permanent structural ties between the party and the pressure groups. There are three possible relationships: i. Some pressure groups are more or less subordinate to the parties. ii. Some parties are more or less subordinate to the pressure groups. iii. There are cases of equality between pressure groups in the pursuit of common objectives.10 Pressure groups act on two different levels. On the one hand, they exert direct pressure on government organs, cabinet ministers, members of parliament and high administrative officials. On the other hand, they exert indirect pressure on the populace to produce a public attitude that will, in turn, influence government leaders, who are always attentive to public opinion.11 Pakistan’s politics is mostly based on individuals rather than the institutions which often lack strength. Political parties are weak and not developed thus creating an empty space giving other forces like individual leaders and interest or pressure groups, an opportunity to fill this gap. Students are one such pressure group who can take advantage of the situation and play a significant role in political process. They are formidable and influential political actors in Pakistan’s politics, capable of influencing the nature and direction of political development. After the creation of Pakistan, the students expanded their role and established their primacy to the political process which manifested in different forms, i.e., active role in the political setup, agitational role as a pressure group, and penetration into the policy-making and the political processes.
Throughout the 20th century, the students’ organizations have been one of the leading actors of the political system in many countries of Asia, Europe and the Americas. Their potential sensitiveness to the political development earned them the protection of the political parties and their leadership. Many of the political movements in Asia and Europe were strengthened by the involvement of the students’ organizations. The idea of pressure groups was first developed in the United States where it served as a basis for studying the actions and influence of private groups and organizations on public power. At first, the idea of pressure groups referred only to “private” groups, but there is a growing tendency to expand the concept to include “public” groups.5 Generally, pressure groups have the least connections with political parties. However, some have occasional relations during an election or a strike. Still others have an organic relationship with a political party, which is to say, there are permanent structural ties between the party and the pressure groups. There are three possible relationships: i. Some pressure groups are more or less subordinate to the parties. ii. Some parties are more or less subordinate to the pressure groups. iii. There are cases of equality between pressure groups in the pursuit of common objectives.10 Pressure groups act on two different levels. On the one hand, they exert direct pressure on government organs, cabinet ministers, members of parliament and high administrative officials. On the other hand, they exert indirect pressure on the populace to produce a public attitude that will, in turn, influence government leaders, who are always attentive to public opinion.11 Pakistan’s politics is mostly based on individuals rather than the institutions which often lack strength. Political parties are weak and not developed thus creating an empty space giving other forces like individual leaders and interest or pressure groups, an opportunity to fill this gap. Students are one such pressure group who can take advantage of the situation and play a significant role in political process. They are formidable and influential political actors in Pakistan’s politics, capable of influencing the nature and direction of political development. After the creation of Pakistan, the students expanded their role and established their primacy to the political process which manifested in different forms, i.e., active role in the political setup, agitational role as a pressure group, and penetration into the policy-making and the political processes.
Q.2 Define Political Party. Evaluate Pakistan People’s Party in the light of its ideology, social foundations, continuity of leadership structure and organization.
A political party is defined as an organized group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office.
Besides, A political party is a group of people who come together to contest elections and hold power in the government. The party agrees on some proposed policies and programs, with a view to promoting the collective good or furthering their supporters' interests.
In another sense :
1. A political party is a group people who share the same ideas about the way the country should be governed.
2. They work together to introduce new laws, the alter old laws.
3. Political parties try to control what happens in Parliament by securing a majority of seats (Members of Parliament).
4. Political Parties have policies. A good example of a policy is “education must be free for all youngsters between the age of 5 to 18 years of age”.
5. Usually, when a political party wants to change Laws and Regulations they have to put their idea to all the Members of Parliament. A vote then takes place and if the majority of MPs vote ‘YES’ then the change to the Law/Regulation takes place.
Instead, a political party is a group of dedicated people who come together to win elections, operate the government, and determine public policy.
According to Gettell, “ A political party consists of a group of citizens more or less organized who act as a political unit and who by the use of their voting power aim to control the government and to carry out their general policies”
According to Gilchrist, “ A political party may thus be defined as an organized group of citizens who prefer to share the same political views and who by acting as a political unit try to control the government.”
A political party operates and seeks political power through constitutional means to translate its policies into practice. It is a body of like-minded people means to translate its policies into practice. It is a body of like minded people having similar views on matters of public concern.
Political Parties are characterised by :-
1. Having organized group.
2. Having common ideology.
3. Seeking political power through constitutional means.
4. Implementing policies to attain goal.
5. Adopt Peaceful method
On the whole , we can say that A political party is an association or political institution or organized group of citizens of common ideas and views of national interest and they want to come in government and power of leadership to govern a state.
The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) is Pakistan’s largest political party. It is also perhaps Pakistan’s only party, which can be discussed in a context similar to that of major political parties which have evolved in democratic countries in the 20th century and beyond.
Thus, in spite of democracy still being a flawed and young creature in Pakistan, PPP’s evolution can actually be compared to that of major social democratic parties in Europe and India.
The party was formed on November 30, 1967. Headed by a young, energetic and highly-educated former foreign minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a Sindhi), the party was conceived to bring about a socialist-democratic revolution in Pakistan after the military dictatorship of Field Martial Ayub Khan was overthrown.
Bhutto had been Khan’s foreign minister but had a falling out with the dictator after the latter agreed to a ceasefire with India during the 1965 Indo-Pak war.
Galvanised by the rise of the student-left in Pakistan and the popular sentiment across West Pakistan against the ceasefire (especially in the Punjab), Bhutto, after being eased out of the Ayub regime, showed an interest in joining the National Awami Party (NAP).
At the time, NAP was Pakistan’s largest leftist party. It was a consensual collection of communists, socialists, socialist-democrats, and, more so, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtun and Bengali nationalists.
With his self-worth boosted by the enthusiastic response his stand against Ayub received from the students in West Pakistan, Bhutto decided not to join the NAP after it failed to give him the kind of a position he thought he now deserved.
Facing isolation and a possible ouster from the political process, Bhutto was too much of a political animal to miss out on the forthcoming commotion against the Ayub dictatorship.
While on a trip to Europe, Bhutto held a number of meetings with a former bureaucrat and an accomplished Marxist theoretician J A. Rahim.
Both decided to form a left-wing democratic party.
The party was launched at a convention in Lahore. It was a vibrant affair attended by a number of progressive intellectuals, leftist student leaders, labour and trade union activists and journalists. It also benefited from the split in NAP between pro-China and pro-Moscow factions.
The PPP convention in Lahore November, 1967, which officially launched the party and laid out the party’s manifesto.
At the convention, Z. A. Bhutto read out the party’s manifesto (that he had written with J A. Rahim) and put it up for debate in front of the participants. Socialism and Pakistani nationalism were at the centre of the manifesto.
Almost immediately, three tendencies of the party’s overall ideology emerged.
Intellectuals like Dr Mubashir Hassan, Shaikh M. Rashid, Tufail Abbas and student leader Miraj Muhammad Khan expressed a more radical understanding of the manifesto.
They also brought with them certain radical Maoist tendencies into the party’s character because as communists, they had sided with China during the ideological Sino-Soviet conflict of the 1960s.
Intellectuals like Hanif Ramay traded a middle-ground. They insisted that the party’s leftism needed to be fused with ‘progressive aspects of Islam’ so that the PPP doesn’t come out looking like an atheistic/communist party.
Ramay was part of the Islamic Socialism Group, a literary organisation formed by intellectuals inspired by the ‘Arab Socialism’ of the Egyptian leader, Gammal Nasser, Algeria’s National Liberation Front, and Indonesian leader Sukarno’s attempts to express populist socialist theory and Indonesian nationalism through Islamic symbolism.
Ramay’s group prevailed in convincing Rahim and Bhutto to explain the party’s central ideology as a democratic expression of ‘Islamic Socialism’ which, in Urdu, was translated as ‘Musawat-e-Muhammadi’ (the political and economic system of equality and justice introduced by Islam’s prophet).
Hanif Ramay, a founding member of the PPP was also one of the leading theoreticians of ‘Islamic Socialism’ in Pakistan. It was Ramay who first advised Bhutto to use the expression ‘Islamic Welfare State.’
The third tendency that emerged within the party was of a more conservative variety. It would go on to constitute the right-wing of the PPP.
This wing included influential spiritual leaders like Makhdum Muhammad Zaman, lawyer Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and ‘progressive’ members of the landed elite (in Sindh and Punjab) like Ghulam Mustafa Khar, Rasul Bakhsh Talpur, Mumtaz Bhutto, and later Maulana Kausar Niazi and Mustafa Jatoi.
This section of the party prescribed a more pragmatic approach towards the military and the ruling elite and advocated a dilution of the party’s radical socialist programme.
So, like any major democratic political party, the PPP too came attached with various ideological wings with their own views of the party’s overall philosophy.
Nevertheless, it was the PPP’s radical (Marxist) wing and moderate leftist Islamic Socialist wing that was the most active from the party’s inception in 1967 until about 1973.
In the 1990s (after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism), the word socialism was again diluted in the party’s manifestos, replaced with terms like human rights, de-nationalisation, ‘trickle-down economics,’ etc.
But the populism aspect addressed towards the peasant and working-classes remained a constant – now, more than ever, because these became the party’s main constituencies after the Punjab urban bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie that had enthusiastically supported the PPP in the 1970s, turned towards conservative parties such as the Pakistan Muslim League, which was revamped and re-launched by the Zia regime in the mid-1980s.
In the 2000s (during the Musharraf dictatorship), fight against Islamic extremism became one of the central planks of the party’s manifesto. So did Benazir’s concept of ‘reconciliatory politics’ that saw her joining hands with her arch-foe Nawaz Sharif, chief of the PML-N, in order to oppose Musharraf.
After Benazir’s tragic assassination at the hands of Islamic extremists (allegedly facilitated by the Musharraf regime) in 2007, the party leadership fell in the hands of her husband Asif Ali Zardari, Zardari - non-ideological and Machiavellian in disposition - gleefully and acutely enhanced the concept of pragmatism in the spheres of the party’s thinking and policy-making.
In a two-pronged move, he constituted a new conservative wing in the party led by handpicked pragmatics whose job it was to keep an accommodating relationship with the ever-troublesome military and the ever-demanding coalition partners. On the other hand, to keep the party’s ideological legacy afloat, he chose committed left-democrats like Raza Rabbani to head the left-wing of the party, by now, had largely become left-liberal in essence.
The recent rehabilitation of old party ideologue, Aitzaz Ahsan, is also associated with the bolstering of the PPP’s ideological/left-liberal dimension. While PPP, under Zardari, has largely become a pragmatic entity, there still exists a vocal Marxist presence in the lower tiers of the party, and among the labour/trade unions associated with the PPP and in the party’s youth wings, Peoples Students Federation and Peoples Youth Organization.
Also active within these tiers are pro-PPP Sindhi nationalists, whom Zardari has often used to counter anti-PPP Sindhi nationalists and against what he perceives to be ‘conspiracies of the Punjabi establishment’ against the PPP regime.
In a Darwinian sense, the PPP under Zardari has been a political success - if not an ideological one.
Thus, in spite of democracy still being a flawed and young creature in Pakistan, PPP’s evolution can actually be compared to that of major social democratic parties in Europe and India.
The party was formed on November 30, 1967. Headed by a young, energetic and highly-educated former foreign minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (a Sindhi), the party was conceived to bring about a socialist-democratic revolution in Pakistan after the military dictatorship of Field Martial Ayub Khan was overthrown.
Bhutto had been Khan’s foreign minister but had a falling out with the dictator after the latter agreed to a ceasefire with India during the 1965 Indo-Pak war.
Galvanised by the rise of the student-left in Pakistan and the popular sentiment across West Pakistan against the ceasefire (especially in the Punjab), Bhutto, after being eased out of the Ayub regime, showed an interest in joining the National Awami Party (NAP).
At the time, NAP was Pakistan’s largest leftist party. It was a consensual collection of communists, socialists, socialist-democrats, and, more so, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtun and Bengali nationalists.
With his self-worth boosted by the enthusiastic response his stand against Ayub received from the students in West Pakistan, Bhutto decided not to join the NAP after it failed to give him the kind of a position he thought he now deserved.
Facing isolation and a possible ouster from the political process, Bhutto was too much of a political animal to miss out on the forthcoming commotion against the Ayub dictatorship.
While on a trip to Europe, Bhutto held a number of meetings with a former bureaucrat and an accomplished Marxist theoretician J A. Rahim.
Both decided to form a left-wing democratic party.
The party was launched at a convention in Lahore. It was a vibrant affair attended by a number of progressive intellectuals, leftist student leaders, labour and trade union activists and journalists. It also benefited from the split in NAP between pro-China and pro-Moscow factions.
The PPP convention in Lahore November, 1967, which officially launched the party and laid out the party’s manifesto.
At the convention, Z. A. Bhutto read out the party’s manifesto (that he had written with J A. Rahim) and put it up for debate in front of the participants. Socialism and Pakistani nationalism were at the centre of the manifesto.
Almost immediately, three tendencies of the party’s overall ideology emerged.
Intellectuals like Dr Mubashir Hassan, Shaikh M. Rashid, Tufail Abbas and student leader Miraj Muhammad Khan expressed a more radical understanding of the manifesto.
They also brought with them certain radical Maoist tendencies into the party’s character because as communists, they had sided with China during the ideological Sino-Soviet conflict of the 1960s.
Intellectuals like Hanif Ramay traded a middle-ground. They insisted that the party’s leftism needed to be fused with ‘progressive aspects of Islam’ so that the PPP doesn’t come out looking like an atheistic/communist party.
Ramay was part of the Islamic Socialism Group, a literary organisation formed by intellectuals inspired by the ‘Arab Socialism’ of the Egyptian leader, Gammal Nasser, Algeria’s National Liberation Front, and Indonesian leader Sukarno’s attempts to express populist socialist theory and Indonesian nationalism through Islamic symbolism.
Ramay’s group prevailed in convincing Rahim and Bhutto to explain the party’s central ideology as a democratic expression of ‘Islamic Socialism’ which, in Urdu, was translated as ‘Musawat-e-Muhammadi’ (the political and economic system of equality and justice introduced by Islam’s prophet).
Hanif Ramay, a founding member of the PPP was also one of the leading theoreticians of ‘Islamic Socialism’ in Pakistan. It was Ramay who first advised Bhutto to use the expression ‘Islamic Welfare State.’
The third tendency that emerged within the party was of a more conservative variety. It would go on to constitute the right-wing of the PPP.
This wing included influential spiritual leaders like Makhdum Muhammad Zaman, lawyer Abdul Hafeez Pirzada and ‘progressive’ members of the landed elite (in Sindh and Punjab) like Ghulam Mustafa Khar, Rasul Bakhsh Talpur, Mumtaz Bhutto, and later Maulana Kausar Niazi and Mustafa Jatoi.
This section of the party prescribed a more pragmatic approach towards the military and the ruling elite and advocated a dilution of the party’s radical socialist programme.
So, like any major democratic political party, the PPP too came attached with various ideological wings with their own views of the party’s overall philosophy.
Nevertheless, it was the PPP’s radical (Marxist) wing and moderate leftist Islamic Socialist wing that was the most active from the party’s inception in 1967 until about 1973.
In the 1990s (after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism), the word socialism was again diluted in the party’s manifestos, replaced with terms like human rights, de-nationalisation, ‘trickle-down economics,’ etc.
But the populism aspect addressed towards the peasant and working-classes remained a constant – now, more than ever, because these became the party’s main constituencies after the Punjab urban bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie that had enthusiastically supported the PPP in the 1970s, turned towards conservative parties such as the Pakistan Muslim League, which was revamped and re-launched by the Zia regime in the mid-1980s.
In the 2000s (during the Musharraf dictatorship), fight against Islamic extremism became one of the central planks of the party’s manifesto. So did Benazir’s concept of ‘reconciliatory politics’ that saw her joining hands with her arch-foe Nawaz Sharif, chief of the PML-N, in order to oppose Musharraf.
After Benazir’s tragic assassination at the hands of Islamic extremists (allegedly facilitated by the Musharraf regime) in 2007, the party leadership fell in the hands of her husband Asif Ali Zardari, Zardari - non-ideological and Machiavellian in disposition - gleefully and acutely enhanced the concept of pragmatism in the spheres of the party’s thinking and policy-making.
In a two-pronged move, he constituted a new conservative wing in the party led by handpicked pragmatics whose job it was to keep an accommodating relationship with the ever-troublesome military and the ever-demanding coalition partners. On the other hand, to keep the party’s ideological legacy afloat, he chose committed left-democrats like Raza Rabbani to head the left-wing of the party, by now, had largely become left-liberal in essence.
The recent rehabilitation of old party ideologue, Aitzaz Ahsan, is also associated with the bolstering of the PPP’s ideological/left-liberal dimension. While PPP, under Zardari, has largely become a pragmatic entity, there still exists a vocal Marxist presence in the lower tiers of the party, and among the labour/trade unions associated with the PPP and in the party’s youth wings, Peoples Students Federation and Peoples Youth Organization.
Also active within these tiers are pro-PPP Sindhi nationalists, whom Zardari has often used to counter anti-PPP Sindhi nationalists and against what he perceives to be ‘conspiracies of the Punjabi establishment’ against the PPP regime.
In a Darwinian sense, the PPP under Zardari has been a political success - if not an ideological one.
Q.3 Explain traditional and mass parties focusing on historical background, psychological basis and organization. (20)
Political party, a group of persons organized to acquire and exercise political power. Political parties originated in their modern form in Europe and the United States in the 19th century, along with the electoral and parliamentary systems, whose development reflects the evolution of parties. The term party has since come to be applied to all organized groups seeking political power, whether by democratic elections or by revolution.
In earlier, prerevolutionary, aristocratic and monarchical regimes, the political process unfolded within restricted circles in which cliques and factions, grouped around particular noblemen or influential personalities, were opposed to one another. The establishment of parliamentary regimes and the appearance of parties at first scarcely changed this situation. To cliques formed around princes, dukes, counts, or marquesses there were added cliques formed around bankers, merchants, industrialists, and businessmen. Regimes supported by nobles were succeeded by regimes supported by other elites. These narrowly based parties were later transformed to a greater or lesser extent, for in the 19th century in Europe and America there emerged parties depending on mass support.
The 20th century saw the spread of political parties throughout the entire world. In developing countries, large modern political parties have sometimes been based on traditional relationships, such as ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliations. Moreover, many political parties in developing countries are partly political, partly military. Certain socialist and communist parties in Europe earlier experienced the same tendencies.
These last-mentioned European parties demonstrated an equal aptitude for functioning within multiparty democracies and as the sole political party in a dictatorship. Developing originally within the framework of liberal democracy in the 19th century, political parties have been used since the 20th century by dictatorships for entirely undemocratic purposes.
Types Of Political Party
A fundamental distinction can be made between cadre parties and mass-based parties. The two forms coexist in many countries, particularly in western Europe, where communist and socialist parties have emerged alongside the older conservative and liberalparties. Many parties do not fall exactly into either category but combine some characteristics of both.
Traditional parties
Traditional parties—i.e., parties dominated by politically elite groups of activists—developed in Europe and America during the 19th century. Except in some of the states of the United States, France from 1848, and the German Empire from 1871, the suffrage was largely restricted to taxpayers and property owners, and, even when the right to vote was given to larger numbers of people, political influence was essentially limited to a very small segment of the population. The mass of people was limited to the role of spectators rather than that of active participants.The traditional parties of the 19th century reflected a fundamental conflict between two classes: the aristocracy on the one hand and the bourgeoisie on the other. The former, composed of landowners, depended upon rural estates on which a generally unlettered peasantry was held back by a traditionalist clergy. The bourgeoisie, made up of industrialists, merchants, tradesmen, bankers, financiers, and professional people, depended upon the lower classes of clerks and industrial workers in the cities.
Conservative and liberal traditional parties dominated European politics in the 19th century. Developing during a period of great social and economic upheaval, they exercised power largely through electoral and parliamentary activity. Once in power, their leaders used the power of the army or of the police; the party itself was not generally organized for violent activity. Its local units were charged with assuring moral and financial backing to candidates at election time, as well as with maintaining continual contact between elected officials and the electorate.
In terms of party structure, U.S. parties in the beginning differed little from their European counterparts. Like them, the U.S. parties were composed of local notables. The ties of a local committee to a national organization were even weaker than in Europe. At the state level there was some effective coordination of local party organizations, but at the national level such coordination did not exist. A more original structure was developed after the Civil War—in the South to exploit the votes of African Americans and along the East Coast to control the votes of immigrants. The extreme decentralization in the United States enabled a party to establish a local quasi-dictatorship in a city or county by capturing all of the key posts in an election. Not only the position of mayor but also the police, finances, and the courts came under the control of the party machine, and the machine was thus a development of the original cadre parties. The local party committee came typically to be composed of adventurers or gangsters who wanted to control the distribution of wealth and to ensure the continuation of their control. These men were themselves controlled by the power of the boss, the political leader who controlled the machine at the city, county, or state levels. At the direction of the committee, each constituency was carefully divided, and every precinct was watched closely by an agent of the party, the captain, who was responsible for securing votes for the party.
Mass parties
Cadre parties normally organize a relatively small number of party adherents. Mass-based parties, on the other hand, unite hundreds of thousands of followers, sometimes millions. But the number of members is not the only criterion of a mass-based party. The essential factor is that such a party attempts to base itself on an appeal to the masses. It attempts to organize not only those who are influential or well known or those who represent special interest groups but rather any citizen who is willing to join the party. If such a party succeeds in gathering only a few adherents, then it is mass-based only in potential. It remains, nevertheless, different from the cadre-type parties.
At the end of the 19th century the socialist parties of continental Europe organized themselves on a mass basis in order to educate and organize the growing population of labourers and wage earners—who were becoming more important politically because of extensions of the suffrage—and to gather the money necessary for propaganda by mobilizing in a regular fashion the resources of those who, although poor, were numerous. Membership campaigns were conducted, and each member paid party dues. If its members became sufficiently numerous, the party emerged as a powerful organization, managing large funds and diffusing its ideas among an important segment of the population. Such was the case with the German Social Democratic Party, which by 1913 had more than one million members.
Such organizations were necessarily rigidly structured. The party required an exact registration of membership, treasurers to collect dues, secretaries to call and lead local meetings, and a hierarchical framework for the coordination of the thousands of local sections. A tradition of collective action and group discipline, more developed among workers as a result of their participation in strikes and other union activity, favoured the development and centralization of party organization.
A complex party organization tends to give a great deal of influence to those who have responsibility at various levels in the hierarchy, resulting in certain oligarchical tendencies. The socialist parties made an effort to control this tendency by developing democratic procedures in the choice of leaders. At every level those in responsible positions were elected by members of the party. Every local party group would elect delegates to regional and national congresses, at which party candidates and party leaders would be chosen and party policy decided.
The type of mass-based party described above was imitated by many nonsocialist parties. Some cadre-type parties in Europe, both conservative and liberal, attempted to transform themselves along similar lines. The Christian Democratic parties often developed organizations copied even more directly from the mass-based model. But nonsocialist parties were generally less successful in establishing
All mass-based parties tend to be centralized, communist parties were more so than others. There was, in principle, free discussion, which was supposedly developed at every level before a decision was made.
A further distinctive characteristic of communist parties was the importance given to ideology. All parties had a doctrine or at least a platform. The European socialist parties, which were doctrinaire before 1914 and between the two World Wars, later became more pragmatic, not to say opportunistic.
A further distinctive characteristic of communist parties was the importance given to ideology. All parties had a doctrine or at least a platform. The European socialist parties, which were doctrinaire before 1914 and between the two World Wars, later became more pragmatic, not to say opportunistic.
The 1920s and ’30s saw the emergence of fascist parties that attempted, as did the communist and socialist parties, to organize the maximum number of members but that did not claim to represent the great masses of people. Their teaching was authoritarian and elitist. They thought that societies should be directed by the most talented and capable people—by an elite. The party leadership, grouped under the absolute authority of a supreme head, constituted such an elite. Party structure had as its goal the assurance of the obedience of the elite.
Q.4 Critically analyze the role of charismatic leadership in making a Political Party. (20)
Charismatic leadership
The original charismatic leadership theory by Weber (1947) described how followers attribute extraordinary qualities (charisma) to the leader. In recent years, others have modified and extended this theory to describe charismatic leadership in formal organizations (Conger, 1989; Conger & Kanungo, 1988, Conger & Kanungo 1998, House 1977; Shamir and associates 1993). These theories describe charismatic leadership in terms of the amount of leader influence over followers and the type of leader-follower relationship that emerges.
The core behaviors in charismatic leadership vary somewhat from theory to theory, and sometimes from older to newer versions of the same theory. The key behaviors in the Conger and Kanungo (1988, 1998) theory include articulating an innovative strategic vision, showing sensitivity to member needs, displaying unconventional behavior, taking personal risks, and showing sensitivity to the environment (identifying constraints, threats, and opportunities). The key behaviors in the House (1977) and Shamir et al. (1993) theories include articulating an appealing vision, emphasizing ideological aspects of the work, communicating high performance expectations, expressing confidence that subordinates can attain them, showing self confidence, modeling exemplary behavior, and emphasizing collective identity. Some researchers have further differentiated between the content of the vision and the use of an expressive style to communicate it (e.g., Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).
The research designed to test charismatic leadership theories has employed a wide variety of methods, including survey field studies, laboratory experiments, scenarios, content analysis of biographies and historical accounts, and case studies that compare different leaders or the same leader in different situations. The research provides evidence that supports some aspects of the major theories, but most of the propositions in these theories have yet to be tested adequately.
Only recently have behavior questionnaires been developed for testing the charismatic theories. Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, and Popper (1998)developed a questionnaire to measure four behaviors that may be involved in charismatic leadership: supporting, displaying exemplary behavior (similar to role modeling), emphasizing ideology, and emphasizing collective identity. As noted earlier, House, Delbecq, and Taris (1997) developed a questionnaire with scales measuring charismatic as well as transformational behaviors.
Conger and Kanungo developed a questionnaire (the C–K Scale) based on their charismatic leadership theory Conger & Kanungo 1994, Conger & Kanungo 1998, Conger, Kanungo, Menon, & Mathur 1997. Their validation studies established moderately good support for the overall measure of charismatic behavior. The correlation among subscales was much lower for the C–K Scale than for the MLQ, which suggests that the behaviors are operationally defined more clearly and distinctly. The research also found that most of the charismatic behaviors were relatively independent of traditional leadership behaviors.
Ambiguity about Charisma
There is widespread confusion about the meaning of charismatic leadership, due in part to differences among theorists in how they define it (Bryman, 1993). Most charismatic theories emphasize follower attributions of extraordinary qualities to the leader. Conger and Kanungo (1988, 1998) proposed that the attributions are determined jointly by characteristics of the leader, subordinates, and situation. In contrast, House (1977) and Shamir and associates (1993) have defined charismatic leadership in terms of how the leader influences follower attitudes and motivation, regardless of whether followers consider the leader extraordinary
There is need for more clarity and consistency in how the term charismatic is defined and used. The most useful definition seems to be in terms of attributions of charisma to a leader by followers who identify strongly with the leader. This definition maintains the original meaning of charisma and provides a basis for differentiating between charismatic and transformational leadership.
Ambiguity about Underlying Influence Processes
The theorists also disagree about the relative importance of the underlying influence processes. Personal identification was the primary influence process in the initial version of the charismatic leadership theory proposed by Conger and Kanungo (1987). In their most recent version of the theory (Conger & Kanungo, 1998), personal identification is the primary process early in the relationship, but internalization becomes more important later in the relationship. The theory by Shamir and associates (1993) appears to emphasize internalization and collective identification more than personal identification. Which influence process is dominant may be very relevant for understanding leadership effectiveness Howell 1988, Kelman 1974, Shamir 1991.
When there is strong personal identification, followers are passionately devoted to an attractive leader with exceptional ability to find solutions to important problems confronting them. Followers desire to be like the leader and to gain the leader's acceptance and approval. They will imitate the leader's behavior, accept the leader's task objectives, comply with the leader's requests, and make self-sacrifices and an extra effort in the work to please the leader. In extreme cases, the follower's primary self identify may become service to the leader. Strong personal identification creates loyal, obedient followers, but it may inhibit them from providing feedback to the leader or showing initiative. They will be reluctant to disagree with leader, criticize the leader's plans, or deviate from them. They will tend to ignore or rationalize any evidence that the plans and policies proposed by their leader are unrealistic and impractical.
A somewhat different type of relationship seems likely when the primary influence process is internalization, and task objectives are linked to a follower's core values and self-identity. When followers come to see their work roles as an important part of their self-identity, successful performance becomes very important for their self-acceptance and self worth. Followers will make self-sacrifices and exert extra effort in their work to facilitate achievement of the task objectives. In extreme cases, service to the cause may become a follower's primary self-identity. The dedication of subordinates to the mission will be stronger than any loyalty they feel to the leader. Followers are likely to express concerns about leader plans and policies that appear to be impractical or self-serving, and they may refuse to carry out a request that appears to endanger the mission or violate their core values.
The charismatic leadership theories would be improved by a better explanation of the underlying influence processes. How do personal identification, social identification, internalization, and instrumental compliance interact in determining the behavior of followers? Is one influence process more central than the others? How are these influence processes related to leader influence on follower self-identity, self-efficacy, and motive arousal? There has been little empirical research on the underlying influence processes in charismatic leadership, and it remains the most speculative aspect of the theories.
Q.5 Elaborate the causes of making and breaking of intra and inter alliances of political parties in Pakistan during 1988 to 1999
Forming political alliances is a process of organizing parties
collectively in pursuit of a common goal or objective. The
elements or actions that entail this process include among others
the pooling of resources, forming binding commitments and an
agreement on the distribution arrangement of the product that may
result from achieving this goal. A political alliance is a “temporary
combination of groups or individuals formed to pursue specific
objectives through joint action”.1
In other words, it is “the union of
different political parties or groups for a particular purpose, usually
for a limited time.”2
Party alliances may be forged either by giving serious
considerations to ideological positions of respective parties on
political chessboard or by ignoring them altogether. The precise
actors that make up such political alliances consist mainly of
individual legislators and political parties seeking purposely to
control the executive. But this does not mean that alliances are not
forged for any other purpose. They are also formed to safeguard
the interests of smaller parties by providing them representation in
the legislature, to overthrow a government, to protect the
opposition from the repression and pressure of the government or
to struggle for democratization.
Political parties which wish to exercise power in parliamentary democracy are typically forced to enter into an alliance. These parties can either form a pre-electoral coalition prior to election or they can compete independently and form a governmental alliance afterwards.
In Pakistan, such alliances often emerge when the system throws up a political party with a huge vote bank and when it is believed that this party cannot be defeated (in an election) by a single opposing outfit. Ever since the late1980s, many experts and observers have alleged that the `establishment` is never comfortable with a single party enjoying a large vote bank and in a position to command an absolute majority in the parliament.
This rather widespread perception suggests that (ever since the 1988 election) the so-called establishment has regularly helped shape electoral alliances. It is believed by many that this is done so that the electorally strong party could at best form a coalition government, leaving enough space for non-electoral centres of power to influence the policy-making process.
Political parties which wish to exercise power in parliamentary democracy are typically forced to enter into an alliance. These parties can either form a pre-electoral coalition prior to election or they can compete independently and form a governmental alliance afterwards.
In Pakistan, such alliances often emerge when the system throws up a political party with a huge vote bank and when it is believed that this party cannot be defeated (in an election) by a single opposing outfit. Ever since the late1980s, many experts and observers have alleged that the `establishment` is never comfortable with a single party enjoying a large vote bank and in a position to command an absolute majority in the parliament.
This rather widespread perception suggests that (ever since the 1988 election) the so-called establishment has regularly helped shape electoral alliances. It is believed by many that this is done so that the electorally strong party could at best form a coalition government, leaving enough space for non-electoral centres of power to influence the policy-making process.
Even in the past alliances were formed, but only a few of them had been successful. On April 30, 1967 Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan had formed a five-party alliance of opposition, namely the Pakistan Democratic Movement, but later renamed as Pakistan Democratic Action Committee. It played an important role in the removal of Ayub Khan.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto held elections before the end of the tenure of his government in 1977.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto held elections before the end of the tenure of his government in 1977.
The Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) comprising nine political parties was cobbled together before the elections. The PPP had emerged victorious, but its government was accused of rigging the elections on 35 seats.
The then army chief Zia-ul-Haq imposed martial law, and Bhutto and many other leaders were incarcerated. Later, Bhutto was awarded death sentence on the allegation of murder of Nawab Muhammad Ahmed Khan Kasuri, and Bhutto was hanged on July 4, 1979. With the demise of Zia in a C-130 crash in 1988, the elections that were to be held party-less were then held on party basis.
The then army chief Zia-ul-Haq imposed martial law, and Bhutto and many other leaders were incarcerated. Later, Bhutto was awarded death sentence on the allegation of murder of Nawab Muhammad Ahmed Khan Kasuri, and Bhutto was hanged on July 4, 1979. With the demise of Zia in a C-130 crash in 1988, the elections that were to be held party-less were then held on party basis.
In 1988, the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad was formed comprising nine parties, It was led by the Pakistan Muslim League that had been revamped and reoriented by the Zia regime as an entirely right-wing outfit. The IJI also had a number of religious parties in its fold. As former chief of Pakistan`s Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), Gen Hamid Gul confessed on August 29, 2009, he was one of the main architects of the IJI.He said it was enacted to challenge the PPP which had been reinvigorated by Bhutto`s daughter, Benazir.
But those parties had not fared well in elections. The PPP had emerged the largest single majority party, and the president had invited Benazir Bhutto to form government. During 1990s, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif’s governments were dismissed twice under 58-2 (b).
After winning the1990 election, IJI disintegrated during the first Nawaz Sharif regime (1990-1993) when he formed his own ML faction the Nawaz League.
In 1997, Nawabzada Nasrullah succeeded in forming the Grand Democratic Alliance against Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz government. Since the inception of Pakistan, political parties has remained embroiled in a messy showdown that twice led to imposition of martial law, and once military dispensation by General Pervez Musharraf on October 12, 1999. On October 10, 1999, two days before Musharraf overthrew Sharif government, the Grand Democratic Alliance (GDA) in its meeting had announced it would hold anti-government rally at Nishtar Park, Karachi on October 29, 1999, to expose government’s failure in containing terrorism, both ethnic and sectarian, price hike and unemployment.
But those parties had not fared well in elections. The PPP had emerged the largest single majority party, and the president had invited Benazir Bhutto to form government. During 1990s, Benazir and Nawaz Sharif’s governments were dismissed twice under 58-2 (b).
After winning the1990 election, IJI disintegrated during the first Nawaz Sharif regime (1990-1993) when he formed his own ML faction the Nawaz League.
In 1997, Nawabzada Nasrullah succeeded in forming the Grand Democratic Alliance against Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz government. Since the inception of Pakistan, political parties has remained embroiled in a messy showdown that twice led to imposition of martial law, and once military dispensation by General Pervez Musharraf on October 12, 1999. On October 10, 1999, two days before Musharraf overthrew Sharif government, the Grand Democratic Alliance (GDA) in its meeting had announced it would hold anti-government rally at Nishtar Park, Karachi on October 29, 1999, to expose government’s failure in containing terrorism, both ethnic and sectarian, price hike and unemployment.
But meanwhile, Musharraf overthrew Sharif government, in what he termed a ‘countercoup’. Nasrullah and other members of the alliance wished to take PML-N in its fold, although the 19-party alliance had one-point agenda: removal of Sharif government. Nasrullah, Azam Hoti, Asfandyar Wali Khan and others were lamenting the treatment meted to Sharif in jail. This scribe was witness in the GDA’s meeting held at Imran Khan’s residence when Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek had opposed PML-N’s joining the alliance. PML of Hamid Nasir Chattha, Mazdoor Kissan Party, a breakaway faction of the Tehrik-e-Istaqlal and five other parties had also opposed the inclusion of PML-N in the GDA. Nasrullah deftly succeeded in bringing the PML-N and PPP under the banner of the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy, and became its chairman.
It is fresh in the minds of people that political parties and alliances have been persuading the army chiefs in the past for getting rid of elected governments. This is one of the reasons that people have become indifferent to the electoral process, and do not bother if they are to be ruled and exploited by an elected government or by any other dispensation. It should be borne in mind that in a democracy political process is not traversing the cul-de-sac, as today’s ruling party could be tomorrow’s opposition and vice versa. And tolerance to listen to dissenting views calmly and respond to them rationally is the hallmark of democracy. During the last 69 years, Pakistan has faced multi-faceted crises, and once suffered the trauma of disintegration. It was, therefore, expected that political parties and their leaderships would avoid internecine conflicts, and would not give over-riding consideration to their personal and group interests over the national interest.
It appears that in spite of three martial laws and a military dispensation no lessons were learnt. In democracies, there could be difference of opinion over methodologies of achieving targets and timeframe, but all political parties should remain steadfast in regard to the objectives of welfare of the masses and stability and security of the country. If any neutral observer or analyst were to examine the role played by civil and military bureaucracy as well as political parties in Pakistan, the obvious conclusion will be that the overall performance has been dismal. Majority of the political leaders and their parties remained absorbed in politics of power and pelf, and never tried to establish a paradigm of good governance. There is a perception that the members of the ruling elite, whether in government or in opposition, are the beneficiaries of this system, and hence they would not like to change the status quo.
ASSIGNMENT No. 2
Q.1 Discuss the emergence of Civil-Military dominance during 1947-58 with reference to Social and ethnic conflicts. (20)
Theoretically, the test of leadership is to lead the country and the nation out of a crisis situation. The dynamic leadership of Jinnah is a witness to this reality. Muslims of the sub-continent under the leadership of Jinnah successfully fought the forces of British imperialism and Hindu nationalism culminating in the creation of Pakistan. After the death of Jinnah, his political successors badly failed to create consensus politics. The second line leadership could not translate the political achievements of Jinnah into a vibrant, moderate and forward-looking democratic polity. Factionalism, provincialism and power politics marred the first decade of Independence. Pakistan had seven Prime Ministers and eight cabinets during 1947-58. The ruling parties maintained power by using state patronage and coercive apparatus in a highly partisan manner. The situation was not much different at the provincial level where different political parties and leaders engaged in struggle for power in violation of parliamentary norms.
The Constituent Assembly established at the time of independence was unable to frame a constitution as the members and the political parties did not work towards evolving a consensus on the operational norms of the political system. The objectives of the Constitution were approved in March 1949 after a contentious debate; some members did not take part in the vote on the Objectives Resolution. Subsequently, the Constituent Assembly deliberated on the framework of the Constitution during March 1949 and October 1954: when they agreed on a draft of the Constitution, Governor General Ghulam Muhammad dissolved the first Constituent Assembly before the latter could take up the draft for final consideration and vote.Governor General Ghulam Muhammad, in violation of established parliamentary norms, dissolved the above cited Assembly in a reactive move. There was unwarranted and continuous interference by the head of state in the political sphere of the country. Traditionally, the head of state is a nominal and titular office in parliamentary democracy whereas there was repeated interference into politics by two heads of state—Ghulam Muhammad and Iskander Mirza.
Had the political successors of Jinnah been sane enough, the interference of heads of state might have been averted. Those who were to steer the ship of the state of Pakistan were predominantly unscrupulous, corrupt and power hungry. None of them could rise to the level of a statesman. They remained self-centered petty politicians. The result was inevitable extreme political instability, palace intrigues, the ever-growing influence of the bureaucracyand the military in politics. Thus, military leaders felt justified in taking over when politicians failed to provide efficient and popular governance
Rizvi, while analyzing the political developments of Pakistan’s early period asserted that “political decay” occurred because Pakistan suffered from a lack of competent leadership and well organized political parties. The growth of regional and parochial forces, political bargaining and open defiance of the norms of parliamentary democracy encouraged instability which reduced the effectiveness of the governmental machinery, while on the other hand, the military was gaining strength.38 Huntington has also noted that such conditions are conducive for praetorianism, emphasizing that it was the inability of the political leaders to build a party system during the pre-military hegemonic political phase in Pakistan.
According to Khalid Bin Sayeed, the pre-military hegemonic phase was a “period of conflict”. Apparently this was a conflict between the political leaders and the bureaucratic-military elites over the nature and direction of the political system (i.e., the constitution, the role of religion in the polity, socio-economic reform, and the quantum of provincial autonomy).40 However, Sayeed believed that the sources of conflict were rooted in the tradition and culture of the regions that constituted Pakistan. The behavior of political leaders merely reflected these cleavages. East Bengal’s political leadership had a degree of consensus on the issue of provincial autonomy. However, the West Pakistani political leaders were divided not only along parochial lines, but also along “feudal” cleavages, particularly in Punjab and Sindh. Ridden with these cleavages, the political leaders could neither create a consensus among themselves, nor effectively challenge the bureaucratic elites.41 They lacked the capacity to aggregate public interests and build political institutions. Sayeed’s central thesis is that the incompetence and divisiveness of the political leaders brought about the collapse of the party system and facilitated the ascendancy of the bureaucratic- military elites.
Lawrence Ziring, an astute observer of Pakistani politics, has placed the burden of responsibility for the decay of party politics on the political leaders and the “structural weakness” of the Muslim League.33 Thus, according to Ziring, the bureaucratic-military elites entered the political arena not by intent but by default. In any democratic system, the basic principle is the establishment of contact with the masses through the political party in power. The people in Pakistan believed in the same value and expected that the League would add a new life to its glorious past. The Muslim League had done little to resolve popular confusion and to mediate between the Government and the people. The popular means of contact between the masses and their party were the open general annual conventions the most popular feature of the old All-India Muslim League but during the first nine years of Pakistan’s existence, no such convention was held. Council sessions were held but they related mainly to amendments to the League Constitution for one reason or the other.
Thus, during 1947-58, in a formal, constitutional sense, Pakistan’s history has been marked by political instability. In a non-legal, non-constitutional sense, it reveals the steady institutional development of the civilian and military bureaucracies. Slowly and gradually political power slipped from political parties into the hands of the civil service and the army.28 One can assess the intensity of political instability by the fact that within a short span of two and a half years (March 1956 to Oct 1958), Pakistan had six prime ministers
Constitution making in Pakistan was delayed for about nine years. The two most important factors which delayed constitution making in Pakistan were the differences between Punjabi dominated West Pakistani elite, and East Pakistani. East Pakistan demanded maximum provincial autonomy, whereas the West wing favoured a strong centre. The second most important issue was the quantum of representation: the East wing demanded universal adult franchise as Bengal constituted about 54% of the total population.15 Unfortunately, the West wing elite were not ready to concede this demand.
The geographical separation of East and West Pakistan produced not only administrative, physical but social, economic and political problems as well. Distance made communication irregular and expensive. Misunderstandings arose easily and were difficult to dispel. Since the capital was in the West wing, East Pakistan felt neglected. Differences in languages and cultures were obstacles in the way of national integrationHistorically speaking, the Punjabi-Bengali controversy delayed, more than any other factor, the constitution-making process in Pakistan.
Q.2 Critically analyse the failures and successes of the 1983 MRD Movement. (20)
Though protests against the Ziaul Haq dictatorship had begun almost immediately after his military coup in July 1977, his regime’s harsh measures against any and all opposition did not allow opposition groups to organise themselves in a more coherent and systematic manner.
The beginning of the anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan in early 1980 had meant that the Zia regime was poised to attract recognition from the United States, and become its vessel to carry the large military and financial aid that the US and Saudi Arabia pledged as a way to back Afghan insurgents in Afghanistan. But it would take another few years for Zia to use this patronage to strengthen his position.
The Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) was formed in 1981. It was a multiparty alliance initiated by the left-leaning Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which, at the time, was being led by former Prime Minister ZA Bhutto’s widow, Begum Nusrat Bhutto, and her then 28-year-old daughter, Benazir Bhutto. Both had been in and out of jails ever since ZA Bhutto was executed through a controversial trial in April 1979.
The MRD included the centre-left PPP; the center-left Pakistan National Party; the far-left Awami Tehreek; the far-left Qaumi Mahaz-i-Azadi; the far-left Muzdoor Kissan Party; the centre-left National Democratic Party; the centrist Tehreek-i-Istaqlal; the centre-right Pakistan Democratic Party; the centrist Muslim League (Malik Qasim faction); and the right-wing Jamiat Ulema Islam, which was the only mainstream religious party that was opposing Zia.
Though the movement kicked off in early 1981, it took another two years for MRD to gather a more substantial momentum against Zia’s dictatorship.
But by 1983, Zia had consolidated his political position and revived the economy. Yet, this revival, which was largely built upon the substantial flow of US and Saudi aid that had begun to arrive, brought with it a new kind of institutional corruption and the initial emergence of thorny factors such as heroin/gun smuggling, and the mainstreaming of radical clerics who were propped up by the state to recruit and indoctrinate young Pakistanis and Afghans for the insurgency against Soviet forces in Kabul.
Zia’s economic policies were also designed to attract the support of Punjab’s urban middle and lower-middle-class traders and shopkeepers (or those urban sections of the province who had overwhelmingly voted for ZA Bhutto’s PPP in the 1970 election).
The MRD leadership reacted to this by deducing that the fruits of the economic revival witnessed (after 1980) were mostly falling in the hands of central/urban Punjab’s industrialist and business communities and the trader classes; whereas rest of the country (as well as working-class and rural Punjabis) were being ravaged by economic exploitation, the rising rates of crime and corruption, and the growing incidents of sectarian violence.
On August 14, 1983 (one year after Zia had gotten himself elected as ‘President’ through a dubious referendum), the MRD launched a movement against him.
Q.3 Discuss the circumstances under which PPP emerged on the Political Scene of Pakistan. (20)
In 1970s Ayub Khan's policies nourished capitalist class at the expense of ordinary people. This period saw drastic increase in income inequality and poverty. In April 1968, Dr. Mahbub ul Haq, the then Chief Economist of the Planning Commission reported 22 families who controlled 66% of the industries and owned 87% share in country's banking and insurance industry. Due to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, economy collapsed, and investment growth in Pakistan saw 20% decline in following years.
Under influence of Soviet Union, both country signed Tashkent Declaration at Uzbekistan.[15] Tashkent Declaration shocked the people of Pakistan, who were expecting something different - because a public perception was built in Pakistan that they were going to win the war. Ayub Khan fiercely defended the declaration and called it in best interests of people. This led to confrontation between Ayub Khan and his Foreign minister Zulifqar Ali Bhutto which finally led to resignation of later. He went on accused Ayub of ‘losing the war on the negotiating table’. Opposition parties decided to protest against the declaration, however State resorted with imposing ban upon public gatherings and arresting activists. The resignation of Bhutto further angered and dismayed the public and the democratic-socialists.
Pakistan People‟s Party was founded by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto on December 1,
1967 at Lahore. Bhutto was accompanied by stalwart ideologues like Mubashir
Hasan, J.A. Rahim, Mairaj Mohammad Khan, Mumtaz Bhutto, Rafi Raza, Mustafa
Khar, and Hayat Sherpao, at the historic place of Mubashir Hasan‟s residence.
Though Bhutto, the founder of Pakistan People‟s Party, had been staunch supporter of Ayub Khan Regime from very beginning of his political upbringing in 1958 to 1966, yet, he dissociated himself from the regime on the issue of Tashkent Declaration3 in June 1966.
At the time he was uncertain about his future course of action. He was analyzing different options available for him and at the same time was not very sure about the political future. Three options were Ideological Orientation of Pakistan People‟s Party: Evolution, Illusion and Reality evidently available to Bhutto; to be amalgamated into a faction of Pakistan Muslim League, to join hands with a progressive National Awami Party or the most challenging one was to establish new political party of his own having clarity of thought with unique stand-point on national and international concerns.
Because of taking hard stance on the issue of Tashkent Declaration by Bhutto, Ayub government launched a comprehensive strategy to malign his image. “He was personally harassed and his public meetings were often disrupted. Bhutto eventually decided to form a new party and indicated that it would be radical, reformist, democratic, socialist and egalitarian party.”
Bhutto, being a charismatic leader and party head launched an aggressive mass-contact strategy by approaching every nook and corner of the country to reach the masses with his political philosophy, which addressed more specifically focusing on the troubles of the common man and pledged that his party had the solutions of the problems. On the other hand he adopted a very aggressive criticism strategy against the then ruling regime of Ayub Khan. The timing and focus of Bhutto on anti-establishment stance approached the minds and hearts of the masses within no time because of the ills prevalent in the urban middle classes, students, university and college faculty, labour, Ulema and government employees with low-income who were suppressed for long under the regime. It almost became a volcano and Bhutto hit the nail at ripe time.
The political scene with fierce agitation against the government with strikes, demonstrations, and protests every now and then occurred. The movement had spread throughout Pakistan by 1969. The government got panic and started tyrannical crush policy to coup with political gatherings and anti-government movement which seldom resulted in causalities. By the compulsion of unbearable political pressure, Ayub stepped down and on March 25, 1969, handed over the authority to General Yahya Khan, Commander-in-Chief of the army. Yahya decided to announce general elections just after assuming the charge as President. The prominent contenders were; Awami League (AL), Pakistan People‟s Party (PPP), National Awami Party Bhashani (NAP- Bhashani), National Awami Party Wali Khan (NAP-Wali Khan), three factions of Pakistan Muslim League, Jamat -iIslami,(JI) Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam Thanwi (JUI Thanwi), Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam Hazarvi(JUI Hazarvi) and Jamiat Ulema-i-Pakistan (JUP).
The PPP invented new political fashion during the election campaign by attracting the people at large through posters, banners and party flags. The articulation of the leadership was evident through the plan of organizing the processions and public meetings extensively. The canvassing catch word was „Socialism‟ based slogan of roti, kapra aur makan. The party intellectuals have contributed a lot by writing articles in newspapers and magazines for the propagation of party ideology. In this regard, the party organs „Nusrat‟ and „Musawat‟ had a significant contribution in disseminating PPP‟s political philosophy. Moreover, the focus of the campaign was to address every cadre of society. On the other hand, rightist parties were having contradiction with the ideology of Socialism. Therefore, they propagated against the point of view of PPP. The religio-political parties went ahead in that campaign against PPP and declared „Socialism‟ un-Islamic. Due to that allegation and counter-allegation was started by PPP and religio-political parties against each other. As a result, it had become reason for the gradual shift in PPP‟s ideology i.e. from „Socialism‟ to „Musawat-eMuhammadi‟.
Ayub Khan succumbed to political pressure on 26 March 1969 and handed power to the Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan. President Yahya Khan imposed martial law and the 1962 Constitution was abrogated. On 31 March 1970, President Yahya Khan announced a Legal Framework Order (LFO) which called for direct elections for a unicameral legislature. Many in the West feared the East wing's demand for countrywide provincial autonomy. The purpose of the LFO was to secure the future Constitution which would be written after the election so that it would include safeguards such as preserving Pakistan's territorial integrity and Islamic ideology.
Q.4 Discuss the origin and growth of NAP and MQM in Pakistan. What are the factors that led to the creation of these regional Political Parties, in Pakistan? (20)
Muttahida Quami Movement - MQM
MQM leader Altaf Hussain was lying low and aiming to become a potential "king-maker" in the possibly hung parliament after the 2002 elections. In any case, PML-Q was predicted to at best win a thin majority, after which it would require accommodation with the MQM as the traditional third-largest bloc in the National Assembly.
Semester: Spring 2019
Level: M. Sc (Pak Studies)
ASSIGNMENT No. 1
Q. 1 Discuss in detail the characteristics of institutions of Athenian democracy. Are these characteristics worthy of being ideal and relevant in this modern world.
Answer: Athens in the 5th to 4th century BCE had an extraordinary system of government: democracy. Under this system, all male citizens had equal political rights, freedom of speech, and the opportunity to participate directly in the political arena. Further, not only did citizens participate in a direct democracy whereby they themselves made the decisions by which they lived, but they also actively served in the institutions that governed them, and so they directly controlled all parts of the political process. Ancient Sources Other city-states had, at one time or another, systems of democracy, notably Argos, Syracuse, Rhodes, and Erythrai. In addition, sometimes even oligarchic systems could involve a high degree of political equality, but the Athenian version, starting from c. 460 BCE and ending c. 320 BCE and involving all male citizens, was certainly the most developed. The contemporary sources which describe the workings of democracy typically relate to Athens and include such texts as the Constitution of the Athenians from the School of Aristotle; the works of the Greek historians Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon; texts of over 150 speeches by such figures as Demosthenes; inscriptions in stone of decrees, laws, contracts, public honours and more; and Greek Comedy plays such as those by Aristophanes. Unfortunately, sources on the other democratic governments in ancient Greece are few and far between. This being the case, the following remarks on democracy are focussed on the Athenians. The Assembly & Council The word democracy (dēmokratia) derives from dēmos, which refers to the entire citizen body, and kratos, meaning rule. Any male citizen could, then, participate in the main democratic body of Athens, the assembly (ekklēsia). In the 4th and 5th centuries BCE the male citizen population of Athens ranged from 30,000 to 60,000 depending on the period. The assembly met at least once a month, more likely two or three times, on the Pnyx hill in a dedicated space which could accommodate around 6000 citizens. Any citizen could speak to the assembly and vote on decisions by simply holding up their hands. The majority won the day 2 and the decision was final. Nine presidents (proedroi), elected by lot and holding the office one time only, organised the proceedings and assessed the voting. Specific issues discussed in the assembly included deciding military and financial magistracies, organising and maintaining food supplies, initiating legislation and political trials, deciding to send envoys, deciding whether or not to sign treaties, voting to raise or spend funds, and debating military matters. The assembly could also vote to ostracise from Athens any citizen who had become too powerful and dangerous for the polis. In this case there was a secret ballot where voters wrote a name on a piece of broken pottery (ostrakon). An important element in the debates was freedom of speech (parrhēsia) which became, perhaps, the citizen's most valued privilege. After suitable discussion, temporary or specific decrees (psēphismata) were adopted and laws (nomoi) defined. The assembly also ensured decisions were enforced and officials were carrying out their duties correctly. There was in Athens (and also Elis, Tegea, and Thasos) a smaller body, the boulē, which decided or prioritised the topics which were discussed in the assembly. In addition, in times of crisis and war, this body could also take decisions without the assembly meeting. The boulē or council was composed of 500 citizens who were chosen by lot and who served for one year with the limitation that they could serve no more than two non-consecutive years. The boulē represented the 139 districts of Attica and acted as a kind of executive committee of the assembly. It was this body which supervised any administrative committees and officials on behalf of the assembly. IT WAS IN THE COURTS THAT LAWS MADE BY THE ASSEMBLY COULD BE CHALLENGED & DECISIONS WERE MADE REGARDING OSTRACISM. Then there was also an executive committee of the boulē which consisted of one tribe of the ten which participated in the boulē (i.e., 50 citizens, known as prytaneis) elected on a rotation basis, so each tribe composed the executive once each year. This executive of the executive had a chairman (epistates) who was chosen by lot each day. The 50-man prytany met in the building known as the Bouleuterion in the Athenian agoraand safe-guarded the sacred treasuries. Athenian Agora - 3D View In tandem with all these political institutions were the law courts (dikasteria) which were composed of 6,000 jurors and a body of chief magistrates (archai) chosen annually by lot. Indeed, there was a specially designed machine of coloured tokens (kleroterion) to ensure those selected were chosen randomly, a process magistrates had to go through twice. It was here in the courts that laws made by the assembly could be challenged and decisions were made regarding ostracism, naturalization, and remission of debt. 3 This complex system was, no doubt, to ensure a suitable degree of checks and balances to any potential abuse of power, and to ensure each traditional region was equally represented and given equal powers. With people chosen at random to hold important positions and with terms of office strictly limited, it was difficult for any individual or small group to dominate or unduly influence the decision-making process either directly themselves or, because one never knew exactly who would be selected, indirectly by bribing those in power at any one time. Participation in Government As we have seen, only male citizens who were 18 years or over could speak (at least in theory) and vote in the assembly, whilst the positions such as magistrates and jurors were limited to those over 30 years of age. Therefore, women, slaves, and resident foreigners (metoikoi) were excluded from the political process. The mass involvement of all male citizens and the expectation that they should participate actively in the running of the polis is clear in this quote from Thucydides: We alone consider a citizen who does not partake in politics not only one who minds his own business but useless. Illustrating the esteem in which democratic government was held, there was even a divine personification of the ideal of democracy, the goddess Demokratia. Direct involvement in the politics of the polis also meant that the Athenians developed a unique collective identity and probably too, a certain pride in their system, as shown in Pericles' famous Funeral Oration for the Athenian dead in 431 BCE, the first year of the Peloponnesian War: Athens' constitution is called a democracy because it respects the interests not of a minority but of the whole people. When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses. No one, so long as he has it in him to be of service to the state, is kept in political obscurity because of poverty. (Thuc. 2.37) Although active participation was encouraged, attendance in the assembly was paid for in certain periods, which was a measure to encourage citizens who lived far away and could not afford the time off to attend. This money was only to cover expenses though, as any attempt to profit from public positions was severely punished. Citizens probably accounted for 10-20% of the polis population, and of these it has been estimated that only 3,000 or so people actively participated in politics. Of this group, perhaps as few as 100 citizens - the wealthiest, most influential, and the best speakers - dominated the political arena both in front of the assembly and behind the scenes in private conspiratorial political meetings (xynomosiai) and groups 4 (hetaireiai). These groups had to meet secretly because although there was freedom of speech, persistent criticism of individuals and institutions could lead to accusations of conspiring tyranny and so lead to ostracism. Critics of democracy, such as Thucydides and Aristophanes, pointed out that not only were proceedings dominated by an elite, but that the dēmos could be too often swayed by a good orator or popular leaders (the demagogues), get carried away with their emotions, or lack the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions. Perhaps the most notoriously bad decisions taken by the Athenian dēmos were the execution of six generals after they had actually won the battle of Arginousai in 406 BCE and the death sentence given to the philosopher Socrates in 399 BCE. Conclusion Democracy, which had prevailed during Athens’ Golden Age, was replaced by a system of oligarchy after the disastrous Athenian defeat in Sicily in 409 BCE. The constitutional change, according to Thucydides, seemed the only way to win much-needed support from Persia against the old enemy Sparta and, further, it was thought that the change would not be a permanent one. Nevertheless, democracy in a slightly altered form did eventually return to Athens and, in any case, the Athenians had already done enough in creating their political system to eventually influence subsequent civilizations two millennia later. In the words of historian K. A. Raaflaub, democracy in ancient Athens was a unique and truly revolutionary system that realized its basic principle to an unprecedented and quite extreme extent: no polis had ever dared to give all its citizens equal political rights, regardless of their descent, wealth, social standing, education, personal qualities, and any other factors that usually determined status in a community. Ideals such as these would form the cornerstones of all democracies in the modern world. The ancient Greeks have provided us with fine art, breath-taking temples, timeless theatre, and some of the greatest philosophers, but it is democracy which is, perhaps, their greatest and most enduring legacy. {=============}
Q. 2 Harmony had been the ultimate principle in all the earliest attempts, before Plato, at a theory of the physical world. Critically analyze whether harmony was really the solution of the ills of the society at that time?
Answer: Aristotle versus Plato. For a long time, that is the angle from which the tale has been told. Aristotle’s philosophy, we are given to understand, was built up in fundamental opposition to Plato’s. But it was not 5 always thus in the history of philosophy. The indispensable Diogenes Laertius (c. 200 C.E.), tells us, for example, that Aristotle was Plato’s ‘most genuine disciple’.1 Beginning perhaps in the 1st century B.C.E., we can already see philosophers claiming the ultimate harmony of Academic and Peripatetic thought. Antiochus of Ascalon (c. 130 – c. 68 B.C.E.) is frequently identified as a principal figure in this regard. 2 A similar view is clearly expressed by Cicero.3 Later in the 2nd century C.E., we can observe the Platonists Alcinous in his influential ‘Handbook of Platonism’ simply incorporating what we might call ‘Aristotelian elements’ into his account of Platonism.4 Finally, and most importantly, for a period of about three hundred years, from the middle of the 3rd century C.E. to the middle of the 6th, Aristotelianism and Platonism were widely viewed and written about as being harmonious philosophical systems.5 The philosophers who held this view are today usually given the somewhat unhelpful and artificial label ‘Neoplatonists’. This paper aims to sketch the basis for the harmonists’ view and to give some indications of the extent to which it might be justified. ‘Harmony’ when used of two philosophical positions can of course mean many things. Most innocuously, it can mean ‘non-contradictory’. There are countless philosophical positions that are harmonious in this sense. Usually, there is little point even in mentioning that A’s position does not in fact contradict B’s. Those who held Aristotelianism to be in harmony with Platonism did not mean merely that their views were not in contradiction with each other. Another somewhat more interesting sense of ‘harmony’ is employed when it is held that two philosophical systems share some common principles, though, owing to a divergence in others, they reach opposite conclusions. It is often illuminating to seek out at some level of generality or even identities among ostensibly incompatible positions. For example, two materialist theories of mind might well have contradictory or contrary accounts of mental events or processes. Although this sort of harmony is not entirely absent from the thought examined here, it is not the dominant theme. The idea of the harmony between Platonism and Aristotelianism that drove the philosophy of our period was somewhat different. Roughly, it was held that Plato was authoritative for the intelligible world and Aristotle was authoritative for the sensible world. More than this, it was assumed or argued that what Plato and Aristotle each had to say about the intelligible and sensible worlds were mutually supporting. So, if one accepted most Aristotle’s views about the world, one could do with a clear conscience as a Platonist. At this point, an entirely reasonable response would be: ‘if that is what was meant by the ‘harmony’ of Plato and Aristotle, then so much the worse for them!’ One might be at a loss to understand how anyone, reading objectively the corpus of Aristotelian texts, could suppose that Aristotle did not see himself as opposed to Plato. For example, Richard Sorabji avers that the idea of harmony is a ‘perfectly crazy proposition’. 6 Part of my task is to show that such a perception is less well founded than one might suppose. Nevertheless, I aim to do more than this. I want to show that reading Aristotle as a Platonist, far 6 from being an exercise in historical perversity, does actually yield interesting results, both exegetical and philosophical. The view that the philosophy of Aristotle was in harmony with the philosophy of Plato must be sharply distinguished from the view, held by no one in antiquity, that the philosophy of Aristotle was identical with the philosophy of Plato. For example, in Plato’s dialogue Parmenides Socrates suggests that Zeno’s book states the ‘same position’ as Parmenides’ differing only in that it focuses on an attack on Parmenides’ opponents. Zeno acknowledges this identity.7 The harmony of Aristotle and Plato was not supposed to be like the identity of the philosophy of Zeno and Parmenides. The claim that Aristotle and Plato belong to the same school, namely, the Old Academic, should not be understood to entail the identity of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle for the simple reason that the Neoplatonists, who claimed adherence to this school, differed widely among themselves without supposing that one was thereby an opponent of the school. Porphyry differs from Plotinus on certain major points, Iamblichus differs from Porphyry and Plotinus, Proclus differs from all three, and so on. So, the claim that Plato and Aristotle belong to the same school or that their philosophies are in harmony must be understood in a more nuanced manner. The first concrete indication we possess that Neoplatonists were prepared to argue for the harmony of Aristotle and Plato is contained in a reference in Photius’ Bibliography to the Neoplatonist Hierocles’ statement that Ammonius of Alexandria, the teacher of Plotinus, attempted to resolve the conflict between the disciples of Plato and Aristotle, showing that they were in fact ‘of one and the same mind’ ( ).8 The second indication of an effort to display harmony is found in the Suda where it is stated that Porphyry, Plotinus’ disciple, produced a work in six books titled ‘On Plato and Aristotle Being Adherents of the Same School’ ( ).9 We know nothing of this work apart from the title and what we can infer from what Porphyry actually says in the extant works. It seems reasonably clear, however, that a work of such length was attempting to provide a substantial argument, one which was evidently in opposition to at least some prevailing views. It is also perhaps the case that Porphyry is questioning the basis for the traditional division of the ‘schools’ of ancient philosophy, as found, for example, in Diogenes Laertius.10 That Aristotle was at least to a certain extent an independent thinker and so not simply categorized by adherence to a ‘school’, is hardly in doubt. But just as Plotinus’ claim to be eschewing novelty may be met with some legitimate skepticism, so Aristotle’s claim to be radically innovative may be met with the same skepticism. The question of whether Aristotelianism is or is not in harmony with Platonism is certainly not going to be answered decisively by anything Aristotle says suggesting it is not. We should acknowledge that the Neoplatonists looked back at their great predecessors with some critical distance, as we do. What may have appeared to Aristotle as a great chasm between himself and his teacher may have justifiably appeared 7 much less so to those looking at both philosophers some 600 to 900 years later. The sense in which the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato were held by Neoplatonists to be in harmony is roughly the sense in which we might say that Newtonian mechanics is in harmony with quantum mechanics or sentential logic is in harmony with predicate logic. The principal point of these analogies lies in the relative comprehensive of quantum mechanics and predicate logic. But the more comprehensive theories are also better theories. Thus, in countless matters relating to physical nature, Aristotle’s preeminence and authority was readily acknowledged. But Aristotle did not, according to the Neoplatonists, possess the correct comprehensive view of all reality. In particular, he misconceived the first principle of all reality. But in part because he did recognize that there was a first principle and that it was separate from and prior to the sensible world, he is legitimately counted as being fundamentally in harmony with Plato. Aristotle’s own view of Plato philosophy is a notoriously vexed topic.11 There are scores of references to Plato’s views in Aristotle’s works. Most of these are references to the dialogues; a few of these are references to Plato’s ‘unwritten teachings’. There are also references to what can be loosely described as ‘Academic positions’ such as a belief in Forms that might well include Plato but probably also include others. Insofar as Aristotle’s exposition and analysis of Plato’s views are based solely on the dialogues, they can presumably be independently evaluated for accuracy, as Harold Cherniss has does, in some cases with considerable deflationary force. Unfortunately, however, even if we imagine we can isolate the putative ‘unwritten teachings’ and so refuse to let them contaminate our evaluation of Aristotle’s account of Plato’s views in the dialogues, we must allow that Plato’s meaning is often hard to interpret. {=============}
Q. 3 Elaborate Plato’s distrust of democracy. What had been the justification with Plato for distrusting democracy? Explain with examples.
Answer: Plato (429?–347 B.C.E.) is, by any reckoning, one of the most dazzling writers in the Western literary tradition and one of the most penetrating, wide-ranging, and influential authors in the history of philosophy. An Athenian citizen of high status, he displays in his works his absorption in the political events and intellectual movements of his time, but the questions he raises are so profound and the strategies he uses for tackling them so richly suggestive and provocative that educated readers of nearly every period have in some way been influenced by him, and in practically every age there have been philosophers who count themselves Platonists in some important respects. He was not the first thinker or writer to whom the word “philosopher” should be applied. But he was so self-conscious about how philosophy should be conceived, and what its scope and ambitions properly are, and he so transformed the intellectual currents with which he grappled, 8 that the subject of philosophy, as it is often conceived—a rigorous and systematic examination of ethical, political, metaphysical, and epistemological issues, armed with a distinctive method—can be called his invention. Few other authors in the history of Western philosophy approximate him in depth and range: perhaps only Aristotle (who studied with him), Aquinas, and Kant would be generally agreed to be of the same rank. Athenian democracy came about around 550 BCE. At the time the system of government was designed to be a direct democracy, which would mean that every eligible citizen would have the opportunity to vote on each piece of legislation. Aside from political revolutions around 400 BCE, Athenian democracy remained remarkably stable and well maintained. This new form of government empowered the common citizen in ways that were unheard of. Individuals not from aristocracy, yet who possessed political ambition, often found themselves hoisted to the highest ranks of Athenian politics. One example is the famous Athenian general and statesman Themistocles, who would be essential in the salvation of Greece during the second Persian invasion. For these reasons, Athens is often regarded as the birthplace of democracy and the cradle of western civilization. Of course it was far from perfect. Only free men who had completed their military service were allowed to vote on any legislation. This meant that only about 20% of the population were actually able to vote. Women were not allowed to vote and subsequently possessed significantly fewer rights than men. These were not the only complaints against the early democracy of Athens. In the course of his writings, the philosopher Plato extensively examined what he considered serious dangers that resided within the system of democracy. The first, rather obvious, strike against Athenian democracy is that there was a tendency for people to be casually executed. It is understandable why Plato would despise democracy, considering that his friend and mentor, Socrates, was condemned to death by the policy makers of Athens in 399 BCE. Plato would write about the trial of Socrates in his first essay The Apology. Plato would later describe the trial of Socrates as a doctor being persecuted by a pastry chef and judged by a jury of children. Still, Socrates was not the only man to be executed in such a manner. During the Peloponnesian war, the ten treasurers of the Delian League were accused of embezzling funds from the Athenian treasury. These men were tried and executed one after another until only one remained. It was only after nine men were dead, that a simple accounting error was discovered and the remaining treasurer was released. Also, after the naval victory of Arginusae, several Athenian commanders were 9 accused of failing to collect survivors after the battle. Six commanders were executed for failing to perform their duties. The city would later repent for these executions by executing the original men who had accused the generals. Death of Socrates It might be easy to assume that Plato held a grudge over the death of his mentor. Certainly, the numerous executions would give reason to doubt the system of Athenian democracy. However Plato believed there was a far more sinister nature to democracy. A calamity at the very heart of democracy, it would lead only to tyranny and subjugation. In book VIII of The Republic, Plato begins to describe several stages of government that are intolerable, yet unavoidable. Plato predicts a society with an enormous socioeconomic gap, where the poor remain poor and the rich become richer off the blood and sweat of others. In this instance, the people will long for freedom and liberty. They will use it as a battle cry against their oppressors, sparking a revolution. From this revolution, blood will be spilled and many will die. During this time of violent transition, the people will rally behind one man, or a few men, whom they believe to be their savior. The people will lift this champion to great heights and anoint him with sacred responsibilities to bring liberty to the land. When the smoke clears the old regime will be gone and a democracy will be supplanted. And while this is reminiscent of several historical revolutions, including the American revolution, Plato warns that the trouble only intensifies from here. During the course of his writings Plato differentiates between necessary desires and unnecessary desires. Necessary desires are desires we can not over come, such as our desire for shelter and sustenance. Unnecessary desires are desires that we are able to overcome, yet refuse to. These desires include luxuries and lavish possessions. These types of desires are a result of a rapid influx of liberty into the population. Once we have tasted freedom we become drunk off it. Plato predicts that the people will demand freedom at every turn, fighting any form of authority and demanding more liberty. We become obsessed with our freedom and become willing to sacrifice necessary things like social order and structure to attain it. At this point, the newly appointed leaders become very nervous. It was so easy to depose their predecessors, so why not them? These democratic leaders will realize that they are only easily supported when there is a war that the people can rally behind. And so the democratic leaders will unnecessarily become involved in violent affairs, creating wars to distract the people. To ensure their power, the leaders will create laws to bolster their position. The rulers will impose heavy taxes against the commoners to ensure 10 they are unable or unwilling to fight back against this. And any who do oppose the leaders will be labeled as an enemy and persecuted as a spy. It is for this reason that there must always be some enemy combatant that the leader can cast blame upon. Plato continues in his discussion by explaining that the these leaders will eventually become unpopular, an unavoidable result. Those who once supported this ruling class begin to rebel against the would be tyrant. At this point the citizens will try to get rid of whatever man is currently in office, either by exile or impeachment. If this is not possible, the ruler will inevitable strike down any political opposition he may have. Hated by the people, these leaders will request the presence of a body guard. And now he is a tyrant, the leader has no choice if he wishes to rule. Elected by the people, yet now he is protected from them. Plato predicts that this tyrant will appeal to the lowest form of citizen. He will make soldiers of the slaves and the degenerates. The tyrant will pay them to protect him from the ordinary citizens. And now the leader is a tyrant, born from democracy and propped up by the demand for liberty. And in our quest for liberty, we instead created a monster. Plato’s description of a democracy is rather thought provoking. It gives us pause and forces us to examine our own government. Could it be true that our leaders are the bullies and the political tyrants that Plato describes? Does democracy lead to entangling wars for the benefit of the ruling class? And are the people so subjugated by senseless laws and stiff taxes, that they are unable to resist in any meaningful way? Perhaps. History has shown a consistent pattern of subjugation, revolution and subjugation once again. Plato predicted that democracy would lead to nations being governed by bullies and brutes. Take a minute and think about the people who are running whatever country you are in and tell him he is wrong. And before you decide to judge the philosopher Plato, try to remember that he is often considered one of the wisest men to ever live; an individual whose work was so profound that it shaped the direction of western thought and culture. Indeed, it has been said that any philosophy after Plato can only be considered a footnote on any of his work. Yet, we are allowed to doubt him if we wish. Rather ironically, that is a freedom we are allowed. It was the political philosopher Thomas Paine who describe government as, “at best, a necessary evil”. And if we are to think in this manner, then perhaps democracy is simply the least damaging form of government we have been able to create over the course of human existence. A thinly veiled tyranny is better than outright oppression. 11 Whatever your opinions of democracy, American or otherwise, it is necessary to keep in mind these charges Plato has laid before us. And the next time we celebrate the 4th of July, keep in mind that a far wiser man than any of us once called to our attention the unavoidable and disastrous nature of the pursuit of liberty. {=============}
Q.4 Make a critical analysis of the idea of mixed state propounded by Plato. Discuss the important features of mixed state which had been ascribed to it by Plato?
Answer: Plato is one of the world's best known and most widely read and studied philosophers. He was the student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle, and he wrote in the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. in ancient Greece. Though influenced primarily by Socrates, to the extent that Socrates is usually the main character in many of Plato's writings, he was also influenced by Heraclitus, Parmenides, and the Pythagoreans. There are varying degrees of controversy over which of Plato's works are authentic, and in what order they were written, due to their antiquity and the manner of their preservation through time. Nonetheless, his earliest works are generally regarded as the most reliable of the ancient sources on Socrates, and the character Socrates that we know through these writings is considered to be one of the greatest of the ancient philosophers. According to Plato, Socrates postulated a world of ideal Forms, which he admitted were impossible to know. Nevertheless, he formulated a very specific description of that world, which did not match his metaphysical principles. Corresponding to the world of Forms is our world, that of the shadows, an imitation of the real one. Just as shadows exist only because of the light of a fire, our world exists as, "the offspring of the good". Our world is modeled after the patterns of the Forms. The function of humans in our world is therefore to imitate the ideal world as much as possible which, importantly, includes imitating the good, i.e. acting morally. Plato lays out much of this theory in the "Republic" where, in an attempt to define Justice, he considers many topics including the constitution of the ideal state. While this state, and the Forms, do not exist on earth, because their imitations do, Plato says we are able to form certain well-founded opinions about them, through a theory called recollection. The republic is a greater imitation of Justice: Our aim in founding the state was not the disproportional happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole; we thought that in a state ordered with a view to the good of the whole we should be most likely to find justice. 12 The key to not know how such a state might come into existence is the word "founding" (oikidzomen), which is used of colonization. It was customary in such instances to receive a constitution from an elected or appointed lawgiver; however in Athens, lawgivers were appointed to reform the constitution from time to time (for example, Draco, Solon). In speaking of reform, Socrates uses the word "purge" (diakathairountes) in the same sense that Forms exist purged of matter. The purged society is a regulated one presided over by philosophers educated by the state, who maintain three non-hereditary classes as required: the tradesmen (including merchants and professionals), the guardians (militia and police) and the philosophers (legislators, administrators and the philosopher-king). Class is assigned at the end of education, when the state institutes individuals in their occupation. Socrates expects class to be hereditary but he allows for mobility according to natural ability. The criteria for selection by the academics is ability to perceive forms (the analog of English "intelligence") and martial spirit as well as predisposition or aptitude. The views of Socrates on the proper order of society are certainly contrary to Athenian values of the time and must have produced a shock effect, intentional or not, accounting for the animosity against him. For example, reproduction is much too important to be left in the hands of untrained individuals: "... the possession of women and the procreation of children ... will ... follow the general principle that friends have all things in common, ...." The family is therefore to be abolished and the children – whatever their parentage – to be raised by the appointed mentors of the state. Their genetic fitness is to be monitored by the physicians: "... he (Asclepius, a culture hero) did not want to lengthen out good-for-nothing lives, or have weak fathers begetting weaker sons – if a man was not able to live in the ordinary way he had no business to cure him ...." Physicians minister to the healthy rather than cure the sick: "... (Physicians) will minister to better natures, giving health both of soul and of body; but those who are diseased in their bodies they will leave to die, and the corrupt and incurable souls they will put an end to themselves." Nothing at all in Greek medicine so far as can be known supports the airy (in the Athenian view) propositions of Socrates. Yet it is hard to be sure of Socrates' real views considering that there are no works written by Socrates himself. There are two common ideas pertaining to the beliefs and character of Socrates: the first being the Mouthpiece Theory where writers use Socrates in dialogue as a mouthpiece to get their own views across. However, since most of what we know about Socrates comes from plays, most of the Platonic plays are accepted as the more accurate Socrates since Plato was a direct student of Socrates. Perhaps the most important principle is that just as the Good must be supreme so must its image, the state, take precedence over individuals in everything. For example, guardians "... will have to be watched at every 13 age in order that we may see whether they preserve their resolution and never, under the influence either of force or enchantment, forget or cast off their sense of duty to the state." This concept of requiring guardians of guardians perhaps suffers from the Third Man weakness (see below): guardians require guardians require guardians, ad infinitum. The ultimate trusty guardian is missing. Socrates does not hesitate to face governmental issues many later governors have found formidable: "Then if anyone at all is to have the privilege of lying, the rulers of the state should be the persons, and they ... may be allowed to lie for the public good." Plato's conception of Forms actually differs from dialogue to dialogue, and in certain respects it is never fully explained, so many aspects of the theory are open to interpretation. Forms are first introduced in the Phaedo, but in that dialogue the concept is simply referred to as something the participants are already familiar with, and the theory itself is not developed. Similarly, in the Republic, Plato relies on the concept of Forms as the basis of many of his arguments but feels no need to argue for the validity of the theory itself or to explain precisely what Forms are. Commentators have been left with the task of explaining what Forms are and how visible objects participate in them, and there has been no shortage of disagreement. Some scholars advance the view that Forms are paradigms, perfect examples on which the imperfect world is modeled. Others interpret Forms as universals, so that the Form of Beauty, for example, is that quality that all beautiful things share. Yet others interpret Forms as "stuffs," the conglomeration of all instances of a quality in the visible world. Under this interpretation, we could say there is a little beauty in one person, a little beauty in another—all the beauty in the world put together is the Form of Beauty. Plato himself was aware of the ambiguities and inconsistencies in his Theory of Forms, as is evident from the incisive criticism he makes of his own theory in the Parmenides. {=============}
Q.5 What was the importance of distinction between different kinds of rule for Aristotle? Elaborate kinds of rule by focusing on the writings of Aristotle?
Answer: In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) describes the happy life intended for man by nature as one lived in accordance with virtue, and, in his Politics, he describes the role that politics and the political community must play in bringing about the virtuous life in the citizenry. The Politics also provides analysis of the kinds of political community that existed in his time and shows where and how these cities fall short of the ideal community of virtuous citizens. Although in some ways we have clearly moved beyond his thought (for example, his belief in the inferiority of women and his approval 14 of slavery in at least some circumstances), there remains much in Aristotle’s philosophy that is valuable today. In particular, his views on the connection between the well-being of the political community and that of the citizens who make it up, his belief that citizens must actively participate in politics if they are to be happy and virtuous, and his analysis of what causes and prevents revolution within political communities have been a source of inspiration for many contemporary theorists, especially those unhappy with the liberal political philosophy promoted by thinkers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Who Should Rule? This brings us to perhaps the most contentious of political questions: how should the regime be organized? Another way of putting this is: who should rule? In Books IV-VI Aristotle explores this question by looking at the kinds of regimes that actually existed in the Greek world and answering the question of who actually does rule. By closely examining regimes that actually exist, we can draw conclusions about the merits and drawbacks of each. Like political scientists today, he studied the particular political phenomena of his time in order to draw larger conclusions about how regimes and political institutions work and how they should work. As has been mentioned above, in order to do this, he sent his students throughout Greece to collect information on the regimes and histories of the Greek cities, and he uses this information throughout the Politics to provide examples that support his arguments. (According to Diogenes Laertius, histories and descriptions of the regimes of 158 cities were written, but only one of these has come down to the present: the Constitution of Athens mentioned above). Another way he used this data was to create a typology of regimes that was so successful that it ended up being used until the time of Machiavelli nearly 2000 years later. He used two criteria to sort the regimes into six categories. The first criterion that is used to distinguish among different kinds of regimes is the number of those ruling: one man, a few men, or the many. The second is perhaps a little more unexpected: do those in power, however many they are, rule only in their own interest or do they rule in the interest of all the citizens? "[T]hose regimes which look to the common advantage are correct regimes according to what is unqualifiedly just, while those which look only to the advantage of the rulers are errant, and are all deviations from the correct regimes; for they involve mastery, but the city is a partnership of free persons" (1279a16). Having established these as the relevant criteria, in Book III Chapter 7 Aristotle sets out the six kinds of regimes. The correct regimes are monarchy (rule by one man for the common good), aristocracy (rule by a 15 few for the common good), and polity (rule by the many for the common good); the flawed or deviant regimes are tyranny (rule by one man in his own interest), oligarchy (rule by the few in their own interest), and democracy (rule by the many in their own interest). Aristotle later ranks them in order of goodness, with monarchy the best, aristocracy the next best, then polity, democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny (1289a38). People in Western societies are used to thinking of democracy as a good form of government - maybe the only good form of government – but Aristotle considers it one of the flawed regimes (although it is the least bad of the three) and you should keep that in mind in his discussion of it. You should also keep in mind that by the "common good" Aristotle means the common good of the citizens, and not necessarily all the residents of the city. The women, slaves, and manual laborers are in the city for the good of the citizens. Almost immediately after this typology is created, Aristotle clarifies it: the real distinction between oligarchy and democracy is in fact the distinction between whether the wealthy or the poor rule (1279b39), not whether the many or the few rule. Since it is always the case that the poor are many while the wealthy are few, it looks like it is the number of the rulers rather than their wealth which distinguishes the two kinds of regimes (he elaborates on this in IV.4). All cities have these two groups, the many poor and the few wealthy, and Aristotle was well aware that it was the conflict between these two groups that caused political instability in the cities, even leading to civil wars (Thucydides describes this in his History of the Peloponnesian War, and the Constitution of Athens also discusses the consequences of this conflict). Aristotle therefore spends a great deal of time discussing these two regimes and the problem of political instability, and we will focus on this problem as well. First, however, let us briefly consider with Aristotle one other valid claim to rule. Those who are most virtuous have, Aristotle says, the strongest claim of all to rule. If the city exists for the sake of developing virtue in the citizens, then those who have the most virtue are the most fit to rule; they will rule best, and on behalf of all the citizens, establishing laws that lead others to virtue. However, if one man or a few men of exceptional virtue exist in the regime, we will be outside of politics: "If there is one person so outstanding by his excess of virtue - or a number of persons, though not enough to provide a full complement for the city – that the virtue of all the others and their political capacity is not commensurable…such persons can no longer be regarded as part of the city" (1284a4). It would be wrong for the other people in the city to claim the right to rule over them or share rule with them, just as it would be wrong for people to claim the right to share power with Zeus. The proper thing would be to obey them (1284b28). But this situation is extremely unlikely (1287b40). Instead, cities will be made up of people who are similar and equal, which leads to problems of its own. 16 The most pervasive of these is that oligarchs and democrats each advance a claim to political power based on justice. For Aristotle, justice dictates that equal people should get equal things, and unequal people should get unequal things. If, for example, two students turn in essays of identical quality, they should each get the same grade. Their work is equal, and so the reward should be too. If they turn in essays of different quality, they should get different grades which reflect the differences in their work. But the standards used for grading papers are reasonably straightforward, and the consequences of this judgment are not that important, relatively speaking - they certainly are not worth fighting and dying for. But the stakes are raised when we ask how we should judge the question of who should rule, for the standards here are not straightforward and disagreement over the answer to this question frequently does lead men (and women) to fight and die. What does justice require when political power is being distributed? Aristotle says that both groups - the oligarchs and democrats – offer judgments about this, but neither of them gets it right, because "the judgment concerns themselves, and most people are bad judges concerning their own things" (1280a14). (This was the political problem that was of most concern to the authors of the United States Constitution: given that people are self-interested and ambitious, who can be trusted with power? Their answer differs from Aristotle's, but it is worth pointing out the persistence of the problem and the difficulty of solving it). The oligarchs assert that their greater wealth entitles them to greater power, which means that they alone should rule, while the democrats say that the fact that all are equally free entitles each citizen to an equal share of political power (which, because most people are poor, means that in effect the poor rule). If the oligarchs' claim seems ridiculous, you should keep in mind that the American colonies had property qualifications for voting; those who could not prove a certain level of wealth were not allowed to vote. And poll taxes, which required people to pay a tax in order to vote and therefore kept many poor citizens (including almost all African-Americans) from voting, were not eliminated in the United States until the mid20th century. At any rate, each of these claims to rule, Aristotle says, is partially correct but partially wrong. We will consider the nature of democracy and oligarchy shortly. Aristotle also in Book III argues for a principle that has become one of the bedrock principles of liberal democracy: we ought, to the extent possible, allow the law to rule. "One who asks the law to rule, therefore, is held to be asking god and intellect alone to rule, while one who asks man adds the beast. Desire is a thing of this sort; and spiritedness perverts rulers and the best men. Hence law is intellect without appetite" (1287a28)
Course: Social Theory–I (4669)
Semester: Spring 2019
Level: M. Sc (Pak Studies)
ASSIGNMENT No. 2
Q. 1 What was the new art of the statesman according to Aristotle? Discuss in detail the new art of statesman and its difference from the ideas of Aristotle propounded earlier.
Answer: Aristotle (384-322 BC.) was one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity. His opinions had an important effect in the formation of Ancient Greek philosophy. His contributions to the development of philosophical thought also had an enormous influence in the forming of contemporary thought. His art philosophy on the other hand played an efficient part in the historical development of aesthetics. He was born in the city of Stagira in Macedonia. He entered Plato’s Academy (Akademia) at the age of eighteen and became one of his pupils. After Plato died, he went to the city of Assos (Behramkale) and joined a group of Platonists. Then he went to Lesbos (Midilli) and studied zoology with Theophrastus who would be his successor. He was invited to Pella by Philip to educate Alexander in 343-342 BC. When he came back to Athens in 335 BC. he found his school in the sacred grove dedicated to Apollo Lycius and muses. His school was known as “Lyceum” but it was also named “Peripatetics” for he was lecturing walking up and down. He remained in Athens for thirteen years. After Alexander died and anti-Macedonian ideas increased, he went to Chalcis on Euboea island (in Aegean sea) and died there in 322 BC. He was the originator of many lines of research unknown before him such as logic, grammar, rhetoric, literary criticism, natural history, physiology, psychology and history of philosophy. It is proper to say that he was under the influence of Plato in the first period of his literary activity. The book known as “On The Soul” was from this period. As well as “Protrepticus” -a letter addressed to Themison, the king of Cyprus-, the oldest fragments of “Organon”, “Physics” and “De Anima (book R)” were written in this period too. In the second era of his activity Aristotle had a critical attitude against Plato’s doctrines. The books such as “On The Philosophy”, “Metaphysics (a preliminary study)”, “Eudemian Ethics”, “Politics (2., 3., 7., 8. books)” and “De Caelo” were the works of this era. In the third period of his literary activity in Lyceum, Aristotle appeared as an observer and scientist. He studied nature and history in detail. In fact there was a classification study at a certain level for logical goals in Plato’s Academy. But the continual and systematic study developed by Aristotle in Lyceum 2 made the former one unimportant. This logical study method represented something new in Greek world. “The Categories”, “De Interpretatione”, “Analytica Priora”, “Analytica Posteriora”, “Topica”, “Sophisms”, “Metaphysics”, “Physics”, “Meteorologica”, “Animal History”, “Magna Moralia”, “Nicomachean Ethics”, “Politics (1., 4., 5., 6. books), “Rhetoric” and “Poetics” were the works of this period . Aristotle’s writings and library which he bequeathed to Theophrastus were brought to Athens in 100 BC. by Apellicon of Teos (Sığacık), a bibliophile. He tried to restore them. When Athens was conquered by the Romans, they were brought to Rome and copied by Tyrannion, the grammarian. Afterwards Andronicus of Rhodes (Rodos), the Peripatetic philosopher edited them on the basis of these copies . The Place Of Art In Aristotelian Thought “Poetics” is the first source we must turn to to understand Aristotle’s ideas on art. But as it is about literature -especially poetry- it is not sufficient to comprehend his art philosophy as a whole. Yet there are so many different illustrations of art in his other books that these may be considered as the clues to grasp Aristotelian general art philosophy. Even if he gave these examples to make his ideas clear, we may perceive by means of them the way he interpreted art and also it’s place in his doctrine. According to Aristotle; the human spirit “…attains the truth by art, science, sensibility, wisdom and intellegence…” . Because, beings on earth came into existence for we grasped them. A house existed if it was perceived. A book or another object came into existence as long as it was perceived. Aristotle’s opinion characterized his art philosophy. The beauty concept might have been mentioned when there was an artistic creation or creations. There was a difference between him and Plato at this point. Because according to Plato; the beauty of a work of art might have been discussed when there was the idea of beautiful. Ancient Greek society in which Aristotle formed his opinions and revealed his ideas created a universe of human shaped (anthropomorphic) gods. These immortals had a great importance in daily life. As well as the temples, the open areas were full with the sculptures of gods. The Greeks would arrange religious ceremonies -sometimes with killing an animal as a sacrifice- to satisfy them. Because the immortals didn’t only reign over the cosmos but also controlled the destinies of every individual and city one by one. For example a god might have hated or cared for a specific mortal. It was even possible for a god to love a mortal and have children with her or him. According to Aristotle; god is beyond being human shaped. It is simple and bare. It has neither size nor quality. It is pure form. It is perfection, intellect. It is a sublime being. It is not related to the 3 concept of matter . According to him; “…Life is god. Because the act of mind is life and god is act itself. We grasp god as a being that is sempiternal and perfect” . He also criticized the traditional god concept of the society by saying: “…A tradition which remained from the distant ancestors of ours and quotted to the later generations as a legend implied that the first substances were gods and also the divine included the whole nature. The rest of the tradition was added later as a legend to persuade the mass and to serve the law and public interest. So gods were given human shape or were represented resembling animals…” . According to some authorities; the book “Peri Cosmoi” (On The Cosmos) was a work of Aristotle. Actually, it was a letter written to Alexander. Here; Aristotle discussed one of the famous statues of his era while mentioning the sovereign of god over the universe. “…While Pheidias, the sculptor worked on the statue of Athena in Acropolis, he placed his own portrait in the middle of her shield. So he joined the pieces in a way that whoever tried to remove the portrait, he or she would have to tear the sculpture to pieces. The relation between god and the universe is like this. God guarantees the harmony, existence and continuity of the cosmos in this way…” . The sculpture he discussed was “Athena Parthenos” which Pheidias carved in 440 BC. It was rumored to be gigantic and would stand in the middle -naos- of the temple of Athena in Athens. It’s height was 11.5 meters and was made with golden-ivory (chryselephantine) blend. It was adorned with countless details and the shield which the goddess hold was fulled with the war scenes between Amazons -the female warriors- and giants. In the middle of it, there was the depiction of Pericles, the Athenian statesman along with Pheidias’. In “Protrepticus” (Invitation To Philosophical Thought); Aristotle characterized the nature of artistic activity. This was a letter he wrote to Themison, the king of Cyprus. According to Aristotle; “…It is not nature which imitates man’s ability. This capability imitates nature. And ability exists to support nature and finish which it didn’t complete… If man’s ability imitates nature, it is a fact that the aim of man’s work bases on nature. As order dominates nature, nothing is coincidental. On the contrary, everyhing is intentional. It provides the materialization of the goal which is in a higher degree than all humane arts by excluding the coincidental. Because humane ability imitates nature…”. According to the tradition which existed since Plato; art was an imitation. Imitation to nature, imitation to reality. Otherwise artistic activity was an action of imitation. But for Plato, artistic activities were worthless. As he was an idealist, he thought that the original of everyting was in the universe of ideas. All realities that were seen on earth were the copies of their originals. So when an artist painted a 4 human portrait or a sculptor carved a lion statue, he reproduced the copy of the original. According to Plato; even poetry must have been excluded from the state. However Aristotle thought that; a work of art existed to complete what nature created imititating the perfect without finishing. “Eudemian Ethics” which Aristotle wrote in the second era of his literary activity consisted of seven books. In the seventh book; he discussed friendship mentioning that only the ones who resembled each other could be friends. “…It seems that; we share the good we possess with the friends. While some share the body pleasure the others share the contemplation of a work of art or philosophy…. “Politics” which explained how a state should have taken shape consisted of eight books. Aristotle wrote the second, third, seventh and the eighth ones in this period . In the eighth book; he wrote that musical education was an obligation for the young. “… There are resemblances to actual -of anger, gentleness, courage, moderateness and the opposites of them as well as the whole ethical qualities- in rhythms and melodies. That is why the music we listen to make a sentimental alteration on us. Feeling pleasure or pain toward the things that resemble to actual is very similar to feeling the same way in facing the actual itself. I mean if a man has the pleasure of looking at a statue, he will have the same pleasure of gazing at it’s original. It is true that things that are perceived, touched or tasted have no resemblance to spiritual quailities. But music has moral characteristics. The melodies we hear represent them. People who hear the Mycsolydian mode feel grief. While the tender ones make them feel relieved, the Doric one creates a moderate feeling. Yet the Phrygian mode is exciting. All these show that music has the power of creating specific feelings. So it is obvious that the young must have a musical education and they should be educated…”. Aristotle researched the topics such as ontology, theology and classification of sciences in “Metaphysics” which consisted of fourteen books. They were seperated from one another with the Greek letters or numbers. Book A, Book B, Book K 1.-8., Book M 9.-10. and Book N were formed in the second period of his studies . It is probable that; Aristotle named his book “Peri Tes Protes Philosophias” (The First Philosophy). “Metaphysics” (meta ta physica) was used by Andronicus, his first publisher . {=============} 5
Q. 2 The physiological principle behind all behavior is self-preservation, and self-preservation means just the continuance of individual biological existence. Good is what conduces to this end and evil what has the opposite effect.’ Discuss this statement in the light of Hobbes’ idea of self-preservation?
Answer: Thomas Hobbes: social contract In his account of human psychology and the human condition, Hobbes identifies a first law of nature: "by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved." [Leviathan, Ch. VI] Noting that self-preservation is rationally sought by communal agreement with others, he derives a second law of nature; "From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their right, as well as he, then there is no reason for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound to, rather than to dispose himself to peace. This is that law of the gospel: Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them." [Leviathan, Ch. VI] You might recognize this law as a version of the Golden Rule. You have probably encountered statements of the Golden Rule in many situations. Have you ever been given a sound argument for that rule? Such is Hobbes' commitment to systematic philosophical reasoning, that he will not merely instate a principle that is accepted by many. Rather he provides a reasoned basis for accordance with this principle. Having concluded that it is natural and rational for people to give up some liberty in order to gain security of selfpreservation, Hobbes develops a conception of what forms of social organization and political system are consistent with those aims. The condition in which people give up some individual liberty in exchange for some common security is the Social Contract. Hobbes defines contract as "the mutual transferring of right." In the state of nature, everyone has the right to everything - there are no limits to the right of natural liberty. The social contract is the agreement by which individuals mutually transfer their natural right. In other words, I give up my natural right to steal your food because you give up your natural right to steal mine. In place of the natural right we have created a limited right; in 6 this case the right of property. Hobbes notes that we do not make these agreements explicitly because we are born into a civil society with laws and conventions (i.e. contracts) already in place. It is by performing the thought experiment regarding the state of nature and following the chain of reasoning Hobbes put before us that we can see the foundations of our commitment to civil law. One matter that Hobbes' investigation allows is the examination of governments for the purpose of determining their legitimacy. The purpose of a government is enforce law and serve the common protection. Wherever the government turns to favor the strong over the weak, one might way that the government has exceeded its legitimate function. In Hobbes' time the rulers claimed their authority to rule by virtue of divine right. God made them King and anyone who questioned the authority of the King was challenging God. Hobbes made some powerful enemies by doing just that. Even though he supported the monarchy as the legitimate government, his philosophy clearly establishes the right of the monarch on the grounds of reasoned principle, rather than divine right. Hobbes secularized politics which led to an increasing demand for accountability of rulers to the people. The impact of this development on contemporary life is profound. One of Hobbes' enduring images is that of the artificial man. He describes the State (a political entity, e.g. a nation) on the model of an individual human body. "that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH, or STATE (in Latin, CIVITAS), which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; the magistrates and other officers of judicature and execution, artificial joints; reward and (by which fastened to the seat of the sovereignty, every joint and member is moved to perform his duty) are the nerves, that do the same in the body natural; the wealth and riches of all the particular members are the strength; salus populi (the people's safety) its business; counsellors, by whom all things needful for it to know are suggested unto it, are the memory; equity and laws, an artificial reason and will; concord, health; sedition, sickness; and civil war, death." The above picture is from the frontpeice of the 1660 edition of Hobbes' Leviathan. Note that the figure of the State/Ruler is composed of citizens, territory, and commerce. Now when you hear the term "body politic" you will know where it comes from. Hobbes' has an important message for us today. Even though governmental structures have changed radically and political philosophies operate on very different bases, it is still common to hear proposals that we must give up liberty for security. Such proposals are directly related to Hobbes' ideas. Before readily accepting or rejecting such 7proposals, it is wise to consider the source. Study Hobbes to find out the roots and branches of such political proposals. {=============}
Q. 3 ‘A church therefore is a corporation. Like any corporation it must have a head and the head is the sovereign.’ Critically analyze the views of Hobbes on the relations between the state and the church in the light of the given statement?
Answer: Hobbes’s views on church–state relations go well beyond Erastianism. Rather than claiming that the state holds supremacy over the church, Hobbes argued that church and state are identical in Christian commonwealths. This chapter shows that Hobbes advanced two distinct arguments for the church– state identity thesis over time. Both arguments are of considerable interest. The argument found in De Cive explains how the sovereign unifies a multitude of Christians into one personified church— without, intriguingly, any appeal to representation. Leviathan’s argument is premised on the sovereign’s authorized representation of Christian subjects. Authorization explains why, from Leviathan onwards, full sacerdotal powers are ex officioattributed to the sovereign. In Hobbes’s mature theory, every clerical power, including baptism and consecration, derives from the sovereign— now labelled ‘the Supreme Pastor’. Developments in Hobbes’s account of church personation thus explain Leviathan’s theocratic turn. Unlike Locke, Hobbes seeks to embrace religion. But it is a deadly embrace Locke advocates the separation of church and state that has become engrained in our conception of a secular republic: “I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other.” However, there is no room for such separation in Hobbesian political theory: “Temporal and spiritual government, are but two words, brought into the world, to make men see double, and mistake their lawful sovereign.” The embrace of the Leviathan must encompass everything in its domain, including religion. But in this temporal clutch religion cannot breath as a spiritual practice. This may be just as well for Hobbes, but Locke insists on carving out of space of religious freedom. To understand this divergence we must probe the metaphysical and social theoretical foundations of their political theories and tease out the normative commitments entailed therein. Locke takes seriously the place of God and spiritual practice in human existence, leading him ineluctably to religious freedom at the expense of a realistic account of the political implications of religious practice. Whereas Hobbes takes seriously religion as a social force and, having little use for it as a path to 8 salvation, perceives religious pluralism as a threat to the prime objective of his political theory: social order. The tension between these seminal political philosophers illuminates the importance of ontological and epistemological foundations of political theory: what is the nature of our existence and what/how can we know? Divergent conceptions of God vis-à-vis the human condition lead here to opposite conclusions regarding the role of religion in society vis-à-vis the state. In A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke takes for granted a good deal of Christian dogma. He provides a liberal gloss, insisting that the true mark of Christianity is “charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians.” But the fundamental ontology of Christian theology remains in place as a frame for his theory and the scriptures persist as a source of knowledge about the nature of the world with which political principles must contend: Every man has an immortal soul, capable of eternal happiness or misery; whole happiness depending upon his believing and doing those things in this life, which are necessary to the obtaining of God’s favour, and are prescribed by God to that end: it follows from thence, first, that the observance of these things is the highest obligation that lies upon mankind, and that our utmost care, application, and diligence, ought to be exercised in the search and performance of them; because there is nothing in this world that is of any consideration in comparison with eternity. Any political theory so premised must make space for genuine religion, that is, spiritual practice most likely to lead to the salvation of human souls. With eternal happiness or misery putatively at stake, there can be little room for compromise with political prerogatives of the temporal domain. The security of the state is surely desirable, but not at the expense of eternal damnation of its subjects. Salvation is too important to be left to the sovereign. Contrast this with Hobbes’s worldview which literally leaves no room for an immaterial soul. His work in natural philosophy relentlessly sought to disprove the existence of any immaterial substances. As for ‘God,’ he leaves us guessing, but leaves the widest possible latitude for the signifier. Notably he writes: When we say any thing is infinite, we signify only that we are not able to conceive the ends and bounds of the thing named, having no conception of the thing, but of our own inability. And therefore the name of God is used, not to make us conceive him (for he is incomprehensible, and his greatnesse, and power are unconceivable), but that we may honour him. 9 Given God as the unconceivable, Hobbes strictly avoids in his argumentation premises that depend on some knowledge of God obtained by means other than reason. Hobbes gives an account rooted in the nature and capacities of man and religious references are typically reduced to those terms. In the first page the creative power of God is transferred to men who willfully create the artificial body of the state that is the Leviathan. The best prophet he says “naturally is the best guesser.” His account of language which is central to his notion of right philosophy begins with mention of God’s gift of words to Adam, but then roots the significance of human communication in our ability to make language our own without restriction to God-given semantics. “The Scripture was written to shew unto men the kingdom of God, and to prepare their minds to become his obedient subjects, leaving the world and the philosophy thereof to the disputation of men for the exercising of their natural reason.” With respect to superstitions such as belief in demons, Hobbes “can imagine no reason but that which is common to all men, namely, the want of curiosity to search natural causes.” And he squarely attacks the Scholastic philosophers for promoting a spiritual ontology of immaterial bodies and spreading absurd notions like “substantial forms,” which in Hobbes eyes, “hath a quality, not only to hide the truth, but also to make men think they have it, and desist from further search.” As for the authoritative meaning of the Scriptures, it can only come about through a chain of men trusting men, because, …when we believe that the Scriptures are the word of God, having no immediate revelation from God himself, our belief, faith and trust is in the church, whose word we take, and acquiesce therein… So that it is evident that whatsoever we believe upon no other reason than what is drawn from authority of men only and their writings, whether they be sent from God or not, is faith in men only.” This is essentially to say that religion – as far as one is concerned in the present – has its roots in men only. He does give wide allowance to Christian thought understood in figurative terms compatible with the reality of the natural world as comprehended by reason. As Shapin and Schaffer characterize his view, “Hell and heaven were not places; they were states of mind or conditions of social disorder and order.” For Hobbes, hell was civil war, and his political philosophy aims at humanity’s salvation from that collective fate. [Hint: the solution isn’t Christ-love.] The temporal salvation of society presents itself as the imperative of Hobbes’s political theory because of the social theory underlying it. By his account man is essentially selfish and, in a state of nature, at war, “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” This leads Hobbes to the need for a sovereign power. As the agent of social order and cohesion, the sovereign resolves the otherwise divisive epistemic indeterminacy of God’s will and the path to salvation. For Locke, this same condition 10 of uncertain knowledge necessitates leaving decisions of faith to individuals in voluntary association, for “Neither the right, nor the art of ruling, does necessarily carry along with it the certain knowledge of other things; and least of all of the true religion.” Even if Hobbes were concerned with the ability of the sovereign to save the eternal souls of his subjects, the right of sovereignty comes from the practical ability to secure order, not from some priestly access to unassailable Truth. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson famously and more recently explained: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” But whence this right of final judgment? Locke is right that “it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another, as to compel any one to his religion.” Hobbes would agree that God has not granted such authority to the sovereign: the people have contracted to vest absolute authority and they have done so out of necessity to escape a state of war. Once such power is vested it is absolute and the security of the civil order depends on disabling subversive powers, including religion. This was far more than a theoretical proposition for Hobbes. Unlike Locke he took seriously the social power of religion – informed by the history of religious conflict, the exercise power of religion over the state, and the specific contribution of religious factions to the English Civil War that historically frames his theoretical project. As Shapin and Schaffer put it, “Double tribute ended in civil war and confusion. This was what would inevitably happen if one allowed authority and power in the state to be fragmented and dispersed among professional groups each claiming its share.”They quote Hobbes in 1656 explaining that he came to write Leviathan because of “considerations of what the ministers before, and in the beginning of civil war, by their preaching and writing did contribute thereunto.” And in his 1668 work Behemoth, Hobbes lay particular blame for the Civil War on the clergy who had seduced the people, bypassing the sovereignty of the state by “pretending to have a right from God to govern every one in his parish, and their assembly the whole nation.” Later in life, Hobbes turned his critical polemic against the program of experimental science advocated by Boyle because it represented a dual threat to the social order by: (1) undermining natural philosophy as a firm system of knowledge and introducing a framework for dissent in the production of knowledge, and (2) using experiments with air-pumps to support belief in the existence of a vacuum – an incorporeal substance of the sort that the Scholastics had used to buttress priestcraft. As Shapin and Schaffer sum it up, “These were the ontological resources of the enemies of order.” {=============} 11
Q.4 Discuss in detail the views of Locke about the individual and the community. What were the effects of circumstances on his views regarding the individual and the community? Answer: The Second Treatise of Government remains a cornerstone of Western political philosophy. Locke's theory of government based on the sovereignty of the people has been extraordinarily influential since its publication in 1690--the concept of the modern liberal-democratic state is rooted in Locke's writings. Locke's Second Treatise starts with a liberal premise of a community of free, equal individuals, all possessed of natural rights. Since these individuals will want to acquire goods and will come into inevitable conflict, Locke invokes a natural law of morality to govern them before they enter into society. Locke presumes people will understand that, in order to best protect themselves and their property, they must come together into some sort of body politic and agree to adhere to certain standards of behavior. Thus, they relinquish some of their natural rights to enter into a social compact. In this civil society, the people submit natural freedoms to the common laws of the society; in return, they receive the protection of the government. By coming together, the people create an executive power to enforce the laws and punish offenders. The people entrust these laws and the executive power with authority. When, either through an abuse of power or an impermissible change, these governing bodies cease to represent the people and instead represent either themselves or some foreign power, the people may--and indeed should--rebel against their government and replace it with one that will remember its trust. This is perhaps the most pressing concern of Locke's Second Treatise, given his motivation in writing the work (justifying opposition to Charles II) and publishing it (justifying the revolution of King William)--to explain the conditions in which a people has the right to replace one government with another. Locke links his abstract ideals to a deductive theory of unlimited personal property wholly protected from governmental invention; in fact, in some cases Locke places the sanctity of property over the sanctity of life (since one can relinquish one's life by engaging in war, but cannot relinquish one's property, to which others might have ownership rights). This joining of ideas--consensual, limited government based upon natural human rights and dignity, and unlimited personal property, based on those same rights, makes the Second Treatise a perfectly-constructed argument against absolutism and unjust governments. It appeals both to abstract moral notions and to a more grounded view of the self-interest that leads people to form societies and governments. 12 “Both in practice and in theory, the views which [Locke] advocated were held, for many years to come, by the most vigorous and influential politicians and philosophers. His political doctrines, with the developments due to Montesquieu, are embedded in the American Constitution, and are seen to be at work whenever there is a dispute between President and Congress. The British Constitution was based upon his doctrines until about fifty years ago, and so was that which the French adopted in 1871.”—Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy An Enlightenment thinker, John Locke is probably best known for his idea of natural rights, or the rights of every individual to life, liberty, and property. The purpose of government, he said, was to protect these rights. People, he explained, were subject to the law of reason. This law teaches that people ought not harm one another, nor interfere with other’s health, freedom, or possessions. Born the son of a country lawyer in 1632, Locke experienced sweeping political changes during his lifetime. He was just ten years old when his father joined the parliamentary army that opposed Charles I in the English Civil War. He was seventeen when Charles I was tried for treason, found guilty and executed in 1649. Just nine years later, Cromwell, who had experimented briefly with republican ideas of government but yielded quickly to military rule, died. Given this background, it may not at first seem surprising that one of the starting places in Locke’s philosophy was the rejection of an absolute monarchy by divine right. Absolute monarchy is the belief that all power within a state rests in the hands of a king or queen; divine right is the idea that the monarch’s power is God given. Locke attacked the idea of absolute monarchy in his influential Two Treatises of Government. Locke explained that obedience to a monarch is a form of slavery, and people are not slaves. Locke also rejected the idea of absolute monarchy even if its power came from the consent of the people. Instead, he believed that people could not give anyone authority over them for any purpose other than preserving their natural rights. Locke’s second treatise of government suggests that the majority of individuals give the community the power to preserve each person’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Even though the individual gives this power to the community, the individual still has rights to limit the power of that community. People put their trust in the government. As a result, legislative power is for the good of the people and comes from the consent of the people. According to Locke the people have, “a supreme power to remove or alter the Legislative, when they find the Legislative acts contrary to [that] Trust.” If the 13 legislature acts against the people’s wishes, they have a right to dissolve it. Or, in more dramatic terms, they have the right to revolution. If such a revolution happened, Locke maintained that society would not fall apart. He believed that the spirit of democracy itself would be more powerful than any government other people might dissolve. Almost one hundred years later, this idea would be tested when the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787. {=============}
Q.5 Make a critical analysis of Rousseau’s attack on reason. What were his justifications for revolting against reason? Explain with cogent arguments.
Answer: Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most influential thinkers during the Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe. His first major philosophical work, A Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, was the winning response to an essay contest conducted by the Academy of Dijon in 1750. In this work, Rousseau argues that the progression of the sciences and arts has caused the corruption of virtue and morality. This discourse won Rousseau fame and recognition, and it laid much of the philosophical groundwork for a second, longer work, The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The second discourse did not win the Academy’s prize, but like the first, it was widely read and further solidified Rousseau’s place as a significant intellectual figure. The central claim of the work is that human beings are basically good by nature, but were corrupted by the complex historical events that resulted in present day civil society.Rousseau’s praise of nature is a theme that continues throughout his later works as well, the most significant of which include his comprehensive work on the philosophy of education, the Emile, and his major work on political philosophy, The Social Contract: both published in 1762. These works caused great controversy in France and were immediately banned by Paris authorities. Rousseau fled France and settled in Switzerland, but he continued to find difficulties with authorities and quarrel with friends. The end of Rousseau’s life was marked in large part by his growing paranoia and his continued attempts to justify his life and his work. This is especially evident in his later books, The Confessions, The Reveries of the Solitary Walker, and Rousseau: Judge of Jean-Jacques. Rousseau greatly influenced Immanuel Kant’s work on ethics. His novel Julie or the New Heloiseimpacted the late eighteenth century’s Romantic Naturalism movement, and his political ideals were championed by leaders of the French Revolution. 14 Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most influential thinkers during the Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe. His first major philosophical work, A Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, was the winning response to an essay contest conducted by the Academy of Dijon in 1750. In this work, Rousseau argues that the progression of the sciences and arts has caused the corruption of virtue and morality. This discourse won Rousseau fame and recognition, and it laid much of the philosophical groundwork for a second, longer work, The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The second discourse did not win the Academy’s prize, but like the first, it was widely read and further solidified Rousseau’s place as a significant intellectual figure. The central claim of the work is that human beings are basically good by nature, but were corrupted by the complex historical events that resulted in present day civil society.Rousseau’s praise of nature is a theme that continues throughout his later works as well, the most significant of which include his comprehensive work on the philosophy of education, the Emile, and his major work on political philosophy, The Social Contract: both published in 1762. These works caused great controversy in France and were immediately banned by Paris authorities. Rousseau fled France and settled in Switzerland, but he continued to find difficulties with authorities and quarrel with friends. The end of Rousseau’s life was marked in large part by his growing paranoia and his continued attempts to justify his life and his work. This is especially evident in his later books, The Confessions, The Reveries of the Solitary Walker, and Rousseau: Judge of Jean-Jacques. Rousseau greatly influenced Immanuel Kant’s work on ethics. His novel Julie or the New Heloise impacted the late eighteenth century’s Romantic Naturalism movement, and his political ideals were championed by leaders of the French Revolution. Discourse on the Sciences and Arts This is the work that originally won Rousseau fame and recognition. The Academy of Dijon posed the question, “Has the restoration of the sciences and arts tended to purify morals?” Rousseau’s answer to this question is an emphatic “no.” The First Discourse won the academy’s prize as the best essay. The work is perhaps the greatest example of Rousseau as a “counter-Enlightenment” thinker. For the Enlightenment project was based on the idea that progress in fields like the arts and sciences do indeed contribute to the purification of morals on individual, social, and political levels. The First Discourse begins with a brief introduction addressing the academy to which the work was submitted. Aware that his stance against the contribution of the arts and sciences to morality could potentially offend his readers, Rousseau claims, “I am not abusing science…I am defending virtue 15 before virtuous men.” (First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 4). In addition to this introduction, the First Discourse is comprised of two main parts. The first part is largely an historical survey. Using specific examples, Rousseau shows how societies in which the arts and sciences flourished more often than not saw the decline of morality and virtue. He notes that it was after philosophy and the arts flourished that ancient Egypt fell. Similarly, ancient Greece was once founded on notions of heroic virtue, but after the arts and sciences progressed, it became a society based on luxury and leisure. The one exception to this, according to Rousseau, was Sparta, which he praises for pushing the artists and scientists from its walls. Sparta is in stark contrast to Athens, which was the heart of good taste, elegance, and philosophy. Interestingly, Rousseau here discusses Socrates, as one of the few wise Athenians who recognized the corruption that the arts and sciences were bringing about. Rousseau paraphrases Socrates’ famous speech in the Apology. In his address to the court, Socrates says that the artists and philosophers of his day claim to have knowledge of piety, goodness, and virtue, yet they do not really understand anything. Rousseau’s historical inductions are not limited to ancient civilizations, however, as he also mentions China as a learned civilization that suffers terribly from its vices. The second part of the First Discourse is an examination of the arts and sciences themselves, and the dangers they bring. First, Rousseau claims that the arts and sciences are born from our vices: “Astronomy was born from superstition; eloquence from ambition, hate, flattery, and falsehood; geometry from avarice, physics from vain curiosity; all, even moral philosophy, from human pride.” (First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 12). The attack on sciences continues as Rousseau articulates how they fail to contribute anything positive to morality. They take time from the activities that are truly important, such as love of country, friends, and the unfortunate. Philosophical and scientific knowledge of subjects such as the relationship of the mind to the body, the orbit of the planets, and physical laws that govern particles fail to genuinely provide any guidance for making people more virtuous citizens. Rather, Rousseau argues that they create a false sense of need for luxury, so that science becomes simply a means for making our lives easier and more pleasurable, but not morally better. The arts are the subject of similar attacks in the second part of the First Discourse. Artists, Rousseau says, wish first and foremost to be applauded. Their work comes from a sense of wanting to be praised as superior to others. Society begins to emphasize specialized talents rather than virtues such as courage, generosity, and temperance. This leads to yet another danger: the decline of military virtue, which is necessary for a society to defend itself against aggressors. And yet, after all of these attacks, the First Discourse ends with the praise of some very wise thinkers, among them, Bacon, 16 Descartes, and Newton. These men were carried by their vast genius and were able to avoid corruption. However, Rousseau says, they are exceptions; and the great majority of people ought to focus their energies on improving their characters, rather than advancing the ideals of the Enlightenment in the arts and sciences. The Second Discourse, like the first, was a response to a question put forth by the academy of Dijon: “What is the origin of inequality among men; and is it authorized by the natural law?” Rousseau’s response to this question, the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, is significantly different from the First Discourse for several reasons. First, in terms of the academy’s response, the Second Discourse was not nearly as well received. It exceeded the desired length, it was four times the length of the first, and made very bold philosophical claims; unlike the First Discourse, it did not win the prize. However, as Rousseau was now a well-known and respected author, he was able to have it published independently. Secondly, if the First Discourse is indicative of Rousseau as a “counter-Enlightenment” thinker, the Second Discourse, by contrast, can rightly be considered to be representative of Enlightenment thought. This is primarily because Rousseau, like Hobbes, attacks the classical notion of human beings as naturally social. Finally, in terms of its influence, the Second Discourse is now much more widely read, and is more representative of Rousseau’s general philosophical outlook. In the Confessions, Rousseau writes that he himself sees the Second Discourse as far superior to the first..
Q.1 Discuss the emergence of Civil-Military dominance during 1947-58 with reference to Social and ethnic conflicts. (20)
Theoretically, the test of leadership is to lead the country and the nation out of a crisis situation. The dynamic leadership of Jinnah is a witness to this reality. Muslims of the sub-continent under the leadership of Jinnah successfully fought the forces of British imperialism and Hindu nationalism culminating in the creation of Pakistan. After the death of Jinnah, his political successors badly failed to create consensus politics. The second line leadership could not translate the political achievements of Jinnah into a vibrant, moderate and forward-looking democratic polity. Factionalism, provincialism and power politics marred the first decade of Independence. Pakistan had seven Prime Ministers and eight cabinets during 1947-58. The ruling parties maintained power by using state patronage and coercive apparatus in a highly partisan manner. The situation was not much different at the provincial level where different political parties and leaders engaged in struggle for power in violation of parliamentary norms.
The Constituent Assembly established at the time of independence was unable to frame a constitution as the members and the political parties did not work towards evolving a consensus on the operational norms of the political system. The objectives of the Constitution were approved in March 1949 after a contentious debate; some members did not take part in the vote on the Objectives Resolution. Subsequently, the Constituent Assembly deliberated on the framework of the Constitution during March 1949 and October 1954: when they agreed on a draft of the Constitution, Governor General Ghulam Muhammad dissolved the first Constituent Assembly before the latter could take up the draft for final consideration and vote.Governor General Ghulam Muhammad, in violation of established parliamentary norms, dissolved the above cited Assembly in a reactive move. There was unwarranted and continuous interference by the head of state in the political sphere of the country. Traditionally, the head of state is a nominal and titular office in parliamentary democracy whereas there was repeated interference into politics by two heads of state—Ghulam Muhammad and Iskander Mirza.
Had the political successors of Jinnah been sane enough, the interference of heads of state might have been averted. Those who were to steer the ship of the state of Pakistan were predominantly unscrupulous, corrupt and power hungry. None of them could rise to the level of a statesman. They remained self-centered petty politicians. The result was inevitable extreme political instability, palace intrigues, the ever-growing influence of the bureaucracyand the military in politics. Thus, military leaders felt justified in taking over when politicians failed to provide efficient and popular governance
Rizvi, while analyzing the political developments of Pakistan’s early period asserted that “political decay” occurred because Pakistan suffered from a lack of competent leadership and well organized political parties. The growth of regional and parochial forces, political bargaining and open defiance of the norms of parliamentary democracy encouraged instability which reduced the effectiveness of the governmental machinery, while on the other hand, the military was gaining strength.38 Huntington has also noted that such conditions are conducive for praetorianism, emphasizing that it was the inability of the political leaders to build a party system during the pre-military hegemonic political phase in Pakistan.
According to Khalid Bin Sayeed, the pre-military hegemonic phase was a “period of conflict”. Apparently this was a conflict between the political leaders and the bureaucratic-military elites over the nature and direction of the political system (i.e., the constitution, the role of religion in the polity, socio-economic reform, and the quantum of provincial autonomy).40 However, Sayeed believed that the sources of conflict were rooted in the tradition and culture of the regions that constituted Pakistan. The behavior of political leaders merely reflected these cleavages. East Bengal’s political leadership had a degree of consensus on the issue of provincial autonomy. However, the West Pakistani political leaders were divided not only along parochial lines, but also along “feudal” cleavages, particularly in Punjab and Sindh. Ridden with these cleavages, the political leaders could neither create a consensus among themselves, nor effectively challenge the bureaucratic elites.41 They lacked the capacity to aggregate public interests and build political institutions. Sayeed’s central thesis is that the incompetence and divisiveness of the political leaders brought about the collapse of the party system and facilitated the ascendancy of the bureaucratic- military elites.
Lawrence Ziring, an astute observer of Pakistani politics, has placed the burden of responsibility for the decay of party politics on the political leaders and the “structural weakness” of the Muslim League.33 Thus, according to Ziring, the bureaucratic-military elites entered the political arena not by intent but by default. In any democratic system, the basic principle is the establishment of contact with the masses through the political party in power. The people in Pakistan believed in the same value and expected that the League would add a new life to its glorious past. The Muslim League had done little to resolve popular confusion and to mediate between the Government and the people. The popular means of contact between the masses and their party were the open general annual conventions the most popular feature of the old All-India Muslim League but during the first nine years of Pakistan’s existence, no such convention was held. Council sessions were held but they related mainly to amendments to the League Constitution for one reason or the other.
Thus, during 1947-58, in a formal, constitutional sense, Pakistan’s history has been marked by political instability. In a non-legal, non-constitutional sense, it reveals the steady institutional development of the civilian and military bureaucracies. Slowly and gradually political power slipped from political parties into the hands of the civil service and the army.28 One can assess the intensity of political instability by the fact that within a short span of two and a half years (March 1956 to Oct 1958), Pakistan had six prime ministers
Constitution making in Pakistan was delayed for about nine years. The two most important factors which delayed constitution making in Pakistan were the differences between Punjabi dominated West Pakistani elite, and East Pakistani. East Pakistan demanded maximum provincial autonomy, whereas the West wing favoured a strong centre. The second most important issue was the quantum of representation: the East wing demanded universal adult franchise as Bengal constituted about 54% of the total population.15 Unfortunately, the West wing elite were not ready to concede this demand.
The geographical separation of East and West Pakistan produced not only administrative, physical but social, economic and political problems as well. Distance made communication irregular and expensive. Misunderstandings arose easily and were difficult to dispel. Since the capital was in the West wing, East Pakistan felt neglected. Differences in languages and cultures were obstacles in the way of national integrationHistorically speaking, the Punjabi-Bengali controversy delayed, more than any other factor, the constitution-making process in Pakistan.
Q.2 Critically analyse the failures and successes of the 1983 MRD Movement. (20)
Though protests against the Ziaul Haq dictatorship had begun almost immediately after his military coup in July 1977, his regime’s harsh measures against any and all opposition did not allow opposition groups to organise themselves in a more coherent and systematic manner.
The beginning of the anti-Soviet insurgency in Afghanistan in early 1980 had meant that the Zia regime was poised to attract recognition from the United States, and become its vessel to carry the large military and financial aid that the US and Saudi Arabia pledged as a way to back Afghan insurgents in Afghanistan. But it would take another few years for Zia to use this patronage to strengthen his position.
The Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) was formed in 1981. It was a multiparty alliance initiated by the left-leaning Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), which, at the time, was being led by former Prime Minister ZA Bhutto’s widow, Begum Nusrat Bhutto, and her then 28-year-old daughter, Benazir Bhutto. Both had been in and out of jails ever since ZA Bhutto was executed through a controversial trial in April 1979.
The MRD included the centre-left PPP; the center-left Pakistan National Party; the far-left Awami Tehreek; the far-left Qaumi Mahaz-i-Azadi; the far-left Muzdoor Kissan Party; the centre-left National Democratic Party; the centrist Tehreek-i-Istaqlal; the centre-right Pakistan Democratic Party; the centrist Muslim League (Malik Qasim faction); and the right-wing Jamiat Ulema Islam, which was the only mainstream religious party that was opposing Zia.
Though the movement kicked off in early 1981, it took another two years for MRD to gather a more substantial momentum against Zia’s dictatorship.
But by 1983, Zia had consolidated his political position and revived the economy. Yet, this revival, which was largely built upon the substantial flow of US and Saudi aid that had begun to arrive, brought with it a new kind of institutional corruption and the initial emergence of thorny factors such as heroin/gun smuggling, and the mainstreaming of radical clerics who were propped up by the state to recruit and indoctrinate young Pakistanis and Afghans for the insurgency against Soviet forces in Kabul.
Zia’s economic policies were also designed to attract the support of Punjab’s urban middle and lower-middle-class traders and shopkeepers (or those urban sections of the province who had overwhelmingly voted for ZA Bhutto’s PPP in the 1970 election).
The MRD leadership reacted to this by deducing that the fruits of the economic revival witnessed (after 1980) were mostly falling in the hands of central/urban Punjab’s industrialist and business communities and the trader classes; whereas rest of the country (as well as working-class and rural Punjabis) were being ravaged by economic exploitation, the rising rates of crime and corruption, and the growing incidents of sectarian violence.
On August 14, 1983 (one year after Zia had gotten himself elected as ‘President’ through a dubious referendum), the MRD launched a movement against him.
Though the movement kicked-off simultaneously in Sindh and the Punjab, it failed to gather much support in the latter province. Soon, it became restricted to Sindh, where at one point, it treateningly began to look like it would turn into a full-blown Sindhi nationalist movement and even a civil war.
MRD activists and youth belonging to the student-wings of MRD parties and various left-wing Sindhi nationalist groups plunged into the fray and disrupted everyday life in Sindh. Sindh’s metropolitan capital, Karachi too, witnessed widespread protests by journalist, student and women’s organisations, but compared to the rest of the province, Karachi remained relatively unruffled.
In the interior of Sindh, the situation eventually became too hot for the police to handle and Zia had to call in the army. Dozens of MRD supporters were killed in the ensuing violence.
By September 1983, the movement had squarely become a militant Sindhi nationalist expression when Punjab failed to rise.
Most of Sindh’s influential peers (Sufi spiritual leaders) were opposing Zia. They had thrived during the Bhutto regime, especially the powerful Peer of Hala. So Zia contacted another influential Peer, Peer Pagaro (who was a Zia supporter), and requested him to use his influence to make the keepers of the Sufi shrines reject ‘Sindhi rebels’. Pagara tried but failed.
By September 1983, the movement did not have anyone piloting it from a central command point, and the violence that followed was largely triggered by spontaneous rallies and agitation organised by anti-Zia groups stationed in various cities and villages of north and central Sindh.
By September 1983, the movement did not have anyone piloting it from a central command point, and the violence that followed was largely triggered by spontaneous rallies and agitation organised by anti-Zia groups stationed in various cities and villages of north and central Sindh.
There was hardly any co-ordination between such groups, and no central or joint leaders. Every group followed its own particular party’s local leader who had eventually lost contact with the main MRD leadership, which was either operating from different cities, villages or towns; or had been arrested.
Though the Zia regime saw the movement as a kind of an insurgency, it really wasn’t. The bulk of the agitation constituted protest rallies. Even the rallies that turned violent, the protesters were armed with just stones and bricks.
Episodes of armed violence only took place when the police tried to enter the forests of Moro and Dadu to flush out the activists who had escaped into the woods. And even then, the armed retaliation did not come from the escapees, but by the hardened highway dacoits who already had their bases in these forests. However, over the next few years, many of the escapees were recruited by the dacoits and became notorious highway men.
Secondly, MRD’s senior leadership too prevented the movement from turning into an all-out insurgency. The movement was originally launched to trigger nationwide protests against the regime and force Zia to resign (so fresh elections could follow).
But when the movement mutated and became a radical expression of Sindhi nationalism in Sindh, the main MRD leadership held itself back to reorient the movement (which it did in 1986).
The movement thus fell into the hands of small Maoist and militant Sindhi nationalist groups and localised student-wings of MRD parties. Not everyone was on the same page.
In 1997, an activist of the JUI (the only religious party that was part of the movement), wrote a telling account of what happened to the movement. Though the book (written in Urdu) is largely about his time in various jails of Sindh during the movement, his observations about his jail mates reflect the anarchic nature that the movement eventually took.
The MRD could not sustained itself in late 1988 and quickly collapse after the death of President Zia-ul-Haq in 1988 which marked its way for peaceful general elections, outlined the return of Pakistan Peoples Party in national power.[1] Furthermore, the events led to a dissolution of USSR also shattered the left in Pakistan. The break-up of the USSR generated hopelessness and desperation in among the communist parties.[9] Sensing the tension and desperation for survival in the politics, Benazir Bhutto consolidated the shattered left in the country, turning the communist mass into the principles of Social democracy. The early 1990s were a period of counter-revolutionary consciousness in Pakistan, giving birth to the rise of fundamentalism.[9]
Q.3 Discuss the circumstances under which PPP emerged on the Political Scene of Pakistan. (20)
In 1970s Ayub Khan's policies nourished capitalist class at the expense of ordinary people. This period saw drastic increase in income inequality and poverty. In April 1968, Dr. Mahbub ul Haq, the then Chief Economist of the Planning Commission reported 22 families who controlled 66% of the industries and owned 87% share in country's banking and insurance industry. Due to Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, economy collapsed, and investment growth in Pakistan saw 20% decline in following years.
Under influence of Soviet Union, both country signed Tashkent Declaration at Uzbekistan.[15] Tashkent Declaration shocked the people of Pakistan, who were expecting something different - because a public perception was built in Pakistan that they were going to win the war. Ayub Khan fiercely defended the declaration and called it in best interests of people. This led to confrontation between Ayub Khan and his Foreign minister Zulifqar Ali Bhutto which finally led to resignation of later. He went on accused Ayub of ‘losing the war on the negotiating table’. Opposition parties decided to protest against the declaration, however State resorted with imposing ban upon public gatherings and arresting activists. The resignation of Bhutto further angered and dismayed the public and the democratic-socialists.
Though Bhutto, the founder of Pakistan People‟s Party, had been staunch supporter of Ayub Khan Regime from very beginning of his political upbringing in 1958 to 1966, yet, he dissociated himself from the regime on the issue of Tashkent Declaration3 in June 1966.
At the time he was uncertain about his future course of action. He was analyzing different options available for him and at the same time was not very sure about the political future. Three options were Ideological Orientation of Pakistan People‟s Party: Evolution, Illusion and Reality evidently available to Bhutto; to be amalgamated into a faction of Pakistan Muslim League, to join hands with a progressive National Awami Party or the most challenging one was to establish new political party of his own having clarity of thought with unique stand-point on national and international concerns.
Because of taking hard stance on the issue of Tashkent Declaration by Bhutto, Ayub government launched a comprehensive strategy to malign his image. “He was personally harassed and his public meetings were often disrupted. Bhutto eventually decided to form a new party and indicated that it would be radical, reformist, democratic, socialist and egalitarian party.”
Bhutto, being a charismatic leader and party head launched an aggressive mass-contact strategy by approaching every nook and corner of the country to reach the masses with his political philosophy, which addressed more specifically focusing on the troubles of the common man and pledged that his party had the solutions of the problems. On the other hand he adopted a very aggressive criticism strategy against the then ruling regime of Ayub Khan. The timing and focus of Bhutto on anti-establishment stance approached the minds and hearts of the masses within no time because of the ills prevalent in the urban middle classes, students, university and college faculty, labour, Ulema and government employees with low-income who were suppressed for long under the regime. It almost became a volcano and Bhutto hit the nail at ripe time.
The political scene with fierce agitation against the government with strikes, demonstrations, and protests every now and then occurred. The movement had spread throughout Pakistan by 1969. The government got panic and started tyrannical crush policy to coup with political gatherings and anti-government movement which seldom resulted in causalities. By the compulsion of unbearable political pressure, Ayub stepped down and on March 25, 1969, handed over the authority to General Yahya Khan, Commander-in-Chief of the army. Yahya decided to announce general elections just after assuming the charge as President. The prominent contenders were; Awami League (AL), Pakistan People‟s Party (PPP), National Awami Party Bhashani (NAP- Bhashani), National Awami Party Wali Khan (NAP-Wali Khan), three factions of Pakistan Muslim League, Jamat -iIslami,(JI) Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam Thanwi (JUI Thanwi), Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam Hazarvi(JUI Hazarvi) and Jamiat Ulema-i-Pakistan (JUP).
The PPP invented new political fashion during the election campaign by attracting the people at large through posters, banners and party flags. The articulation of the leadership was evident through the plan of organizing the processions and public meetings extensively. The canvassing catch word was „Socialism‟ based slogan of roti, kapra aur makan. The party intellectuals have contributed a lot by writing articles in newspapers and magazines for the propagation of party ideology. In this regard, the party organs „Nusrat‟ and „Musawat‟ had a significant contribution in disseminating PPP‟s political philosophy. Moreover, the focus of the campaign was to address every cadre of society. On the other hand, rightist parties were having contradiction with the ideology of Socialism. Therefore, they propagated against the point of view of PPP. The religio-political parties went ahead in that campaign against PPP and declared „Socialism‟ un-Islamic. Due to that allegation and counter-allegation was started by PPP and religio-political parties against each other. As a result, it had become reason for the gradual shift in PPP‟s ideology i.e. from „Socialism‟ to „Musawat-eMuhammadi‟.
Ayub Khan succumbed to political pressure on 26 March 1969 and handed power to the Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan. President Yahya Khan imposed martial law and the 1962 Constitution was abrogated. On 31 March 1970, President Yahya Khan announced a Legal Framework Order (LFO) which called for direct elections for a unicameral legislature. Many in the West feared the East wing's demand for countrywide provincial autonomy. The purpose of the LFO was to secure the future Constitution which would be written after the election so that it would include safeguards such as preserving Pakistan's territorial integrity and Islamic ideology.
Q.4 Discuss the origin and growth of NAP and MQM in Pakistan. What are the factors that led to the creation of these regional Political Parties, in Pakistan? (20)
Muttahida Quami Movement - MQM
Mohajir Qaumi Movement - MQM
The Muttahida (earlier, Muhajir) Qaumi Movement (MQM) claims to represent the Muhajirs (those who migrated from India after the partition, and their descendants). MQM has its biggest base in Karachi, the largest city in the country and the financial capital, where by one estimate the Muhajirs constitute about 60 percent of the population [reports of 90 percent are implausible]. The MQM has been known for its leaders' lust of power than for their concern for the Muhajirs, who still find themselves somewhat rootless in their adopted country.
The Mohajir Qaumi Mahaz (sometimes written Muhajir, and Mahaz meaning "Movement," also abbreviated MQM), a party formed to represent the interests of the muhajir community in Pakistan. Founded by Altaf Hussain in 1984, the MQM had a meteoric rise in the political life of the country. The MQM had its origin in the All-Pakistan Muhajir Students Organization at Karachi University. At a large public meeting in Karachi in 1986, the MQM expressed the political and economic demands of the muhajir community. The MQM's political strength came primarily from the urban areas of Sindh, and its main emphasis was on securing better job opportunities for muhajirs, along with enriching the education system, providing healthcare to all, abolishing the feudal land-ownership system, and providing a comprehensive economic plan to alleviate poverty. At the time, Mohajirs were advancing in business, the professions, and the bureaucracy, but many resented the quotas that helped ethnic Sindhis win university slots and civil service jobs. Known in English as the National Movement for Refugees, the MQM soon turned to extortion and other types of racketeering to raise cash. Using both violence and efficient organizing, the MQM became the dominant political party in Karachi and Hyderabad, another major city in Sindh.
Meanwhile, violence between the MQM and Sindhi groups routinely broke out in Karachi and other Sindh cities. The MQM played an active role in the ethnic riots in Karachi in the winter of 1986-87. These disturbances brought prominence and notoriety to the MQM and its leader, Altaf Hussain. It was after these riots that the MQM leadership converted the movement into a political party.
Just three years after its founding, the MQM came to power in these and other Sindh cities in local elections in 1987. The MQM's full political weight was first felt in the 1988 elections. MQM won thirteen (out of 207) seats in the National Assembly in the 1988 elections, making it the third largest party in the assembly after the PPP and the IJI. MQM support of the PPP made it possible for Benazir Bhutto to form a government and become prime minister. MQM joined a coalition government at the national level headed by Benazir Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party (PPP). This marked the first of several times in the 1980s and 1990s that the MQM joined coalition governments in Islamabad or in Sindh province. Shortly after the election, however, the coalition between the PPP and the MQM broke down, and the two parties' subsequently troubled relations contributed greatly to the instability of Bhutto's first government.
The Pakistan Muslim League (PML) led government of Nawaz Sharif was elected in February 1997, and consolidated its grip on power by gaining a majority in the upper house as a result of the Senate elections in March 1997. It secured 23 of the 49 seats available in the Senate Elections, bringing the PML(N) strength in the Senate to 30 out of 87, and with the support of its allies - the Awami National Party (ANP), the Muttahidda Quami Movement (Altaf Faction) (MQM(A)) -- led by Altaf Hussain -- and the Tehrik-e-Jafria Pakistan (TJP), it controlled a majority of 44 seats. The ANP and the MQM subsequently departed from the coalition. To further the program of national development and a nation-wide campaign against feudal domination, the Mohajir Quami Movement was formally transformed into the Muttahida Quami Movement on 26 July 1997.MQM leader Altaf Hussain was lying low and aiming to become a potential "king-maker" in the possibly hung parliament after the 2002 elections. In any case, PML-Q was predicted to at best win a thin majority, after which it would require accommodation with the MQM as the traditional third-largest bloc in the National Assembly.
In the leadup to the 2008 elections the MQM was described as a key parliamentary ally of the Musharraf-friendly PML-Q, and that the MQM appeared to take sides in a showdown between supporters and opponents of ousted Chief Justice Chaudhry, who tried to visit Karachi in May 2007. Its cadres were involved in Karachi street battles with opposition activists that left at least 40 people dead on 12 May 2007, most of them PPP members. Reports had local police and security forces standing by without intervening while the MQM attacked anti-Musharraf protesters, leading many observers to charge the government with complicity in the bloody rioting. MQM leaders denied that party activists had been involved in malicious acts.
MQM chief Altaf Hussein was an early and vocal sympathizer with the United States following September 2001 terrorist attacks there.
On the 22nd of November 2009, Pakistan government released the limited list of beneficiaries of legal act called National Reconciliation Ordinance which granted amnesty to politicians, political workers and bureaucrats who were accused of corruption, embezzlement, money-laundering, murder and terrorism between 1 January 1986 and 12 October 1999. None of the MQM personalities were included on money or corruption related basis. But names of two personalities of MQM were included in the list based on political cases. According to the list, Altaf Hussain had 72 cases, with 31 on murder and 11 on murder attempts. Farooq Sattar had 23 cases, including five on charges of murder and four on attempt to murder.
In 2018 Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insafemerged as the largest single party defeating the Pakistan Muslim League - Nawaz .
This time, PTI did better than expected to scoop up 16.86 million votes, trouncing the party of jailed former premier Nawaz Sharif, which finished second with 12.89 million.
But the 116 seats won by Khan’s lawmakers were not enough to give PTI a majority in the 272-seat National Assembly without coalition partners, and he has ruled out both of the other two major parties, calling them corrupt.
In the end PTI was compelled to form govt. in coalition with MQM-P who has 7 seats.
National Awami Party
The National Awami Party (NAP) was the major progressive political party in East and West Pakistan. It was founded in 1957 in Dhaka, erstwhile East Pakistan, by Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani and Yar Mohammad Khan, through the merger of various leftist and progressive political groups in Pakistan. Commonly known as the NAP, it was a major opposition party to Pakistani military regimes for much of the late 1950s and mid 1960s. In 1967 the party split into two factions, one in East Pakistan and another in West Pakistan.
Led by Bhashani and other influential progressive leaders, NAP played an instrumental role in the secession of East Pakistan and the independence of Bangladesh. After the death of Bhashani in 1976, the party lost much of its prominence on the Bangladeshi political scene. Many of its leaders became members of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Today, the liberal and progressive faction within the BNP is led by former NAP leaders.
After the 1971 war, the Pakistani faction of NAP became the principal opposition party to the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto-led government of the Pakistan People's Party. The NAP was banned after relentless attack by the then Prime Minister Bhutto, who accused NAP leaders of treason and after a sham trial the NAP was banned from Pakistani politics. The leaders of the NAP, including Khan Abdul Wali Khan, were only released during the regime of General Zia-ul-Haq.
The National Awami Party was along with the Awami League expected to easily win the 1959 planned general elections. Its primary target was the disbanding of the One Unit scheme in West Pakistan and a fair deal for the increasingly discontented people of East Pakistan.[2]
In 1958 Ayub Khan came to power and all political parties were banned. The NAP was regarded by some as a front organization of the Communist Party of Pakistan(CPP) and it faced a harsh crackdown from the Ayub government. Hasan Nasir, NAP Office Secretary and card-carrying member of the CPP, was tortured to death in custody.
When Ayub allowed political parties again in 1962, the NAP was revived with all of its old components except the G.M. Sayed group and Ganatantri Dal
At the end of 1967 a growing rift developed within the party, allegedly because Maulana Bhashani told his supporters to support Ayub Khan in the 1965 elections against the joint opposition nominee Fatima Jinnah.[4] In return he was supposed to have received payoffs and favours, a fact which he never contradicted. On 30. November 1967, after a council session of the party in Rangpur, the NAP formally split into two factions:
- A pro-Chinese Bhashani faction in East Pakistan eventually formed part of Bangladesh Nationalist party (BNP)
- A pro-Soviet Wali Khan faction in West Pakistan now part of ANP and PPP-P
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
The NAP set the following as its main aims:
- Defence of the sovereignty, integrity and independence of Pakistan.
- Non-aligned, independent foreign policy.
- Ending of exploitation of Pakistan externally and its people internally.
- Abolition of One Unit and reorganisation of provinces on linguistic basis.
- Right of adult franchise.[5]
In July 1965, as the manifesto was amended after the party's re-emergence, the NAP declared that the system of government in the country should be based on the concept of people's sovereignty. The Party advocated the maximum provincial autonomy in a confederal structure. Only Defence and Foreign Affairs were to be left with the 'Federal' government, while other powers were to rest with the autonomous units.[1] One-Unit in West Pakistan had to be replaced by a "regional confederation where provinces would be created on linguistic lines". In foreign affairs the Manifesto asked for non-alignment and withdrawal from the military pacts SEATO and CENTO.[6]
POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
The NAP set the following as its main aims:
- Defence of the sovereignty, integrity and independence of Pakistan.
- Non-aligned, independent foreign policy.
- Ending of exploitation of Pakistan externally and its people internally.
- Abolition of One Unit and reorganisation of provinces on linguistic basis.
- Right of adult franchise.[5]
In July 1965, as the manifesto was amended after the party's re-emergence, the NAP declared that the system of government in the country should be based on the concept of people's sovereignty. The Party advocated the maximum provincial autonomy in a confederal structure. Only Defence and Foreign Affairs were to be left with the 'Federal' government, while other powers were to rest with the autonomous units.[1] One-Unit in West Pakistan had to be replaced by a "regional confederation where provinces would be created on linguistic lines". In foreign affairs the Manifesto asked for non-alignment and withdrawal from the military pacts SEATO and CENTO.[6]
Q.5 Discuss the characteristics of the business community in Pakistan as an interest pressure group.
A pressure group could be described as a cohesive group that endeavours to influence government policy, legislation, or public thinking. A pressure group could also be known as an 'interest group' or a 'lobbying unit' or even a 'protest team'.
A pressure group has certain defined objectives or common interests that range from protection of rights, assets, thinking, or activities, etc. Pressure groups could be of permanent nature having an organisation with volunteers or paid professional staff, or formed for specific purposes such as putting into action a programme to respond to an event, decision, or policy or even created to affect fundamental changes in the thinking of the citizens.
In Pakistan, as in other countries, the business community also has organisations or committees that perform the role of pressure groups to protect, promote, and project the interests of its members.
These organisations may cater to the combined interests of the business community, such as Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry, or they may look after the interest of, for example, the automotive industry, the textile spinning mills or the rice exporters. At the same time, the various chambers, such as Karachi Chamber or Lahore Chamber, have to tread a fine line when it comes to protecting the interests of members. There is always a clash of interests between the industrialists and the traders.
It is more prominent in those areas where there is a serious competition between the domestically produced products and the imported goods. It becomes more critical when the local industry is susceptible to duties, taxes, and other restrictions while the imported goods find their way into the country and are sold comparatively at a lesser price due to the advantage of under-invoicing, smuggling, or misdeclaration.
A case in point is the tug-of-war between the local fabric industry and the importers of cloth through various channels. At the same time, there is a diversity of views within industries too, e.g. between the polyester filament industry and the weavers.
A similar disagreement is between the original equipment manufacturers (OEM) in the automobile industry and the car showroom owners. Generally, the pressure groups within the business community in Pakistan do not put up candidates for election as MNAs, MPAs, or even Senators. Although some businessmen have managed to get elected, they have usually gone through the process in their individual capacity.
There have been no reported cases of a trade association or a chamber nominating a candidate on an official level. Some businessmen have been appointed Ministers or even Governors, again in their personal capacity, rather than acknowledging them as leaders of any particular organisation. At many times in the past, the business community has taken cudgels against with government.
Certain campaigns by the business community have made formidable impact on the economic policies. The Fuel Adjustment Charge that KESC used to levy on its customers was termed discriminatory since the customers of WAPDA were exempted. The Karachi industrialists, spearheaded by SITE Association of Industry, initiated a media blitz resulting in the end to this discriminatory practice. This was done during the dark days of General Zia-ul-Haq.
Similarly, during Junejo's regime, the CBR came up with a novel idea to simplify the excise rules. This was another bureaucratic stratagem to stifle the working of industries. Again, the SITE Association of Industry, with the late Ejaz Shafi at the helm, took up the challenge. For nine consecutive days, hundreds of industries stopped production and a huge crowd of 500-600 industrialists would be present in the offices of SITE Association of Industry.
Today, if such an occasion arises, hardly a few dozen would come to register their protests. The notorious decision was withdrawn due to the pragmatic thinking of Premier Junejo who came to Karachi and accepted the contention of the industrialists. SITE Association of Industry became known as a powerful pressure group and earned the title of Voice of Industry.
A few years ago, CBR commenced the process of registering the industries, business establishments, retailers etc under the Sales Tax regime by using the services of the armed forces. A concerted campaign by retailers throughout the country put paid to this scheme. A pragmatic process was derailed due to the myopic thinking of the CBR hierarchy and because of the influence that the pressure group had on the streets and even on the non-elected policy-makers in the government.
Another worthwhile example of the success of a pressure group has been the joint effort of SITE Association of Industry, All Pakistan Textile Processing Mills Association, Pakistan Yarn Merchants Association, and Pakistan Silk and Rayon Mills Association.
The intensified campaign conducted by the leaders of these Associations through lobbying at every forum, through writing to policy-makers or in the newspapers, through speeches and presentations, and through various forms of persuasion resulted in the formation of the Committee for the Rationalisation of Tariff on Textiles and Raw Materials for the Polyester Industry under the leadership of Zubair Motiwala by the CBR Chairman.
The recommendations of the committee were accepted in toto and thus import duties were slashed, sales tax on textiles became a thing of the past, and CBR spurred into action to curb under-invoicing, misdeclaration, and smuggling. This is a vivid example of the effectiveness of a serious and genuine pressure group.
The denial of Most Favoured Nation status to India is also the success of pressure groups. The anti-Indian lobby is vehemently opposed to granting this status because they consider MFN to mean that the enemy is the best friend.
This nomenclature devised by someone sitting in the hallowed halls of a government building in Washington, has connotations that this lobby considers as anathema.
The other lobby is that vested interest that deals or facilitates undocumented trade between the two neighbours. The power of these two pressure groups has had such a forceful effect on the government that inspite of ratifying SAFTA, the MFN status has been denied to India.
However, the pressure groups within the business community have recently been under pressure themselves. The leaders among the trade and industry organisations have been infected by the effect of being close to the people in power. This has undermined to a large extent the role of these bodies. There is a general feeling among the traders and industrialists that more often than not, they are being taken for granted by the powers-that-be, and that the incentives given to the business community through changes in tariffs, through re-profiling of rules, or even through acceptance of even minor demands, are less of a generosity or benevolence, and more of the dictates of the global trade environment. The situation has evolved in such a manner that it is being depicted as a 'partnership' between the trade and industrial community and the government of the day.
The pressure groups within the trade and industry community is also vulnerable to political influences nowadays. What is happening is that there is a reverse syndrome in vogue in many instances. Criticism of a Minister is construed a personal affront rather than accepting it as a genuine disagreement with the policies. This has also affected the workings of many a pressure group within trade and industry. Furthermore, these organisations are also under the strain of dissension among their own members.
The desire by leaders in an organisation to 'rule' over its affairs has rendered many such organisations ineffective or futile bodies. This has impacted on their effectiveness and influence in propagating the objectives of that organisation. And, this is what hurts the cause of the members and allows other pressure groups to intensify their own influence and ideas.
The success of the pressure groups depends on the seriousness, genuineness, and determination of the leaders.
These leaders have to be courageous, pragmatic and must have a sincerity of purpose in order to achieve their objectives. Polarisation within organisations or within the business community would become counter-productive as it would create a vacuum that would be filled by inimical vested interests, such as those playing partisan politics, those that are affiliated with radical advocacy groups, and those that want to perpetuate a stranglehold over their turf.
Thus a unified and organised business community can be the epitome of an excellent pressure group that ensures that the country would be a prosperous, strong, and a viable nation.
Course: Social Theory–I (4669)Semester: Spring 2019
Level: M. Sc (Pak Studies)
ASSIGNMENT No. 1
Q. 1 Discuss in detail the characteristics of institutions of Athenian democracy. Are these characteristics worthy of being ideal and relevant in this modern world.
Answer: Athens in the 5th to 4th century BCE had an extraordinary system of government: democracy. Under this system, all male citizens had equal political rights, freedom of speech, and the opportunity to participate directly in the political arena. Further, not only did citizens participate in a direct democracy whereby they themselves made the decisions by which they lived, but they also actively served in the institutions that governed them, and so they directly controlled all parts of the political process. Ancient Sources Other city-states had, at one time or another, systems of democracy, notably Argos, Syracuse, Rhodes, and Erythrai. In addition, sometimes even oligarchic systems could involve a high degree of political equality, but the Athenian version, starting from c. 460 BCE and ending c. 320 BCE and involving all male citizens, was certainly the most developed. The contemporary sources which describe the workings of democracy typically relate to Athens and include such texts as the Constitution of the Athenians from the School of Aristotle; the works of the Greek historians Herodotus, Thucydides, and Xenophon; texts of over 150 speeches by such figures as Demosthenes; inscriptions in stone of decrees, laws, contracts, public honours and more; and Greek Comedy plays such as those by Aristophanes. Unfortunately, sources on the other democratic governments in ancient Greece are few and far between. This being the case, the following remarks on democracy are focussed on the Athenians. The Assembly & Council The word democracy (dēmokratia) derives from dēmos, which refers to the entire citizen body, and kratos, meaning rule. Any male citizen could, then, participate in the main democratic body of Athens, the assembly (ekklēsia). In the 4th and 5th centuries BCE the male citizen population of Athens ranged from 30,000 to 60,000 depending on the period. The assembly met at least once a month, more likely two or three times, on the Pnyx hill in a dedicated space which could accommodate around 6000 citizens. Any citizen could speak to the assembly and vote on decisions by simply holding up their hands. The majority won the day 2 and the decision was final. Nine presidents (proedroi), elected by lot and holding the office one time only, organised the proceedings and assessed the voting. Specific issues discussed in the assembly included deciding military and financial magistracies, organising and maintaining food supplies, initiating legislation and political trials, deciding to send envoys, deciding whether or not to sign treaties, voting to raise or spend funds, and debating military matters. The assembly could also vote to ostracise from Athens any citizen who had become too powerful and dangerous for the polis. In this case there was a secret ballot where voters wrote a name on a piece of broken pottery (ostrakon). An important element in the debates was freedom of speech (parrhēsia) which became, perhaps, the citizen's most valued privilege. After suitable discussion, temporary or specific decrees (psēphismata) were adopted and laws (nomoi) defined. The assembly also ensured decisions were enforced and officials were carrying out their duties correctly. There was in Athens (and also Elis, Tegea, and Thasos) a smaller body, the boulē, which decided or prioritised the topics which were discussed in the assembly. In addition, in times of crisis and war, this body could also take decisions without the assembly meeting. The boulē or council was composed of 500 citizens who were chosen by lot and who served for one year with the limitation that they could serve no more than two non-consecutive years. The boulē represented the 139 districts of Attica and acted as a kind of executive committee of the assembly. It was this body which supervised any administrative committees and officials on behalf of the assembly. IT WAS IN THE COURTS THAT LAWS MADE BY THE ASSEMBLY COULD BE CHALLENGED & DECISIONS WERE MADE REGARDING OSTRACISM. Then there was also an executive committee of the boulē which consisted of one tribe of the ten which participated in the boulē (i.e., 50 citizens, known as prytaneis) elected on a rotation basis, so each tribe composed the executive once each year. This executive of the executive had a chairman (epistates) who was chosen by lot each day. The 50-man prytany met in the building known as the Bouleuterion in the Athenian agoraand safe-guarded the sacred treasuries. Athenian Agora - 3D View In tandem with all these political institutions were the law courts (dikasteria) which were composed of 6,000 jurors and a body of chief magistrates (archai) chosen annually by lot. Indeed, there was a specially designed machine of coloured tokens (kleroterion) to ensure those selected were chosen randomly, a process magistrates had to go through twice. It was here in the courts that laws made by the assembly could be challenged and decisions were made regarding ostracism, naturalization, and remission of debt. 3 This complex system was, no doubt, to ensure a suitable degree of checks and balances to any potential abuse of power, and to ensure each traditional region was equally represented and given equal powers. With people chosen at random to hold important positions and with terms of office strictly limited, it was difficult for any individual or small group to dominate or unduly influence the decision-making process either directly themselves or, because one never knew exactly who would be selected, indirectly by bribing those in power at any one time. Participation in Government As we have seen, only male citizens who were 18 years or over could speak (at least in theory) and vote in the assembly, whilst the positions such as magistrates and jurors were limited to those over 30 years of age. Therefore, women, slaves, and resident foreigners (metoikoi) were excluded from the political process. The mass involvement of all male citizens and the expectation that they should participate actively in the running of the polis is clear in this quote from Thucydides: We alone consider a citizen who does not partake in politics not only one who minds his own business but useless. Illustrating the esteem in which democratic government was held, there was even a divine personification of the ideal of democracy, the goddess Demokratia. Direct involvement in the politics of the polis also meant that the Athenians developed a unique collective identity and probably too, a certain pride in their system, as shown in Pericles' famous Funeral Oration for the Athenian dead in 431 BCE, the first year of the Peloponnesian War: Athens' constitution is called a democracy because it respects the interests not of a minority but of the whole people. When it is a question of settling private disputes, everyone is equal before the law; when it is a question of putting one person before another in positions of public responsibility, what counts is not membership of a particular class, but the actual ability which the man possesses. No one, so long as he has it in him to be of service to the state, is kept in political obscurity because of poverty. (Thuc. 2.37) Although active participation was encouraged, attendance in the assembly was paid for in certain periods, which was a measure to encourage citizens who lived far away and could not afford the time off to attend. This money was only to cover expenses though, as any attempt to profit from public positions was severely punished. Citizens probably accounted for 10-20% of the polis population, and of these it has been estimated that only 3,000 or so people actively participated in politics. Of this group, perhaps as few as 100 citizens - the wealthiest, most influential, and the best speakers - dominated the political arena both in front of the assembly and behind the scenes in private conspiratorial political meetings (xynomosiai) and groups 4 (hetaireiai). These groups had to meet secretly because although there was freedom of speech, persistent criticism of individuals and institutions could lead to accusations of conspiring tyranny and so lead to ostracism. Critics of democracy, such as Thucydides and Aristophanes, pointed out that not only were proceedings dominated by an elite, but that the dēmos could be too often swayed by a good orator or popular leaders (the demagogues), get carried away with their emotions, or lack the necessary knowledge to make informed decisions. Perhaps the most notoriously bad decisions taken by the Athenian dēmos were the execution of six generals after they had actually won the battle of Arginousai in 406 BCE and the death sentence given to the philosopher Socrates in 399 BCE. Conclusion Democracy, which had prevailed during Athens’ Golden Age, was replaced by a system of oligarchy after the disastrous Athenian defeat in Sicily in 409 BCE. The constitutional change, according to Thucydides, seemed the only way to win much-needed support from Persia against the old enemy Sparta and, further, it was thought that the change would not be a permanent one. Nevertheless, democracy in a slightly altered form did eventually return to Athens and, in any case, the Athenians had already done enough in creating their political system to eventually influence subsequent civilizations two millennia later. In the words of historian K. A. Raaflaub, democracy in ancient Athens was a unique and truly revolutionary system that realized its basic principle to an unprecedented and quite extreme extent: no polis had ever dared to give all its citizens equal political rights, regardless of their descent, wealth, social standing, education, personal qualities, and any other factors that usually determined status in a community. Ideals such as these would form the cornerstones of all democracies in the modern world. The ancient Greeks have provided us with fine art, breath-taking temples, timeless theatre, and some of the greatest philosophers, but it is democracy which is, perhaps, their greatest and most enduring legacy. {=============}
Q. 2 Harmony had been the ultimate principle in all the earliest attempts, before Plato, at a theory of the physical world. Critically analyze whether harmony was really the solution of the ills of the society at that time?
Answer: Aristotle versus Plato. For a long time, that is the angle from which the tale has been told. Aristotle’s philosophy, we are given to understand, was built up in fundamental opposition to Plato’s. But it was not 5 always thus in the history of philosophy. The indispensable Diogenes Laertius (c. 200 C.E.), tells us, for example, that Aristotle was Plato’s ‘most genuine disciple’.1 Beginning perhaps in the 1st century B.C.E., we can already see philosophers claiming the ultimate harmony of Academic and Peripatetic thought. Antiochus of Ascalon (c. 130 – c. 68 B.C.E.) is frequently identified as a principal figure in this regard. 2 A similar view is clearly expressed by Cicero.3 Later in the 2nd century C.E., we can observe the Platonists Alcinous in his influential ‘Handbook of Platonism’ simply incorporating what we might call ‘Aristotelian elements’ into his account of Platonism.4 Finally, and most importantly, for a period of about three hundred years, from the middle of the 3rd century C.E. to the middle of the 6th, Aristotelianism and Platonism were widely viewed and written about as being harmonious philosophical systems.5 The philosophers who held this view are today usually given the somewhat unhelpful and artificial label ‘Neoplatonists’. This paper aims to sketch the basis for the harmonists’ view and to give some indications of the extent to which it might be justified. ‘Harmony’ when used of two philosophical positions can of course mean many things. Most innocuously, it can mean ‘non-contradictory’. There are countless philosophical positions that are harmonious in this sense. Usually, there is little point even in mentioning that A’s position does not in fact contradict B’s. Those who held Aristotelianism to be in harmony with Platonism did not mean merely that their views were not in contradiction with each other. Another somewhat more interesting sense of ‘harmony’ is employed when it is held that two philosophical systems share some common principles, though, owing to a divergence in others, they reach opposite conclusions. It is often illuminating to seek out at some level of generality or even identities among ostensibly incompatible positions. For example, two materialist theories of mind might well have contradictory or contrary accounts of mental events or processes. Although this sort of harmony is not entirely absent from the thought examined here, it is not the dominant theme. The idea of the harmony between Platonism and Aristotelianism that drove the philosophy of our period was somewhat different. Roughly, it was held that Plato was authoritative for the intelligible world and Aristotle was authoritative for the sensible world. More than this, it was assumed or argued that what Plato and Aristotle each had to say about the intelligible and sensible worlds were mutually supporting. So, if one accepted most Aristotle’s views about the world, one could do with a clear conscience as a Platonist. At this point, an entirely reasonable response would be: ‘if that is what was meant by the ‘harmony’ of Plato and Aristotle, then so much the worse for them!’ One might be at a loss to understand how anyone, reading objectively the corpus of Aristotelian texts, could suppose that Aristotle did not see himself as opposed to Plato. For example, Richard Sorabji avers that the idea of harmony is a ‘perfectly crazy proposition’. 6 Part of my task is to show that such a perception is less well founded than one might suppose. Nevertheless, I aim to do more than this. I want to show that reading Aristotle as a Platonist, far 6 from being an exercise in historical perversity, does actually yield interesting results, both exegetical and philosophical. The view that the philosophy of Aristotle was in harmony with the philosophy of Plato must be sharply distinguished from the view, held by no one in antiquity, that the philosophy of Aristotle was identical with the philosophy of Plato. For example, in Plato’s dialogue Parmenides Socrates suggests that Zeno’s book states the ‘same position’ as Parmenides’ differing only in that it focuses on an attack on Parmenides’ opponents. Zeno acknowledges this identity.7 The harmony of Aristotle and Plato was not supposed to be like the identity of the philosophy of Zeno and Parmenides. The claim that Aristotle and Plato belong to the same school, namely, the Old Academic, should not be understood to entail the identity of the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle for the simple reason that the Neoplatonists, who claimed adherence to this school, differed widely among themselves without supposing that one was thereby an opponent of the school. Porphyry differs from Plotinus on certain major points, Iamblichus differs from Porphyry and Plotinus, Proclus differs from all three, and so on. So, the claim that Plato and Aristotle belong to the same school or that their philosophies are in harmony must be understood in a more nuanced manner. The first concrete indication we possess that Neoplatonists were prepared to argue for the harmony of Aristotle and Plato is contained in a reference in Photius’ Bibliography to the Neoplatonist Hierocles’ statement that Ammonius of Alexandria, the teacher of Plotinus, attempted to resolve the conflict between the disciples of Plato and Aristotle, showing that they were in fact ‘of one and the same mind’ ( ).8 The second indication of an effort to display harmony is found in the Suda where it is stated that Porphyry, Plotinus’ disciple, produced a work in six books titled ‘On Plato and Aristotle Being Adherents of the Same School’ ( ).9 We know nothing of this work apart from the title and what we can infer from what Porphyry actually says in the extant works. It seems reasonably clear, however, that a work of such length was attempting to provide a substantial argument, one which was evidently in opposition to at least some prevailing views. It is also perhaps the case that Porphyry is questioning the basis for the traditional division of the ‘schools’ of ancient philosophy, as found, for example, in Diogenes Laertius.10 That Aristotle was at least to a certain extent an independent thinker and so not simply categorized by adherence to a ‘school’, is hardly in doubt. But just as Plotinus’ claim to be eschewing novelty may be met with some legitimate skepticism, so Aristotle’s claim to be radically innovative may be met with the same skepticism. The question of whether Aristotelianism is or is not in harmony with Platonism is certainly not going to be answered decisively by anything Aristotle says suggesting it is not. We should acknowledge that the Neoplatonists looked back at their great predecessors with some critical distance, as we do. What may have appeared to Aristotle as a great chasm between himself and his teacher may have justifiably appeared 7 much less so to those looking at both philosophers some 600 to 900 years later. The sense in which the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato were held by Neoplatonists to be in harmony is roughly the sense in which we might say that Newtonian mechanics is in harmony with quantum mechanics or sentential logic is in harmony with predicate logic. The principal point of these analogies lies in the relative comprehensive of quantum mechanics and predicate logic. But the more comprehensive theories are also better theories. Thus, in countless matters relating to physical nature, Aristotle’s preeminence and authority was readily acknowledged. But Aristotle did not, according to the Neoplatonists, possess the correct comprehensive view of all reality. In particular, he misconceived the first principle of all reality. But in part because he did recognize that there was a first principle and that it was separate from and prior to the sensible world, he is legitimately counted as being fundamentally in harmony with Plato. Aristotle’s own view of Plato philosophy is a notoriously vexed topic.11 There are scores of references to Plato’s views in Aristotle’s works. Most of these are references to the dialogues; a few of these are references to Plato’s ‘unwritten teachings’. There are also references to what can be loosely described as ‘Academic positions’ such as a belief in Forms that might well include Plato but probably also include others. Insofar as Aristotle’s exposition and analysis of Plato’s views are based solely on the dialogues, they can presumably be independently evaluated for accuracy, as Harold Cherniss has does, in some cases with considerable deflationary force. Unfortunately, however, even if we imagine we can isolate the putative ‘unwritten teachings’ and so refuse to let them contaminate our evaluation of Aristotle’s account of Plato’s views in the dialogues, we must allow that Plato’s meaning is often hard to interpret. {=============}
Q. 3 Elaborate Plato’s distrust of democracy. What had been the justification with Plato for distrusting democracy? Explain with examples.
Answer: Plato (429?–347 B.C.E.) is, by any reckoning, one of the most dazzling writers in the Western literary tradition and one of the most penetrating, wide-ranging, and influential authors in the history of philosophy. An Athenian citizen of high status, he displays in his works his absorption in the political events and intellectual movements of his time, but the questions he raises are so profound and the strategies he uses for tackling them so richly suggestive and provocative that educated readers of nearly every period have in some way been influenced by him, and in practically every age there have been philosophers who count themselves Platonists in some important respects. He was not the first thinker or writer to whom the word “philosopher” should be applied. But he was so self-conscious about how philosophy should be conceived, and what its scope and ambitions properly are, and he so transformed the intellectual currents with which he grappled, 8 that the subject of philosophy, as it is often conceived—a rigorous and systematic examination of ethical, political, metaphysical, and epistemological issues, armed with a distinctive method—can be called his invention. Few other authors in the history of Western philosophy approximate him in depth and range: perhaps only Aristotle (who studied with him), Aquinas, and Kant would be generally agreed to be of the same rank. Athenian democracy came about around 550 BCE. At the time the system of government was designed to be a direct democracy, which would mean that every eligible citizen would have the opportunity to vote on each piece of legislation. Aside from political revolutions around 400 BCE, Athenian democracy remained remarkably stable and well maintained. This new form of government empowered the common citizen in ways that were unheard of. Individuals not from aristocracy, yet who possessed political ambition, often found themselves hoisted to the highest ranks of Athenian politics. One example is the famous Athenian general and statesman Themistocles, who would be essential in the salvation of Greece during the second Persian invasion. For these reasons, Athens is often regarded as the birthplace of democracy and the cradle of western civilization. Of course it was far from perfect. Only free men who had completed their military service were allowed to vote on any legislation. This meant that only about 20% of the population were actually able to vote. Women were not allowed to vote and subsequently possessed significantly fewer rights than men. These were not the only complaints against the early democracy of Athens. In the course of his writings, the philosopher Plato extensively examined what he considered serious dangers that resided within the system of democracy. The first, rather obvious, strike against Athenian democracy is that there was a tendency for people to be casually executed. It is understandable why Plato would despise democracy, considering that his friend and mentor, Socrates, was condemned to death by the policy makers of Athens in 399 BCE. Plato would write about the trial of Socrates in his first essay The Apology. Plato would later describe the trial of Socrates as a doctor being persecuted by a pastry chef and judged by a jury of children. Still, Socrates was not the only man to be executed in such a manner. During the Peloponnesian war, the ten treasurers of the Delian League were accused of embezzling funds from the Athenian treasury. These men were tried and executed one after another until only one remained. It was only after nine men were dead, that a simple accounting error was discovered and the remaining treasurer was released. Also, after the naval victory of Arginusae, several Athenian commanders were 9 accused of failing to collect survivors after the battle. Six commanders were executed for failing to perform their duties. The city would later repent for these executions by executing the original men who had accused the generals. Death of Socrates It might be easy to assume that Plato held a grudge over the death of his mentor. Certainly, the numerous executions would give reason to doubt the system of Athenian democracy. However Plato believed there was a far more sinister nature to democracy. A calamity at the very heart of democracy, it would lead only to tyranny and subjugation. In book VIII of The Republic, Plato begins to describe several stages of government that are intolerable, yet unavoidable. Plato predicts a society with an enormous socioeconomic gap, where the poor remain poor and the rich become richer off the blood and sweat of others. In this instance, the people will long for freedom and liberty. They will use it as a battle cry against their oppressors, sparking a revolution. From this revolution, blood will be spilled and many will die. During this time of violent transition, the people will rally behind one man, or a few men, whom they believe to be their savior. The people will lift this champion to great heights and anoint him with sacred responsibilities to bring liberty to the land. When the smoke clears the old regime will be gone and a democracy will be supplanted. And while this is reminiscent of several historical revolutions, including the American revolution, Plato warns that the trouble only intensifies from here. During the course of his writings Plato differentiates between necessary desires and unnecessary desires. Necessary desires are desires we can not over come, such as our desire for shelter and sustenance. Unnecessary desires are desires that we are able to overcome, yet refuse to. These desires include luxuries and lavish possessions. These types of desires are a result of a rapid influx of liberty into the population. Once we have tasted freedom we become drunk off it. Plato predicts that the people will demand freedom at every turn, fighting any form of authority and demanding more liberty. We become obsessed with our freedom and become willing to sacrifice necessary things like social order and structure to attain it. At this point, the newly appointed leaders become very nervous. It was so easy to depose their predecessors, so why not them? These democratic leaders will realize that they are only easily supported when there is a war that the people can rally behind. And so the democratic leaders will unnecessarily become involved in violent affairs, creating wars to distract the people. To ensure their power, the leaders will create laws to bolster their position. The rulers will impose heavy taxes against the commoners to ensure 10 they are unable or unwilling to fight back against this. And any who do oppose the leaders will be labeled as an enemy and persecuted as a spy. It is for this reason that there must always be some enemy combatant that the leader can cast blame upon. Plato continues in his discussion by explaining that the these leaders will eventually become unpopular, an unavoidable result. Those who once supported this ruling class begin to rebel against the would be tyrant. At this point the citizens will try to get rid of whatever man is currently in office, either by exile or impeachment. If this is not possible, the ruler will inevitable strike down any political opposition he may have. Hated by the people, these leaders will request the presence of a body guard. And now he is a tyrant, the leader has no choice if he wishes to rule. Elected by the people, yet now he is protected from them. Plato predicts that this tyrant will appeal to the lowest form of citizen. He will make soldiers of the slaves and the degenerates. The tyrant will pay them to protect him from the ordinary citizens. And now the leader is a tyrant, born from democracy and propped up by the demand for liberty. And in our quest for liberty, we instead created a monster. Plato’s description of a democracy is rather thought provoking. It gives us pause and forces us to examine our own government. Could it be true that our leaders are the bullies and the political tyrants that Plato describes? Does democracy lead to entangling wars for the benefit of the ruling class? And are the people so subjugated by senseless laws and stiff taxes, that they are unable to resist in any meaningful way? Perhaps. History has shown a consistent pattern of subjugation, revolution and subjugation once again. Plato predicted that democracy would lead to nations being governed by bullies and brutes. Take a minute and think about the people who are running whatever country you are in and tell him he is wrong. And before you decide to judge the philosopher Plato, try to remember that he is often considered one of the wisest men to ever live; an individual whose work was so profound that it shaped the direction of western thought and culture. Indeed, it has been said that any philosophy after Plato can only be considered a footnote on any of his work. Yet, we are allowed to doubt him if we wish. Rather ironically, that is a freedom we are allowed. It was the political philosopher Thomas Paine who describe government as, “at best, a necessary evil”. And if we are to think in this manner, then perhaps democracy is simply the least damaging form of government we have been able to create over the course of human existence. A thinly veiled tyranny is better than outright oppression. 11 Whatever your opinions of democracy, American or otherwise, it is necessary to keep in mind these charges Plato has laid before us. And the next time we celebrate the 4th of July, keep in mind that a far wiser man than any of us once called to our attention the unavoidable and disastrous nature of the pursuit of liberty. {=============}
Q.4 Make a critical analysis of the idea of mixed state propounded by Plato. Discuss the important features of mixed state which had been ascribed to it by Plato?
Answer: Plato is one of the world's best known and most widely read and studied philosophers. He was the student of Socrates and the teacher of Aristotle, and he wrote in the middle of the fourth century B.C.E. in ancient Greece. Though influenced primarily by Socrates, to the extent that Socrates is usually the main character in many of Plato's writings, he was also influenced by Heraclitus, Parmenides, and the Pythagoreans. There are varying degrees of controversy over which of Plato's works are authentic, and in what order they were written, due to their antiquity and the manner of their preservation through time. Nonetheless, his earliest works are generally regarded as the most reliable of the ancient sources on Socrates, and the character Socrates that we know through these writings is considered to be one of the greatest of the ancient philosophers. According to Plato, Socrates postulated a world of ideal Forms, which he admitted were impossible to know. Nevertheless, he formulated a very specific description of that world, which did not match his metaphysical principles. Corresponding to the world of Forms is our world, that of the shadows, an imitation of the real one. Just as shadows exist only because of the light of a fire, our world exists as, "the offspring of the good". Our world is modeled after the patterns of the Forms. The function of humans in our world is therefore to imitate the ideal world as much as possible which, importantly, includes imitating the good, i.e. acting morally. Plato lays out much of this theory in the "Republic" where, in an attempt to define Justice, he considers many topics including the constitution of the ideal state. While this state, and the Forms, do not exist on earth, because their imitations do, Plato says we are able to form certain well-founded opinions about them, through a theory called recollection. The republic is a greater imitation of Justice: Our aim in founding the state was not the disproportional happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole; we thought that in a state ordered with a view to the good of the whole we should be most likely to find justice. 12 The key to not know how such a state might come into existence is the word "founding" (oikidzomen), which is used of colonization. It was customary in such instances to receive a constitution from an elected or appointed lawgiver; however in Athens, lawgivers were appointed to reform the constitution from time to time (for example, Draco, Solon). In speaking of reform, Socrates uses the word "purge" (diakathairountes) in the same sense that Forms exist purged of matter. The purged society is a regulated one presided over by philosophers educated by the state, who maintain three non-hereditary classes as required: the tradesmen (including merchants and professionals), the guardians (militia and police) and the philosophers (legislators, administrators and the philosopher-king). Class is assigned at the end of education, when the state institutes individuals in their occupation. Socrates expects class to be hereditary but he allows for mobility according to natural ability. The criteria for selection by the academics is ability to perceive forms (the analog of English "intelligence") and martial spirit as well as predisposition or aptitude. The views of Socrates on the proper order of society are certainly contrary to Athenian values of the time and must have produced a shock effect, intentional or not, accounting for the animosity against him. For example, reproduction is much too important to be left in the hands of untrained individuals: "... the possession of women and the procreation of children ... will ... follow the general principle that friends have all things in common, ...." The family is therefore to be abolished and the children – whatever their parentage – to be raised by the appointed mentors of the state. Their genetic fitness is to be monitored by the physicians: "... he (Asclepius, a culture hero) did not want to lengthen out good-for-nothing lives, or have weak fathers begetting weaker sons – if a man was not able to live in the ordinary way he had no business to cure him ...." Physicians minister to the healthy rather than cure the sick: "... (Physicians) will minister to better natures, giving health both of soul and of body; but those who are diseased in their bodies they will leave to die, and the corrupt and incurable souls they will put an end to themselves." Nothing at all in Greek medicine so far as can be known supports the airy (in the Athenian view) propositions of Socrates. Yet it is hard to be sure of Socrates' real views considering that there are no works written by Socrates himself. There are two common ideas pertaining to the beliefs and character of Socrates: the first being the Mouthpiece Theory where writers use Socrates in dialogue as a mouthpiece to get their own views across. However, since most of what we know about Socrates comes from plays, most of the Platonic plays are accepted as the more accurate Socrates since Plato was a direct student of Socrates. Perhaps the most important principle is that just as the Good must be supreme so must its image, the state, take precedence over individuals in everything. For example, guardians "... will have to be watched at every 13 age in order that we may see whether they preserve their resolution and never, under the influence either of force or enchantment, forget or cast off their sense of duty to the state." This concept of requiring guardians of guardians perhaps suffers from the Third Man weakness (see below): guardians require guardians require guardians, ad infinitum. The ultimate trusty guardian is missing. Socrates does not hesitate to face governmental issues many later governors have found formidable: "Then if anyone at all is to have the privilege of lying, the rulers of the state should be the persons, and they ... may be allowed to lie for the public good." Plato's conception of Forms actually differs from dialogue to dialogue, and in certain respects it is never fully explained, so many aspects of the theory are open to interpretation. Forms are first introduced in the Phaedo, but in that dialogue the concept is simply referred to as something the participants are already familiar with, and the theory itself is not developed. Similarly, in the Republic, Plato relies on the concept of Forms as the basis of many of his arguments but feels no need to argue for the validity of the theory itself or to explain precisely what Forms are. Commentators have been left with the task of explaining what Forms are and how visible objects participate in them, and there has been no shortage of disagreement. Some scholars advance the view that Forms are paradigms, perfect examples on which the imperfect world is modeled. Others interpret Forms as universals, so that the Form of Beauty, for example, is that quality that all beautiful things share. Yet others interpret Forms as "stuffs," the conglomeration of all instances of a quality in the visible world. Under this interpretation, we could say there is a little beauty in one person, a little beauty in another—all the beauty in the world put together is the Form of Beauty. Plato himself was aware of the ambiguities and inconsistencies in his Theory of Forms, as is evident from the incisive criticism he makes of his own theory in the Parmenides. {=============}
Q.5 What was the importance of distinction between different kinds of rule for Aristotle? Elaborate kinds of rule by focusing on the writings of Aristotle?
Answer: In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) describes the happy life intended for man by nature as one lived in accordance with virtue, and, in his Politics, he describes the role that politics and the political community must play in bringing about the virtuous life in the citizenry. The Politics also provides analysis of the kinds of political community that existed in his time and shows where and how these cities fall short of the ideal community of virtuous citizens. Although in some ways we have clearly moved beyond his thought (for example, his belief in the inferiority of women and his approval 14 of slavery in at least some circumstances), there remains much in Aristotle’s philosophy that is valuable today. In particular, his views on the connection between the well-being of the political community and that of the citizens who make it up, his belief that citizens must actively participate in politics if they are to be happy and virtuous, and his analysis of what causes and prevents revolution within political communities have been a source of inspiration for many contemporary theorists, especially those unhappy with the liberal political philosophy promoted by thinkers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Who Should Rule? This brings us to perhaps the most contentious of political questions: how should the regime be organized? Another way of putting this is: who should rule? In Books IV-VI Aristotle explores this question by looking at the kinds of regimes that actually existed in the Greek world and answering the question of who actually does rule. By closely examining regimes that actually exist, we can draw conclusions about the merits and drawbacks of each. Like political scientists today, he studied the particular political phenomena of his time in order to draw larger conclusions about how regimes and political institutions work and how they should work. As has been mentioned above, in order to do this, he sent his students throughout Greece to collect information on the regimes and histories of the Greek cities, and he uses this information throughout the Politics to provide examples that support his arguments. (According to Diogenes Laertius, histories and descriptions of the regimes of 158 cities were written, but only one of these has come down to the present: the Constitution of Athens mentioned above). Another way he used this data was to create a typology of regimes that was so successful that it ended up being used until the time of Machiavelli nearly 2000 years later. He used two criteria to sort the regimes into six categories. The first criterion that is used to distinguish among different kinds of regimes is the number of those ruling: one man, a few men, or the many. The second is perhaps a little more unexpected: do those in power, however many they are, rule only in their own interest or do they rule in the interest of all the citizens? "[T]hose regimes which look to the common advantage are correct regimes according to what is unqualifiedly just, while those which look only to the advantage of the rulers are errant, and are all deviations from the correct regimes; for they involve mastery, but the city is a partnership of free persons" (1279a16). Having established these as the relevant criteria, in Book III Chapter 7 Aristotle sets out the six kinds of regimes. The correct regimes are monarchy (rule by one man for the common good), aristocracy (rule by a 15 few for the common good), and polity (rule by the many for the common good); the flawed or deviant regimes are tyranny (rule by one man in his own interest), oligarchy (rule by the few in their own interest), and democracy (rule by the many in their own interest). Aristotle later ranks them in order of goodness, with monarchy the best, aristocracy the next best, then polity, democracy, oligarchy, and tyranny (1289a38). People in Western societies are used to thinking of democracy as a good form of government - maybe the only good form of government – but Aristotle considers it one of the flawed regimes (although it is the least bad of the three) and you should keep that in mind in his discussion of it. You should also keep in mind that by the "common good" Aristotle means the common good of the citizens, and not necessarily all the residents of the city. The women, slaves, and manual laborers are in the city for the good of the citizens. Almost immediately after this typology is created, Aristotle clarifies it: the real distinction between oligarchy and democracy is in fact the distinction between whether the wealthy or the poor rule (1279b39), not whether the many or the few rule. Since it is always the case that the poor are many while the wealthy are few, it looks like it is the number of the rulers rather than their wealth which distinguishes the two kinds of regimes (he elaborates on this in IV.4). All cities have these two groups, the many poor and the few wealthy, and Aristotle was well aware that it was the conflict between these two groups that caused political instability in the cities, even leading to civil wars (Thucydides describes this in his History of the Peloponnesian War, and the Constitution of Athens also discusses the consequences of this conflict). Aristotle therefore spends a great deal of time discussing these two regimes and the problem of political instability, and we will focus on this problem as well. First, however, let us briefly consider with Aristotle one other valid claim to rule. Those who are most virtuous have, Aristotle says, the strongest claim of all to rule. If the city exists for the sake of developing virtue in the citizens, then those who have the most virtue are the most fit to rule; they will rule best, and on behalf of all the citizens, establishing laws that lead others to virtue. However, if one man or a few men of exceptional virtue exist in the regime, we will be outside of politics: "If there is one person so outstanding by his excess of virtue - or a number of persons, though not enough to provide a full complement for the city – that the virtue of all the others and their political capacity is not commensurable…such persons can no longer be regarded as part of the city" (1284a4). It would be wrong for the other people in the city to claim the right to rule over them or share rule with them, just as it would be wrong for people to claim the right to share power with Zeus. The proper thing would be to obey them (1284b28). But this situation is extremely unlikely (1287b40). Instead, cities will be made up of people who are similar and equal, which leads to problems of its own. 16 The most pervasive of these is that oligarchs and democrats each advance a claim to political power based on justice. For Aristotle, justice dictates that equal people should get equal things, and unequal people should get unequal things. If, for example, two students turn in essays of identical quality, they should each get the same grade. Their work is equal, and so the reward should be too. If they turn in essays of different quality, they should get different grades which reflect the differences in their work. But the standards used for grading papers are reasonably straightforward, and the consequences of this judgment are not that important, relatively speaking - they certainly are not worth fighting and dying for. But the stakes are raised when we ask how we should judge the question of who should rule, for the standards here are not straightforward and disagreement over the answer to this question frequently does lead men (and women) to fight and die. What does justice require when political power is being distributed? Aristotle says that both groups - the oligarchs and democrats – offer judgments about this, but neither of them gets it right, because "the judgment concerns themselves, and most people are bad judges concerning their own things" (1280a14). (This was the political problem that was of most concern to the authors of the United States Constitution: given that people are self-interested and ambitious, who can be trusted with power? Their answer differs from Aristotle's, but it is worth pointing out the persistence of the problem and the difficulty of solving it). The oligarchs assert that their greater wealth entitles them to greater power, which means that they alone should rule, while the democrats say that the fact that all are equally free entitles each citizen to an equal share of political power (which, because most people are poor, means that in effect the poor rule). If the oligarchs' claim seems ridiculous, you should keep in mind that the American colonies had property qualifications for voting; those who could not prove a certain level of wealth were not allowed to vote. And poll taxes, which required people to pay a tax in order to vote and therefore kept many poor citizens (including almost all African-Americans) from voting, were not eliminated in the United States until the mid20th century. At any rate, each of these claims to rule, Aristotle says, is partially correct but partially wrong. We will consider the nature of democracy and oligarchy shortly. Aristotle also in Book III argues for a principle that has become one of the bedrock principles of liberal democracy: we ought, to the extent possible, allow the law to rule. "One who asks the law to rule, therefore, is held to be asking god and intellect alone to rule, while one who asks man adds the beast. Desire is a thing of this sort; and spiritedness perverts rulers and the best men. Hence law is intellect without appetite" (1287a28)
Course: Social Theory–I (4669)
Semester: Spring 2019
Level: M. Sc (Pak Studies)
ASSIGNMENT No. 2
Q. 1 What was the new art of the statesman according to Aristotle? Discuss in detail the new art of statesman and its difference from the ideas of Aristotle propounded earlier.
Answer: Aristotle (384-322 BC.) was one of the greatest thinkers of antiquity. His opinions had an important effect in the formation of Ancient Greek philosophy. His contributions to the development of philosophical thought also had an enormous influence in the forming of contemporary thought. His art philosophy on the other hand played an efficient part in the historical development of aesthetics. He was born in the city of Stagira in Macedonia. He entered Plato’s Academy (Akademia) at the age of eighteen and became one of his pupils. After Plato died, he went to the city of Assos (Behramkale) and joined a group of Platonists. Then he went to Lesbos (Midilli) and studied zoology with Theophrastus who would be his successor. He was invited to Pella by Philip to educate Alexander in 343-342 BC. When he came back to Athens in 335 BC. he found his school in the sacred grove dedicated to Apollo Lycius and muses. His school was known as “Lyceum” but it was also named “Peripatetics” for he was lecturing walking up and down. He remained in Athens for thirteen years. After Alexander died and anti-Macedonian ideas increased, he went to Chalcis on Euboea island (in Aegean sea) and died there in 322 BC. He was the originator of many lines of research unknown before him such as logic, grammar, rhetoric, literary criticism, natural history, physiology, psychology and history of philosophy. It is proper to say that he was under the influence of Plato in the first period of his literary activity. The book known as “On The Soul” was from this period. As well as “Protrepticus” -a letter addressed to Themison, the king of Cyprus-, the oldest fragments of “Organon”, “Physics” and “De Anima (book R)” were written in this period too. In the second era of his activity Aristotle had a critical attitude against Plato’s doctrines. The books such as “On The Philosophy”, “Metaphysics (a preliminary study)”, “Eudemian Ethics”, “Politics (2., 3., 7., 8. books)” and “De Caelo” were the works of this era. In the third period of his literary activity in Lyceum, Aristotle appeared as an observer and scientist. He studied nature and history in detail. In fact there was a classification study at a certain level for logical goals in Plato’s Academy. But the continual and systematic study developed by Aristotle in Lyceum 2 made the former one unimportant. This logical study method represented something new in Greek world. “The Categories”, “De Interpretatione”, “Analytica Priora”, “Analytica Posteriora”, “Topica”, “Sophisms”, “Metaphysics”, “Physics”, “Meteorologica”, “Animal History”, “Magna Moralia”, “Nicomachean Ethics”, “Politics (1., 4., 5., 6. books), “Rhetoric” and “Poetics” were the works of this period . Aristotle’s writings and library which he bequeathed to Theophrastus were brought to Athens in 100 BC. by Apellicon of Teos (Sığacık), a bibliophile. He tried to restore them. When Athens was conquered by the Romans, they were brought to Rome and copied by Tyrannion, the grammarian. Afterwards Andronicus of Rhodes (Rodos), the Peripatetic philosopher edited them on the basis of these copies . The Place Of Art In Aristotelian Thought “Poetics” is the first source we must turn to to understand Aristotle’s ideas on art. But as it is about literature -especially poetry- it is not sufficient to comprehend his art philosophy as a whole. Yet there are so many different illustrations of art in his other books that these may be considered as the clues to grasp Aristotelian general art philosophy. Even if he gave these examples to make his ideas clear, we may perceive by means of them the way he interpreted art and also it’s place in his doctrine. According to Aristotle; the human spirit “…attains the truth by art, science, sensibility, wisdom and intellegence…” . Because, beings on earth came into existence for we grasped them. A house existed if it was perceived. A book or another object came into existence as long as it was perceived. Aristotle’s opinion characterized his art philosophy. The beauty concept might have been mentioned when there was an artistic creation or creations. There was a difference between him and Plato at this point. Because according to Plato; the beauty of a work of art might have been discussed when there was the idea of beautiful. Ancient Greek society in which Aristotle formed his opinions and revealed his ideas created a universe of human shaped (anthropomorphic) gods. These immortals had a great importance in daily life. As well as the temples, the open areas were full with the sculptures of gods. The Greeks would arrange religious ceremonies -sometimes with killing an animal as a sacrifice- to satisfy them. Because the immortals didn’t only reign over the cosmos but also controlled the destinies of every individual and city one by one. For example a god might have hated or cared for a specific mortal. It was even possible for a god to love a mortal and have children with her or him. According to Aristotle; god is beyond being human shaped. It is simple and bare. It has neither size nor quality. It is pure form. It is perfection, intellect. It is a sublime being. It is not related to the 3 concept of matter . According to him; “…Life is god. Because the act of mind is life and god is act itself. We grasp god as a being that is sempiternal and perfect” . He also criticized the traditional god concept of the society by saying: “…A tradition which remained from the distant ancestors of ours and quotted to the later generations as a legend implied that the first substances were gods and also the divine included the whole nature. The rest of the tradition was added later as a legend to persuade the mass and to serve the law and public interest. So gods were given human shape or were represented resembling animals…” . According to some authorities; the book “Peri Cosmoi” (On The Cosmos) was a work of Aristotle. Actually, it was a letter written to Alexander. Here; Aristotle discussed one of the famous statues of his era while mentioning the sovereign of god over the universe. “…While Pheidias, the sculptor worked on the statue of Athena in Acropolis, he placed his own portrait in the middle of her shield. So he joined the pieces in a way that whoever tried to remove the portrait, he or she would have to tear the sculpture to pieces. The relation between god and the universe is like this. God guarantees the harmony, existence and continuity of the cosmos in this way…” . The sculpture he discussed was “Athena Parthenos” which Pheidias carved in 440 BC. It was rumored to be gigantic and would stand in the middle -naos- of the temple of Athena in Athens. It’s height was 11.5 meters and was made with golden-ivory (chryselephantine) blend. It was adorned with countless details and the shield which the goddess hold was fulled with the war scenes between Amazons -the female warriors- and giants. In the middle of it, there was the depiction of Pericles, the Athenian statesman along with Pheidias’. In “Protrepticus” (Invitation To Philosophical Thought); Aristotle characterized the nature of artistic activity. This was a letter he wrote to Themison, the king of Cyprus. According to Aristotle; “…It is not nature which imitates man’s ability. This capability imitates nature. And ability exists to support nature and finish which it didn’t complete… If man’s ability imitates nature, it is a fact that the aim of man’s work bases on nature. As order dominates nature, nothing is coincidental. On the contrary, everyhing is intentional. It provides the materialization of the goal which is in a higher degree than all humane arts by excluding the coincidental. Because humane ability imitates nature…”. According to the tradition which existed since Plato; art was an imitation. Imitation to nature, imitation to reality. Otherwise artistic activity was an action of imitation. But for Plato, artistic activities were worthless. As he was an idealist, he thought that the original of everyting was in the universe of ideas. All realities that were seen on earth were the copies of their originals. So when an artist painted a 4 human portrait or a sculptor carved a lion statue, he reproduced the copy of the original. According to Plato; even poetry must have been excluded from the state. However Aristotle thought that; a work of art existed to complete what nature created imititating the perfect without finishing. “Eudemian Ethics” which Aristotle wrote in the second era of his literary activity consisted of seven books. In the seventh book; he discussed friendship mentioning that only the ones who resembled each other could be friends. “…It seems that; we share the good we possess with the friends. While some share the body pleasure the others share the contemplation of a work of art or philosophy…. “Politics” which explained how a state should have taken shape consisted of eight books. Aristotle wrote the second, third, seventh and the eighth ones in this period . In the eighth book; he wrote that musical education was an obligation for the young. “… There are resemblances to actual -of anger, gentleness, courage, moderateness and the opposites of them as well as the whole ethical qualities- in rhythms and melodies. That is why the music we listen to make a sentimental alteration on us. Feeling pleasure or pain toward the things that resemble to actual is very similar to feeling the same way in facing the actual itself. I mean if a man has the pleasure of looking at a statue, he will have the same pleasure of gazing at it’s original. It is true that things that are perceived, touched or tasted have no resemblance to spiritual quailities. But music has moral characteristics. The melodies we hear represent them. People who hear the Mycsolydian mode feel grief. While the tender ones make them feel relieved, the Doric one creates a moderate feeling. Yet the Phrygian mode is exciting. All these show that music has the power of creating specific feelings. So it is obvious that the young must have a musical education and they should be educated…”. Aristotle researched the topics such as ontology, theology and classification of sciences in “Metaphysics” which consisted of fourteen books. They were seperated from one another with the Greek letters or numbers. Book A, Book B, Book K 1.-8., Book M 9.-10. and Book N were formed in the second period of his studies . It is probable that; Aristotle named his book “Peri Tes Protes Philosophias” (The First Philosophy). “Metaphysics” (meta ta physica) was used by Andronicus, his first publisher . {=============} 5
Q. 2 The physiological principle behind all behavior is self-preservation, and self-preservation means just the continuance of individual biological existence. Good is what conduces to this end and evil what has the opposite effect.’ Discuss this statement in the light of Hobbes’ idea of self-preservation?
Answer: Thomas Hobbes: social contract In his account of human psychology and the human condition, Hobbes identifies a first law of nature: "by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved." [Leviathan, Ch. VI] Noting that self-preservation is rationally sought by communal agreement with others, he derives a second law of nature; "From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their right, as well as he, then there is no reason for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound to, rather than to dispose himself to peace. This is that law of the gospel: Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them." [Leviathan, Ch. VI] You might recognize this law as a version of the Golden Rule. You have probably encountered statements of the Golden Rule in many situations. Have you ever been given a sound argument for that rule? Such is Hobbes' commitment to systematic philosophical reasoning, that he will not merely instate a principle that is accepted by many. Rather he provides a reasoned basis for accordance with this principle. Having concluded that it is natural and rational for people to give up some liberty in order to gain security of selfpreservation, Hobbes develops a conception of what forms of social organization and political system are consistent with those aims. The condition in which people give up some individual liberty in exchange for some common security is the Social Contract. Hobbes defines contract as "the mutual transferring of right." In the state of nature, everyone has the right to everything - there are no limits to the right of natural liberty. The social contract is the agreement by which individuals mutually transfer their natural right. In other words, I give up my natural right to steal your food because you give up your natural right to steal mine. In place of the natural right we have created a limited right; in 6 this case the right of property. Hobbes notes that we do not make these agreements explicitly because we are born into a civil society with laws and conventions (i.e. contracts) already in place. It is by performing the thought experiment regarding the state of nature and following the chain of reasoning Hobbes put before us that we can see the foundations of our commitment to civil law. One matter that Hobbes' investigation allows is the examination of governments for the purpose of determining their legitimacy. The purpose of a government is enforce law and serve the common protection. Wherever the government turns to favor the strong over the weak, one might way that the government has exceeded its legitimate function. In Hobbes' time the rulers claimed their authority to rule by virtue of divine right. God made them King and anyone who questioned the authority of the King was challenging God. Hobbes made some powerful enemies by doing just that. Even though he supported the monarchy as the legitimate government, his philosophy clearly establishes the right of the monarch on the grounds of reasoned principle, rather than divine right. Hobbes secularized politics which led to an increasing demand for accountability of rulers to the people. The impact of this development on contemporary life is profound. One of Hobbes' enduring images is that of the artificial man. He describes the State (a political entity, e.g. a nation) on the model of an individual human body. "that great LEVIATHAN called a COMMONWEALTH, or STATE (in Latin, CIVITAS), which is but an artificial man, though of greater stature and strength than the natural, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; the magistrates and other officers of judicature and execution, artificial joints; reward and (by which fastened to the seat of the sovereignty, every joint and member is moved to perform his duty) are the nerves, that do the same in the body natural; the wealth and riches of all the particular members are the strength; salus populi (the people's safety) its business; counsellors, by whom all things needful for it to know are suggested unto it, are the memory; equity and laws, an artificial reason and will; concord, health; sedition, sickness; and civil war, death." The above picture is from the frontpeice of the 1660 edition of Hobbes' Leviathan. Note that the figure of the State/Ruler is composed of citizens, territory, and commerce. Now when you hear the term "body politic" you will know where it comes from. Hobbes' has an important message for us today. Even though governmental structures have changed radically and political philosophies operate on very different bases, it is still common to hear proposals that we must give up liberty for security. Such proposals are directly related to Hobbes' ideas. Before readily accepting or rejecting such 7proposals, it is wise to consider the source. Study Hobbes to find out the roots and branches of such political proposals. {=============}
Q. 3 ‘A church therefore is a corporation. Like any corporation it must have a head and the head is the sovereign.’ Critically analyze the views of Hobbes on the relations between the state and the church in the light of the given statement?
Answer: Hobbes’s views on church–state relations go well beyond Erastianism. Rather than claiming that the state holds supremacy over the church, Hobbes argued that church and state are identical in Christian commonwealths. This chapter shows that Hobbes advanced two distinct arguments for the church– state identity thesis over time. Both arguments are of considerable interest. The argument found in De Cive explains how the sovereign unifies a multitude of Christians into one personified church— without, intriguingly, any appeal to representation. Leviathan’s argument is premised on the sovereign’s authorized representation of Christian subjects. Authorization explains why, from Leviathan onwards, full sacerdotal powers are ex officioattributed to the sovereign. In Hobbes’s mature theory, every clerical power, including baptism and consecration, derives from the sovereign— now labelled ‘the Supreme Pastor’. Developments in Hobbes’s account of church personation thus explain Leviathan’s theocratic turn. Unlike Locke, Hobbes seeks to embrace religion. But it is a deadly embrace Locke advocates the separation of church and state that has become engrained in our conception of a secular republic: “I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other.” However, there is no room for such separation in Hobbesian political theory: “Temporal and spiritual government, are but two words, brought into the world, to make men see double, and mistake their lawful sovereign.” The embrace of the Leviathan must encompass everything in its domain, including religion. But in this temporal clutch religion cannot breath as a spiritual practice. This may be just as well for Hobbes, but Locke insists on carving out of space of religious freedom. To understand this divergence we must probe the metaphysical and social theoretical foundations of their political theories and tease out the normative commitments entailed therein. Locke takes seriously the place of God and spiritual practice in human existence, leading him ineluctably to religious freedom at the expense of a realistic account of the political implications of religious practice. Whereas Hobbes takes seriously religion as a social force and, having little use for it as a path to 8 salvation, perceives religious pluralism as a threat to the prime objective of his political theory: social order. The tension between these seminal political philosophers illuminates the importance of ontological and epistemological foundations of political theory: what is the nature of our existence and what/how can we know? Divergent conceptions of God vis-à-vis the human condition lead here to opposite conclusions regarding the role of religion in society vis-à-vis the state. In A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke takes for granted a good deal of Christian dogma. He provides a liberal gloss, insisting that the true mark of Christianity is “charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians.” But the fundamental ontology of Christian theology remains in place as a frame for his theory and the scriptures persist as a source of knowledge about the nature of the world with which political principles must contend: Every man has an immortal soul, capable of eternal happiness or misery; whole happiness depending upon his believing and doing those things in this life, which are necessary to the obtaining of God’s favour, and are prescribed by God to that end: it follows from thence, first, that the observance of these things is the highest obligation that lies upon mankind, and that our utmost care, application, and diligence, ought to be exercised in the search and performance of them; because there is nothing in this world that is of any consideration in comparison with eternity. Any political theory so premised must make space for genuine religion, that is, spiritual practice most likely to lead to the salvation of human souls. With eternal happiness or misery putatively at stake, there can be little room for compromise with political prerogatives of the temporal domain. The security of the state is surely desirable, but not at the expense of eternal damnation of its subjects. Salvation is too important to be left to the sovereign. Contrast this with Hobbes’s worldview which literally leaves no room for an immaterial soul. His work in natural philosophy relentlessly sought to disprove the existence of any immaterial substances. As for ‘God,’ he leaves us guessing, but leaves the widest possible latitude for the signifier. Notably he writes: When we say any thing is infinite, we signify only that we are not able to conceive the ends and bounds of the thing named, having no conception of the thing, but of our own inability. And therefore the name of God is used, not to make us conceive him (for he is incomprehensible, and his greatnesse, and power are unconceivable), but that we may honour him. 9 Given God as the unconceivable, Hobbes strictly avoids in his argumentation premises that depend on some knowledge of God obtained by means other than reason. Hobbes gives an account rooted in the nature and capacities of man and religious references are typically reduced to those terms. In the first page the creative power of God is transferred to men who willfully create the artificial body of the state that is the Leviathan. The best prophet he says “naturally is the best guesser.” His account of language which is central to his notion of right philosophy begins with mention of God’s gift of words to Adam, but then roots the significance of human communication in our ability to make language our own without restriction to God-given semantics. “The Scripture was written to shew unto men the kingdom of God, and to prepare their minds to become his obedient subjects, leaving the world and the philosophy thereof to the disputation of men for the exercising of their natural reason.” With respect to superstitions such as belief in demons, Hobbes “can imagine no reason but that which is common to all men, namely, the want of curiosity to search natural causes.” And he squarely attacks the Scholastic philosophers for promoting a spiritual ontology of immaterial bodies and spreading absurd notions like “substantial forms,” which in Hobbes eyes, “hath a quality, not only to hide the truth, but also to make men think they have it, and desist from further search.” As for the authoritative meaning of the Scriptures, it can only come about through a chain of men trusting men, because, …when we believe that the Scriptures are the word of God, having no immediate revelation from God himself, our belief, faith and trust is in the church, whose word we take, and acquiesce therein… So that it is evident that whatsoever we believe upon no other reason than what is drawn from authority of men only and their writings, whether they be sent from God or not, is faith in men only.” This is essentially to say that religion – as far as one is concerned in the present – has its roots in men only. He does give wide allowance to Christian thought understood in figurative terms compatible with the reality of the natural world as comprehended by reason. As Shapin and Schaffer characterize his view, “Hell and heaven were not places; they were states of mind or conditions of social disorder and order.” For Hobbes, hell was civil war, and his political philosophy aims at humanity’s salvation from that collective fate. [Hint: the solution isn’t Christ-love.] The temporal salvation of society presents itself as the imperative of Hobbes’s political theory because of the social theory underlying it. By his account man is essentially selfish and, in a state of nature, at war, “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” This leads Hobbes to the need for a sovereign power. As the agent of social order and cohesion, the sovereign resolves the otherwise divisive epistemic indeterminacy of God’s will and the path to salvation. For Locke, this same condition 10 of uncertain knowledge necessitates leaving decisions of faith to individuals in voluntary association, for “Neither the right, nor the art of ruling, does necessarily carry along with it the certain knowledge of other things; and least of all of the true religion.” Even if Hobbes were concerned with the ability of the sovereign to save the eternal souls of his subjects, the right of sovereignty comes from the practical ability to secure order, not from some priestly access to unassailable Truth. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson famously and more recently explained: “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” But whence this right of final judgment? Locke is right that “it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another, as to compel any one to his religion.” Hobbes would agree that God has not granted such authority to the sovereign: the people have contracted to vest absolute authority and they have done so out of necessity to escape a state of war. Once such power is vested it is absolute and the security of the civil order depends on disabling subversive powers, including religion. This was far more than a theoretical proposition for Hobbes. Unlike Locke he took seriously the social power of religion – informed by the history of religious conflict, the exercise power of religion over the state, and the specific contribution of religious factions to the English Civil War that historically frames his theoretical project. As Shapin and Schaffer put it, “Double tribute ended in civil war and confusion. This was what would inevitably happen if one allowed authority and power in the state to be fragmented and dispersed among professional groups each claiming its share.”They quote Hobbes in 1656 explaining that he came to write Leviathan because of “considerations of what the ministers before, and in the beginning of civil war, by their preaching and writing did contribute thereunto.” And in his 1668 work Behemoth, Hobbes lay particular blame for the Civil War on the clergy who had seduced the people, bypassing the sovereignty of the state by “pretending to have a right from God to govern every one in his parish, and their assembly the whole nation.” Later in life, Hobbes turned his critical polemic against the program of experimental science advocated by Boyle because it represented a dual threat to the social order by: (1) undermining natural philosophy as a firm system of knowledge and introducing a framework for dissent in the production of knowledge, and (2) using experiments with air-pumps to support belief in the existence of a vacuum – an incorporeal substance of the sort that the Scholastics had used to buttress priestcraft. As Shapin and Schaffer sum it up, “These were the ontological resources of the enemies of order.” {=============} 11
Q.4 Discuss in detail the views of Locke about the individual and the community. What were the effects of circumstances on his views regarding the individual and the community? Answer: The Second Treatise of Government remains a cornerstone of Western political philosophy. Locke's theory of government based on the sovereignty of the people has been extraordinarily influential since its publication in 1690--the concept of the modern liberal-democratic state is rooted in Locke's writings. Locke's Second Treatise starts with a liberal premise of a community of free, equal individuals, all possessed of natural rights. Since these individuals will want to acquire goods and will come into inevitable conflict, Locke invokes a natural law of morality to govern them before they enter into society. Locke presumes people will understand that, in order to best protect themselves and their property, they must come together into some sort of body politic and agree to adhere to certain standards of behavior. Thus, they relinquish some of their natural rights to enter into a social compact. In this civil society, the people submit natural freedoms to the common laws of the society; in return, they receive the protection of the government. By coming together, the people create an executive power to enforce the laws and punish offenders. The people entrust these laws and the executive power with authority. When, either through an abuse of power or an impermissible change, these governing bodies cease to represent the people and instead represent either themselves or some foreign power, the people may--and indeed should--rebel against their government and replace it with one that will remember its trust. This is perhaps the most pressing concern of Locke's Second Treatise, given his motivation in writing the work (justifying opposition to Charles II) and publishing it (justifying the revolution of King William)--to explain the conditions in which a people has the right to replace one government with another. Locke links his abstract ideals to a deductive theory of unlimited personal property wholly protected from governmental invention; in fact, in some cases Locke places the sanctity of property over the sanctity of life (since one can relinquish one's life by engaging in war, but cannot relinquish one's property, to which others might have ownership rights). This joining of ideas--consensual, limited government based upon natural human rights and dignity, and unlimited personal property, based on those same rights, makes the Second Treatise a perfectly-constructed argument against absolutism and unjust governments. It appeals both to abstract moral notions and to a more grounded view of the self-interest that leads people to form societies and governments. 12 “Both in practice and in theory, the views which [Locke] advocated were held, for many years to come, by the most vigorous and influential politicians and philosophers. His political doctrines, with the developments due to Montesquieu, are embedded in the American Constitution, and are seen to be at work whenever there is a dispute between President and Congress. The British Constitution was based upon his doctrines until about fifty years ago, and so was that which the French adopted in 1871.”—Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy An Enlightenment thinker, John Locke is probably best known for his idea of natural rights, or the rights of every individual to life, liberty, and property. The purpose of government, he said, was to protect these rights. People, he explained, were subject to the law of reason. This law teaches that people ought not harm one another, nor interfere with other’s health, freedom, or possessions. Born the son of a country lawyer in 1632, Locke experienced sweeping political changes during his lifetime. He was just ten years old when his father joined the parliamentary army that opposed Charles I in the English Civil War. He was seventeen when Charles I was tried for treason, found guilty and executed in 1649. Just nine years later, Cromwell, who had experimented briefly with republican ideas of government but yielded quickly to military rule, died. Given this background, it may not at first seem surprising that one of the starting places in Locke’s philosophy was the rejection of an absolute monarchy by divine right. Absolute monarchy is the belief that all power within a state rests in the hands of a king or queen; divine right is the idea that the monarch’s power is God given. Locke attacked the idea of absolute monarchy in his influential Two Treatises of Government. Locke explained that obedience to a monarch is a form of slavery, and people are not slaves. Locke also rejected the idea of absolute monarchy even if its power came from the consent of the people. Instead, he believed that people could not give anyone authority over them for any purpose other than preserving their natural rights. Locke’s second treatise of government suggests that the majority of individuals give the community the power to preserve each person’s natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Even though the individual gives this power to the community, the individual still has rights to limit the power of that community. People put their trust in the government. As a result, legislative power is for the good of the people and comes from the consent of the people. According to Locke the people have, “a supreme power to remove or alter the Legislative, when they find the Legislative acts contrary to [that] Trust.” If the 13 legislature acts against the people’s wishes, they have a right to dissolve it. Or, in more dramatic terms, they have the right to revolution. If such a revolution happened, Locke maintained that society would not fall apart. He believed that the spirit of democracy itself would be more powerful than any government other people might dissolve. Almost one hundred years later, this idea would be tested when the Constitutional Convention met in Philadelphia in 1787. {=============}
Q.5 Make a critical analysis of Rousseau’s attack on reason. What were his justifications for revolting against reason? Explain with cogent arguments.
Answer: Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most influential thinkers during the Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe. His first major philosophical work, A Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, was the winning response to an essay contest conducted by the Academy of Dijon in 1750. In this work, Rousseau argues that the progression of the sciences and arts has caused the corruption of virtue and morality. This discourse won Rousseau fame and recognition, and it laid much of the philosophical groundwork for a second, longer work, The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The second discourse did not win the Academy’s prize, but like the first, it was widely read and further solidified Rousseau’s place as a significant intellectual figure. The central claim of the work is that human beings are basically good by nature, but were corrupted by the complex historical events that resulted in present day civil society.Rousseau’s praise of nature is a theme that continues throughout his later works as well, the most significant of which include his comprehensive work on the philosophy of education, the Emile, and his major work on political philosophy, The Social Contract: both published in 1762. These works caused great controversy in France and were immediately banned by Paris authorities. Rousseau fled France and settled in Switzerland, but he continued to find difficulties with authorities and quarrel with friends. The end of Rousseau’s life was marked in large part by his growing paranoia and his continued attempts to justify his life and his work. This is especially evident in his later books, The Confessions, The Reveries of the Solitary Walker, and Rousseau: Judge of Jean-Jacques. Rousseau greatly influenced Immanuel Kant’s work on ethics. His novel Julie or the New Heloiseimpacted the late eighteenth century’s Romantic Naturalism movement, and his political ideals were championed by leaders of the French Revolution. 14 Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most influential thinkers during the Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe. His first major philosophical work, A Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, was the winning response to an essay contest conducted by the Academy of Dijon in 1750. In this work, Rousseau argues that the progression of the sciences and arts has caused the corruption of virtue and morality. This discourse won Rousseau fame and recognition, and it laid much of the philosophical groundwork for a second, longer work, The Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. The second discourse did not win the Academy’s prize, but like the first, it was widely read and further solidified Rousseau’s place as a significant intellectual figure. The central claim of the work is that human beings are basically good by nature, but were corrupted by the complex historical events that resulted in present day civil society.Rousseau’s praise of nature is a theme that continues throughout his later works as well, the most significant of which include his comprehensive work on the philosophy of education, the Emile, and his major work on political philosophy, The Social Contract: both published in 1762. These works caused great controversy in France and were immediately banned by Paris authorities. Rousseau fled France and settled in Switzerland, but he continued to find difficulties with authorities and quarrel with friends. The end of Rousseau’s life was marked in large part by his growing paranoia and his continued attempts to justify his life and his work. This is especially evident in his later books, The Confessions, The Reveries of the Solitary Walker, and Rousseau: Judge of Jean-Jacques. Rousseau greatly influenced Immanuel Kant’s work on ethics. His novel Julie or the New Heloise impacted the late eighteenth century’s Romantic Naturalism movement, and his political ideals were championed by leaders of the French Revolution. Discourse on the Sciences and Arts This is the work that originally won Rousseau fame and recognition. The Academy of Dijon posed the question, “Has the restoration of the sciences and arts tended to purify morals?” Rousseau’s answer to this question is an emphatic “no.” The First Discourse won the academy’s prize as the best essay. The work is perhaps the greatest example of Rousseau as a “counter-Enlightenment” thinker. For the Enlightenment project was based on the idea that progress in fields like the arts and sciences do indeed contribute to the purification of morals on individual, social, and political levels. The First Discourse begins with a brief introduction addressing the academy to which the work was submitted. Aware that his stance against the contribution of the arts and sciences to morality could potentially offend his readers, Rousseau claims, “I am not abusing science…I am defending virtue 15 before virtuous men.” (First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 4). In addition to this introduction, the First Discourse is comprised of two main parts. The first part is largely an historical survey. Using specific examples, Rousseau shows how societies in which the arts and sciences flourished more often than not saw the decline of morality and virtue. He notes that it was after philosophy and the arts flourished that ancient Egypt fell. Similarly, ancient Greece was once founded on notions of heroic virtue, but after the arts and sciences progressed, it became a society based on luxury and leisure. The one exception to this, according to Rousseau, was Sparta, which he praises for pushing the artists and scientists from its walls. Sparta is in stark contrast to Athens, which was the heart of good taste, elegance, and philosophy. Interestingly, Rousseau here discusses Socrates, as one of the few wise Athenians who recognized the corruption that the arts and sciences were bringing about. Rousseau paraphrases Socrates’ famous speech in the Apology. In his address to the court, Socrates says that the artists and philosophers of his day claim to have knowledge of piety, goodness, and virtue, yet they do not really understand anything. Rousseau’s historical inductions are not limited to ancient civilizations, however, as he also mentions China as a learned civilization that suffers terribly from its vices. The second part of the First Discourse is an examination of the arts and sciences themselves, and the dangers they bring. First, Rousseau claims that the arts and sciences are born from our vices: “Astronomy was born from superstition; eloquence from ambition, hate, flattery, and falsehood; geometry from avarice, physics from vain curiosity; all, even moral philosophy, from human pride.” (First Discourse, Vol. I, p. 12). The attack on sciences continues as Rousseau articulates how they fail to contribute anything positive to morality. They take time from the activities that are truly important, such as love of country, friends, and the unfortunate. Philosophical and scientific knowledge of subjects such as the relationship of the mind to the body, the orbit of the planets, and physical laws that govern particles fail to genuinely provide any guidance for making people more virtuous citizens. Rather, Rousseau argues that they create a false sense of need for luxury, so that science becomes simply a means for making our lives easier and more pleasurable, but not morally better. The arts are the subject of similar attacks in the second part of the First Discourse. Artists, Rousseau says, wish first and foremost to be applauded. Their work comes from a sense of wanting to be praised as superior to others. Society begins to emphasize specialized talents rather than virtues such as courage, generosity, and temperance. This leads to yet another danger: the decline of military virtue, which is necessary for a society to defend itself against aggressors. And yet, after all of these attacks, the First Discourse ends with the praise of some very wise thinkers, among them, Bacon, 16 Descartes, and Newton. These men were carried by their vast genius and were able to avoid corruption. However, Rousseau says, they are exceptions; and the great majority of people ought to focus their energies on improving their characters, rather than advancing the ideals of the Enlightenment in the arts and sciences. The Second Discourse, like the first, was a response to a question put forth by the academy of Dijon: “What is the origin of inequality among men; and is it authorized by the natural law?” Rousseau’s response to this question, the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, is significantly different from the First Discourse for several reasons. First, in terms of the academy’s response, the Second Discourse was not nearly as well received. It exceeded the desired length, it was four times the length of the first, and made very bold philosophical claims; unlike the First Discourse, it did not win the prize. However, as Rousseau was now a well-known and respected author, he was able to have it published independently. Secondly, if the First Discourse is indicative of Rousseau as a “counter-Enlightenment” thinker, the Second Discourse, by contrast, can rightly be considered to be representative of Enlightenment thought. This is primarily because Rousseau, like Hobbes, attacks the classical notion of human beings as naturally social. Finally, in terms of its influence, the Second Discourse is now much more widely read, and is more representative of Rousseau’s general philosophical outlook. In the Confessions, Rousseau writes that he himself sees the Second Discourse as far superior to the first..
https://www.slideshare.net/NazeerMahar/political-parties-in-pakistan-a-long-way-ahead
https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/558909364.pdf
http://www.nihcr.edu.pk/Latest_English_Journal/5%20%20ALLIANCE%20POLITICS%20IN%20PAKISTAN.pdf
https://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=19_11_2017_528_001
Course: Political & Constitutional Development in Pakistan-I (4667)
Semester: Spring 2019
Level: M.Sc (Pak Studies)
ASSIGNMENT No. 1
Q. 1 Discuss in detail the problem of factionalism in Punjab witnessed immediately after the emergence of Pakistan. How had this problem been resolved?
Answer:
Because of population and wealth, Punjab is the dominant element in the Pakistani state. Whoever commands Punjab rules Pakistan. Punjab is not without its high achievements. Bulleh Shah, Shah Hussain, and Waris Shah – to name only these three from a long list – were all from Punjab. Whether their immortal poetry has left any mark on the Punjabi mind is of course another matter.
The galaxy of verse does not end there. Among the moderns are such imperishable names as Iqbal, Faiz, Munir Niazi, Sahir Ludhianvi, and others too numerous to be named. In the world of immortal song and music we have Kundan Lal Saigal, Muhammad Rafi, Noor Jahan, Suraiya, Shamshad Begum, Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan, Madan Mohan, etc.
Saigal and Rafi in their field, and Iqbal and Faiz in theirs, were pioneers who set out new paths for others to follow. Punjab, however, has produced few path-breakers in the political field except perhaps for the unforgettable Sardar Bhagat Singh, the great freedom fighter whose statue if we had any sense of history would stand in Shadman Chowk near where he was hanged by the British.
To sum up, the problem lies not with Punjab’s poetic or artistic legacy. Punjab’s place in that constellation is assured. The problem lies with its history. For all the abundance of genius in other fields, Punjab gave birth to no great kings or captains of armies, with the one, solitary exception of Maharaja Ranjit Singh Sukerchakia of Gujranwala, later of course founder of the first and last Sikh kingdom. The rest is a blank.
Geography decreed that every invader with his mind fixed on the conquest of Delhi should first stop in Lahore. Marauding armies came and marched through Punjab on their way to Delhi and the rich plains beyond, meeting little resistance in the land of the five rivers or its capital, Lahore…this city of a thousand tales, steeped in romance and the promise of hidden pleasures, like an obliging mistress repelling no one and opening its arms to everyone who stood before its walls.
Multan, considered by most thorough-bred Punjabis to be a soft and decadent city, put up some resistance to Alexander. On its walls the world-conqueror was wounded which so enraged the Macedonians that they carried out a general massacre in the town. Multan resisted the British too and it was only after a tight battle that the city fell to them.
Lahore’s fame in history rests on other things: the extent and splendour of its gardens, the waters of the Ravi which gave a balmy air to the city, and the storied charms of its dancing girls. It is among the achievements of the Islamic Republic that the gardens of the city have shrunk, the waters of the Ravi are now irredeemably dirty – making it impossible for any latter-day Master Madan (not to be confused with Madan Mohan) to sing “Ravi de parle kande ve mitra, wasda ai dil da chor” (check it out on YouTube) – and in the legendary singing and entertainment quarter of the city are now mostly to be found dreary little shops selling khussas and other forms of footwear.
No great city with any sense of its past destroys its entertainment districts the way our great and good ones have managed to do with the streets around the Badshahi Mosque where lay, for centuries, the singing and dancing quarter visited by high and low alike.
No Siege of Leningrad ever took place around Lahore and for that matter none around the fabled capital of Hindustan, Delhi. The two cities had this in common: greeting with fawning courtesy any invader who came along to ravish them.
In this long saga of ready surrender and capitulation Ranjit Singh is the only figure we find who was adept at the use of arms. He brought the various Sikh misls (call them factions) together, forging a strong kingdom out of them. Unlettered as he was, he had the sense not to clash with the East India Company, quick to realise that its fighting strength was greater than his own. But the British also had the good sense not to cast covetous eyes on his kingdom as long as he lived. They too had the measure of their adversary.
But even as the Maharaja kept his peace with the British he expanded his kingdom into Kashmir where Gulab Singh, appointed the ruler by him, paid him annual tribute, and westwards where by defeating the Afghans near Nowshera he went on to capture Peshawar. When the British annexed Punjab after the Maharaja’s death, they inherited his kingdom and its extended frontiers…meaning thereby that but for Ranjit Singh, Peshawar, the tribal areas and the Durand Line would not form part of our inheritance. At the bar of history we owe the Sikh warrior-king this debt of gratitude.
The lines of Partition were so drawn that while East Bengal lay a thousand miles away, in what was West Pakistan the dominant element was Punjab. East Pakistan had a slight edge in terms of population but power was in the hands of the Punjabi and Urdu-speaking-dominated bureaucracy and military, with the Punjabi feudal class playing loyal second fiddle to a coalition which came to shape the ideology and thinking of the new state. The intellectual inspiration for this coalition came principally from Urdu-speaking migrants from India, inheritors of the culture of Delhi, Lucknow, Bhopal and Hyderabad Deccan.
Pakistan quickly aligning itself with the West and becoming front-ranking member of American-led military alliances, the injection of heavy doses of religion into the national discourse, and the patronising behaviour, little short of a colonial attitude, towards East Pakistan all flowed from the biases and ideological orientation of this ruling coalition.
The Punjabi element already strong in the ruling echelons of the state became still more dominant and powerful after the separation of East Pakistan. The Zia regime had a compelling interest in developing a counterpoint to the Pakistan People’s Party with which it was virtually at war after Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s ouster and hanging. Looking around for likely partisans it picked and groomed a cast of characters whose apotheosis we can witness in the form of the ruling PML-N leadership.
It truly represents Punjab in that it exemplifies more perfectly than anything else can the limited political imagination and equally limited historical sense of this most powerful of Pakistan’s constituent provinces.
In various forms and incarnations this leadership has been in power for the last 30 years. It can remain in power for the next 30 years and its leading lights will still be playing the only repertoire with which they are familiar: tape-cutting, over-the-top rhetoric often with little relation to reality, and putting more and more, through whatever means available, into their already burgeoning treasure chests.
With such helmsmen Pakistan can never become a modern republic, where science, technology and rational thinking hold sway and where the state takes as its first duty the education and uplift of its citizens. This is what makes the Panama case so important. More than an ordinary case, it is an opportunity to turn around the country’s fortunes by breaking the stranglehold of Punjabi mediocrity and the limitations that come from it.
{==============}
Q. 2 What were the causes of the rise of vernacular elite in East Pakistan and what was its impact on the integration of Pakistan?
Answer:
Bangladesh is a state in an ancient land. It has been described by an American political scientist as “a country challenged by contradictions”. It is neither a distinct geographical entity, nor a well-defined historical unit. Nevertheless, it is the homeland of one of the largest nation in the world whose gropings for a political identity were protracted, intense and agonizing. The key to these apparent contradictions lies in her history.
Historically, the word Bangladesh is derived from the cognate “Vanga” which was first mentioned in the Hindu scripture Aitareya Aranyaka (composed between 500 B C and 500 A D). It is derived from:-
The Tibetan word “Bans” which implies “wet and moist”. According to this interpretation, Bangladesh literally refers to a wetland.
Bodo (aborigines of Assam) words “Bang” and “la” which connote “wide plains.”
Emerging Discontent (1966-70)
In 1966 Mujib announced his controversial six-point political and economic program for East Pakistani provincial autonomy. He demanded:-
The government be federal and parliamentary in nature, its members to be elected with legislative representation on the basis of population.
The federal government have principal responsibility for foreign affairs and defense only
Each wing have its own currency and separate fiscal accounts
Taxation would occur at the provincial level, with a federal government funded by constitutionally guaranteed grants
Each federal unit could control its own earning of foreign exchange; and
Each unit could raise its own militia or paramilitary forces.
Mujib’s six points ran directly counter to President Ayub’s plan for greater national integration.
In January 1968 the government arrested Mujib.
On 1968 Ayub suffered a number of setbacks in. His health was poor, and he was almost assassinated at a ceremony marking ten years of his rule.
On February 21, 1969, Ayub announced that he would not run in the next presidential election in 1970. A state of near anarchy reigned with protests and strikes throughout the country.
On March 25,1969, Ayub resigned and handed over the administration to the commander in chief, General Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan. Yahya announced that he considered himself to be a transitional leader whose task would be to restore order and to conduct free elections for a new constituent assembly, which would then draft a new constitution.
On August 1969 Appointment of a largely civilian cabinet.
On November 12, 1970, a cyclone devastated an area of almost 8,000 square kilometers of East Pakistan’s mid-coastal lowlands and its outlying islands in the Bay of Bengal.
On December 7, 1970 Yahya announced plans for a national election. The elections were the first in the history of Pakistan in which voters were able to elect members of the National Assembly directly. In the election that followed, the Awami League won a triumphant victory. The misfortune however was that the Awami League did not won a single seat in West Pakistan. Similarly, the Pakistan People’s Party did not have a single seat in eastern wing. At the Bengal Assembly elections, the results were as follows:
At the National Assembly elections, the Awami emerged as the majority party, as the table shows:
The Awami League’s electoral victory promised it control of the government, with Mujib as the country’s prime minister, but the inaugural assembly never met.
Political Events of 1971
The military, bureaucracy, and business, all West Pakistani-dominated, were shocked at the results because they faced the prospect that the central government’s power would be passed away to the Bengalis, if the Awami League were allowed to shape the constitution and form a government. The results of the election gave the Awami League the possibility of framing the constitution according to its 6-point program. The election put the Pakistani ruling elite in such a position that, if it allowed the democratic process to continue, then it would be unable to stop the Awami League from framing a constitution that would protect the Bengali interests.
The month of December passed and yet there was no sign of the calling of the assembly.
On the 3rd of January 1971, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman called a mammoth public meeting in which he administered an oath to the persons who had been elected to the national and provincial assemblies by which they swore allegiance to the party’s programme for provincial autonomy. Between the election results and this meeting apparently no effort was made by General Yahya khan to bring the leaders together for consultations, though later when he made such efforts the Sheikh adopted hard attitude.
By and large most of the parties in the west did openly oppose the six points programme. It has been alleged that Pakistan people’s party alone did not. On the 7th of January 1971 with this background General Yahya went to East Pakistan. The evidence suggest that at this stage the presidential team did not have a copy of the six points programme and no serious efforts were done to convince Sheikh on his six points. Accordingly the meeting was held.
Mujib presented his six pints and asked General Yahya: –
“Sir you know what the six points programme is, please tell me what objections you have to this programme.”
General Yahya said that he himself had nothing against the programme but the west Pakistanis does have some problems. However, the meeting ended with the reference from General Yahya to the Sheikh as his future prime minister.
From Dacca the president came to Karachi and on 17th January 1971 went o Larkana to pay a visit to Mr. Bhutto. After this visit Mr. Bhutto went with some other members of his party to Dacca where he met the Sheikh on the 27th of January 1971. Mr. Bhutto returned from Dacca really having failed in his mission.
Mr. Bhutto met General Yahya at Rawalpindi on the 11th February 1971, and reported to him the result of the discussions After this meeting, General Yahya announced that the assembly will met on the 3rd of march 1971.
On the 15th of February, Mr. Bhutto called a press conference in Peshawar and said that the date has come as total surprise to him. On the 21st February, a convention of the party took an oath to abide by the party decision not to attend the assembly on the 3rd of March 1971.
On the 22nd of February 1971, the president convened a meeting of the governors and martial law administrators at, which were present also, some high ranking military and civilian officers. He gave a review of current situation and the stand of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. It is also a fact that the president took the decision to postpone the national assembly as early as the 22nd February.
On the 1st of March General Yahya announced the postponement of the national assembly meeting. The East Pakistanis reacted violently to the postponement and the immediate results were the violent demonstrations and disturbances in Dacca. The army was called to cope with this situation. Also, on that day Yahya named General Tikka Khan, as East Pakistan’s military governor.
Sheikh Mujibur Rahman on the 7th of March 1971 announced a weeklong programme to continue non-cooperation movement starting on March 2nd.
{==============}
Q. 3 What was the composition of First Constituent Assembly (CA) and what were the objections on its composition? Elaborate the composition and performance of First CA.
Answer:
The First Constituent Assembly of Pakistan came into existence under Indian Independence Act 1947, at the time of independence. Its roots went back to 1946 when elections for constituent assembly of United India were held to decide the destiny of All India Muslim League. First meeting of constituent assembly of united India was held on 19th December 1946, but Muslim League boycotted it since they demanded a separate constituent assembly for Pakistan. With the acceptance of 3rd June plan a separate constituent assembly was formulated for Pakistan.
The inaugural session of the first constituent assembly of Pakistan was held in Karachi in August 1947. Mr. J.N. Mandal was elected as temporary chairman of Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. Subsequently Jinnah was selected as the president of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, on 11th August 1947 and Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan as its Deputy President. The Constituent Assembly of Pakistan functioned from 1947 to 1954 and involved two major parties—the Muslim League representing all Muslims with the exception of few and The Congress Party representing the twelve million Hindus in Pakistan.
There were 69 members in the constituent assembly; this number was increased to 79 later in order to give representation to princely states and refugees. The mode of elections was on the basis of separate electorates. There was a clear majority of Muslim League in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, with 60 members out of the total 79. The second major party was Pakistan National Congress with 11 members; and the third party was Azad Group with 3 members, a number which later decreased to 1. The Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was not able to work properly because its seats remained empty and some members migrated to India. Members of Constituent Assembly of Pakistan were simultaneously allowed to take seats of Provincial assembly or they can be Chief Ministers or members of Central or Provincial Cabinet.
Under the Indian Independence Act Constituent Assembly of Pakistan was given two tasks – to prepare a Constitution and to act as the federal legislature. The functions of central legislature under the Government of India Act 1935 were granted to the Constituent Assembly. As a constitution making body it was completely independent. The Constituent Assembly of Pakistan could amend the independence act by a simple majority and pass laws; moreover, no law could be made without its approval. Every bill that was passed needed to be signed by the President of Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.
Though there was no opposition in the Constituent Assembly but there were groups that were critical of the League. On the left was Iftikharuddin a former congressmen and a communist. On right were the religious critics like Maulana Shabir Ahmad Ossmani.
The first constituent assembly setup several committees to carry out its tasks. Most important of these was the Basic Principles Committee; it was assigned the task to report in accordance with the Objectives Resolution on the main principles by which the constitution of Pakistan was to be framed. Basic Principles Committee setup three sub committees and a special committee named Talimaat-i-Islamia which consisted of scholars to advice on the religious matters arising out of Objectives Resolution. Basic Principles Committee submitted its interim report in September 1950 and the final report in December 1952.
Another important committee of the Constituent Assembly was on the ‘Fundamental Rights of the Citizens of Pakistan’ and on ‘Matters Relating to Minorities’. It divided itself into two sections, one dealing with fundamental rights and the other with matters relating to minorities. Interim report of this committee was adopted by Constituent Assembly in 1950 and the final report in 1954.
Others committees of the constituent assembly were the State Negotiating Committee, which dealt with the question of representation of princely states and the Tribal Areas Negotiating Committee, dealing with matters related to tribal areas.
The progress of the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan can be summed up as follows:
12 March 1949 – Objectives Resolution passed by the Constituent Assembly on aims and objective of future constitution. This report was well received by the citizens of Pakistan.
7 September 1950 – the interim report of Basic Principles Committee was presented to the constituent assembly. This step however marked as the beginning of decline in the popularity of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. This report was criticized mainly by East Pakistan.
6 October 1950 – interim report of the committee on Fundamental Rights of the Citizens of Pakistan matters relating to Minorities was adopted by Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. This report got a comparatively better response.
22 December 1952 – the final report of Basic Principles Committee was presented. This report was also criticized, because of opposition in the Punjab.
7 October 1953 – Constitutional impasse was over and formation of federal legislature was resolved by the ‘Muhammad Ali Formula’. This report was widely welcomed and helped the Constituent Assembly regain in popularity.
21 September 1954 – the Basic Principles Committees’ revised Report was approved by Constituent Assembly of Pakistan.
The final sketch of constitution was prepared and the Constituent Assembly was near to the completion of its purpose. But at this point the Constituent Assembly was suspended by the Governor General Ghulam Muhammad, on 24th October 1954. He stated that the Constituent Assembly had lost the confidence of the people; this ruined the efforts of the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan which had been working towards formulating a viable constitution for seven years.
{==============}
Q. 4 Critically analyze the formation of One Unit by the Second Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. Elaborate the arguments put forth in favour and against the formation of One Unit?
Answer:
Even before the civil-military equation became unbalanced in the nascent Pakistan, the centre-province antagonism had started shattering the dream of a decent democracy. Interestingly, the All India Muslim League leadership that was so concerned about the possibility of a strong centre dominating over the provinces in India, suddenly became a champion of a strong central government after partition.
Probably it is wrong to suggest that the entire Muslim League was in favour of a strong centre; initially it was the Jinnah-Liaquat duo that kept poking the Central finger into provincial pelvises — disregarding their own Muslim League leaders who could oppose the central command. Then the fulcrum soon shifted to the so-called Gang of Four comprising Ghulam Mohammad, Major General Iskander Mirza, General Ayub Khan, and Chaudhary Mohammad Ali. These gentlemen belonged to civil and military bureaucracy and, incidentally, three of them hailed from West Pakistan.
Sadly, the Muslim League — after the duo’s departure — consisted of mostly invertebrate imbeciles who were venal and could hardly resist the temptation of currying favour with the Four. Those who tried to stand firm for the protection of provincial rights were shown the door and declared as traitors working against the ‘national interest’; and as soon as the same traitors fell into line, they were embraced and showered with official positions temporarily, irrespective of their position in the central or provincial assemblies.
Initially, the idea of dissolving all provinces in the western wing and merging them into a one unit was floated by Feroz Khan Noon and Jahanara Shahnawaz — both from Punjab — in the Constituent Assembly in March 1949. Jinnah and Liaquat are also reported to have considered the idea but no progress was made in this direction when they were alive; probably because they were not from Punjab and, arguably, might have had less intuitive understanding of Bengal-Punjab undercurrents. Even at that stage, some Muslim League leaders, such as Ch. Khaliquzzaman, expressed their reservations on the scheme.
When Governor-General Ghulam Mohammad had dislodged Prime Minister Nazimmudin and had his tentacles firmly wrapped around politicians, he got rid of the first Constituent Assembly and hastily launched his One-Unit project. The main reason was the landslide victory of the United Front consisting of Bengali leaders who had segued from a religious narrative of the pre-partition days into a nationalist discourse of the post-Nazimuddin period.
The victory of Bengali nationalists in East Bengal had upped the ante in favour of the smaller provinces in the western wing too, casting a pall of gloom over Punjab. There emerged a possibility that the desire of the civil and military bureaucracy to keep a strong centre within their fold might be thwarted should the smaller provinces side with Bengal. The formation of a One Unit would give the centre a greater chance of arm twisting to get favourable decisions from one provincial assembly rather than dealing with three provinces (Punjab, Sindh, and NWFP), one chief commissioner’s provinces (Balochistan) and numerous princely states.
Interestingly, the leaders from Punjab, especially Chaudhary M. Ali, Nawab Gurmani, and Daultana; and the prime spokesmen of the army i.e. General Ayub Khan and Maj General Iskander Mirza, all became staunch supporters of the One-Unit scheme as a counterbalance with Bengal. Mirza was himself from Bengal but he was a bureaucrat and hated popular politicians especially from his own province, such a Bhashani, Fazlul Haq, and Suhrawardy. A lack of popular support makes such officers bitter and angry not only at politicians but also against the populace itself. A holier-than-thou attitude oozes from their nostrils and they can’t wait to beat the nation into a desired shape; in this effort plenty of politicians also play ball.
So this hammering to get a One Unit, started in full swing under the tutelage of Ghulam Mohammad and led by PM Bogra. Bengali politicians such as Nazimuddin, Fazlur Rehman, Tamizuddin Khan and Nural Amin, and even Muslim League leadership in West Pakistan including Abdus Sattar Pirzada and Mohammad Hashim Gazdar opposed the scheme. Less than two weeks after the Constituent Assembly was dissolved, Pirzada’s Sindh ministry was dismissed by Governor Iftikhar Mumdot on November 8, 1954. Ayub Khuhro, whom the Centre had previously dismissed twice on corruption charges, was again appointed the Sindh chief minister, obviously as a quid pro quo for his support to the One-Unit scheme.
On November 22, 1954, Bogra announced the Centre’s intentions, in principle, to merge the provinces of West Pakistan into a One Unit after seeking the approval of the provinces. This set in motion the whole central machinery to secure the provincial approvals. The same day a group of provincial politicians were summoned to Karachi and informed that no further debate on the One Unit would be tolerated by the Centre. The Centre simply wanted the provincial assemblies to rubber stamp the One-Unit resolution drafted in the federal capital, and the removal of Sindh Chief Minister Pirzada was a warning to other provincial assemblies. In fact, the Centre had already demonstrated its arbitrary powers by dismissing the Constituent Assembly and, prior to that, by removing the United-Front majority government in East Bengal.
The victory of Bengali nationalists in East Bengal had upped the ante in favour of the smaller provinces in the western wing too, casting a pall of gloom over Punjab.
Pirzada had taken a firm stand against the unification scheme by securing statements from 74 Sindh assembly members against the One-Unit proposal. He was supported by GM Syed, Sh Abdul Majeed Sindhi, GM Bhurghari and Ghulam Ali Talpur. Just three days after Bogra’s announcement, the NWFP Assembly became the first to endorse the scheme on November 25 1954, under the leadership of Chief Minister Sardar Abdur Rashid. Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Bacha Khan) was the leading opponent who urged the federal government not to take hasty decisions.
In November, Balochistan Shahi Jirga and the Khairpur legislature also announced their support for the One Unit. Punjab was the only province where the plan sailed smoothly without any resistance. Almost the entire assembly supported the resolution on November 30, 1954. On December 6, Chitral Council also announced its support for the proposal.
In Sindh, the situation took an interesting turn where Ayub Khuhro used his clout to get the scheme approved by 100 out of 104 assembly member. This was the same assembly where just a couple of weeks earlier the CM, Pirzada, had the support of 74 members against the One Unit. The turnaround was the simple result of the Central threat to dissolve the assembly in case its members refused the approval. If somebody has any doubt about why the provincial governments do not stand firm against the intrusion of the federal organs into the matters purely provincial, they should once again read some history and get the answer.
At the behest of the Centre, Ayub Khuhro detained Pirzada, GM Syed, and Pir Ilahi Bukhsh on different charges. Even the Sindh Assembly Speaker was arrested for “conspiring to murder the Sindh cabinet members.” Thousands of protesters were imprisoned and Hyderabad was converted into a military camp thanks to General Ayub Khan who was the Commander in Chief as well as the defence minister in the new ‘Cabinet of Talents’ formed by Ghulam Muhammad, who had the full support from the armed forces.
On December 14, 1954, a high-level meeting — the One-Unit Conference inaugurated by Ghulam Mohammad — attended by almost all Central ministers from West Pakistan, provincial governors, rulers of states, and provincial and states chief ministers, announced its support for the One-Unit scheme; and two days later, the Muslim League executive committee also accepted it. Following these hasty approvals, the governor general created a council consisting of all governors and chief ministers in West Pakistan, Balochistan’s chief commissioner and governor general’s provincial agent, adviser to the ruler of Bahawalpur, and the prime minister of Balochistan States Union.
That’s how within six weeks after the dismissal of the Constituent Assembly, the Centre, led by Ghulam, Ayub, and Iskander, tried to shove the One Unit in the throat of all provinces and states in West Pakistan. When 1955 started, the Khan-e-Azam of Kalat, reportedly under duress, signed the instrument of merger into the West Pakistan Unit, on behalf of the Balochistan Sates Union which included the states of Kalat, Kharan, Lasbela and Makran.
All this hullabaloo received a sudden shock when on February 9, 1955 the full bench of the Sindh Chief Court unanimously allowed the petition of Tamizuddin Khan and restored him as the president of the constituent assembly and restrained the Centre from interfering in his functions. The Centre went to the Federal Court where in March 1955, Justice Munir overturned the Sindh Chief Court’s verdict, boosting Ghulam Mohammad to once again swing into action to impose the state of emergency.
In June 1955, the second constituent assembly came into being after indirect elections throughout the country. In July, the first session of the new constituent assembly began at Murree and elected Mushtaq Gurmani as its interim chairman. Thus began an interesting chapter of some ‘secret documents’ of the One Unit.
A few newly-elected members of the second constituent assembly later revealed that, during the plenary session at Murree, some documents were circulated containing an implementation scheme about the One Unit scheme. These documents were especially given to those members who had a soft corner for the scheme. Though there was no name on the documents, the recipients attributed their authorship to Mumtaz Daultana, and he never denied it.
Sardar Abdur Rashid claimed that a copy of these documents was given to him by Chaudhry Mohammad Ali. When the second constituent assembly met on July 7, 1955, three of the Gang of Four — Ayub, Iskander, and Ch M Ali — met with Nawab Gurmani and Dr Khan Saheb, henceforth these five would lead the One-Unit campaign and Ghulam Mohammad was gradually sidelined because of his worsening health. On July 13, a five-point agreement was signed by the leaders of various parties; two of the points related to the formation of One Unit and the principle of parity between the two wings, despite the fact that East Bengal had 56 per cent of the total population of Pakistan.
Now the question arises, if all the provincial assemblies and states in West Pakistan had approved the One-Unit scheme and both the PM and the GG had announced the formation of the One-Unit, why this was being one? Actually, the Federal Court, while upholding the dissolution of the first constituent assembly had barred the GG from issuing executive orders, and had ruled that all constitutional and legislative acts could only be passed by the next CAP (constituent assembly of Pakistan). This verdict had put paid to the steamroller approach and the Centre had to go through the parliamentary approval.
SA Rashid who had initially supported the One Unit, got enraged at being excluded from these discussions by the Five (Ayub, Iskander, Gurmani, Khan Saheb, and Ch. M Ali). Rashid had expected to be the governor or CM of the new province but now he realised that Gurmani and Khan would get the top positions, so he decided to reveal the contents of the ‘secret documents’ and read excerpts from them. According to him the One-Unit scheme was a cover for Punjabi domination. There were others who countered this argument by saying that to prevent East Bengal from playing a ‘big-brother’ role the One-Unit scheme was necessary.
As a result of this outburst against the One-Unit, SA Rashid — the NWFP CM — was dismissed and General Ayub Khan’s brother Sardar Bahadur Khan was asked to form the government. He and his cabinet took oath on July 18 1955. That shows, now instead of fours and fives, now the Ayub-Iskander duo was getting hold of things and they had become the real power brokers. This was further confirmed when On August 6 1955, a press note was issued announcing the appointment of Major-General Iskander Mirza as acting governor-general replacing Ghulam Mohammad, who went on medical leave for two months. Another evidence was the resignation of M ABogra — a Ghulam Mohammad appointee — and the elevation of Ch M Ali as both the PM and the president of the Muslim League in August 1955.
During all these changes the One-Unit Bill was debated in the new constituent assembly from July to September 1955 and was enacted into a law that was enforced on October 14, 1955; Nawab Gurmani became the governor and Dr Khan Saheb took oath as the chief minister of the new province. Those who were in the forefront of the battle for the One Unit were rewarded with ministries; they included Qurban Ali Khan, Mumtaz Daultana, Ayub Khuhro, Abid Hussain (Syeda Abida Hussain’s father), Sardar Bahadur Khan (General Ayub Khan’s brother) and Sardar A Hameed Dasti. This was a setup overwhelmingly dominated by feudal lords and supervised by Maj General Iskander Mirza and General Ayub Khan.
This is not to suggest that all along there were no politicians who opposed this. There were stalwarts such as Bacha Khan, Hyder Bukhsh Jatoi, Abdul Samad Achakzai, and GM Syed who doggedly resisted, but their struggle deserves another detailed article.
To conclude, here it seems pertinent to remind that from 1947 to 1955, in all 22 provincial cabinets were dismissed or forced to resign — five in East Bengal, four in Punjab, four in NWFP, and eight in Sindh. No government was changed through a no-confidence vote in the provincial legislatures. There were chief ministers chosen from outside the legislature; there were favourites declared traitors, with the corrupt baptised clean, and vice versa. Most governments were removed while they commanded the majority support in the house and were forced out at the behest of the central powers that be.
{==============}
Q. 5 Why had the issue of separate electorate caused bitterness among East and West Pakistan? How had this problem been resolved?
Answer:
FACILITATED by the circumstances of partition and the laying down of the structures of governance under the Government of India Act 1935, which was adopted as the interim constitution, civil servants acquired a strong foothold in the new country. Here they positioned themselves to become the centre of the power structure. The development was further strengthened due to the Muslim League’s inherent weaknesses, and its failure to engage the vernacular sociopolitical elite, who had not joined the Pakistan movement yet had significant backing in their respective regions. So within a couple of years after independence, it was evident who would call the shots.
In 1951, with the appointment of the first native Pakistani as the commander-in-chief of the Army, the military top brass joined the power structure and a civil-military oligarchy positioned itself to decide the direction of the state and lay down the parameters of the political institutions. Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination paved the way for the type of political engineering that was now in the offing. In complete disregard of parliamentary practices, the cabinet was made to elevate the finance minister, Ghulam Mohammad, to the post of governor general. The incumbent, Khawaja Nazimuddin, was persuaded to step down and become the prime minister. Another bureaucrat, Chaudhri Mohammad Ali, became the new finance minister.
In the following years, several rounds of differences and tussles between the governors general and the prime ministers gradually unfurled the relative strength of the former office vis-à-vis the latter.
That the federal legislature, which till 1956 also served as the constituent assembly, remained a docile body only confirms the fact that the political dispensation was more of a parliamentary façade or pseudo-parliamentary arrangement that existed alongside a powerful extra-political decision-making state apparatus. Renowned social scientist Hamza Alavi aptly said that Pakistan in the first decade had two governments; one, the visible one that comprised the political class and the parliament with unstable political regimes, and the other the invisible government of the civil-military bureaucracy that had amassed all important powers in its hands.
The objectives of a national security state and a political economy of martial rule propelled Pakistan into the Western military alliances. Economically, it was made to become a part of peripheral capitalism, with the advanced capitalist countries, particularly the United States, as its centre.
The 15 months of Ghulam Mohammad-Nazimuddin uneasy cohabitation ended with the removal of the latter in April 1953. The pliable and unassertive prime minister was charged with the failure of law and order and an economic crisis caused due to food scarcity. The law and order situation had erupted in the wake of the anti-Ahmadi movement which became violent to the extent that martial law had to be imposed in Lahore. However, the prime minister had nothing to do with that as it was a provincial matter.
More astonishing was the later revelation by the court of inquiry that looked into the causes of a situation that had led to the imposition of martial law in the capital of the Punjab province. The court revealed that the anti-Ahmadi movement was masterminded and financed by none but the Punjab government itself, whose head Mumtaz Daultana thought that the resulting law and order crisis in the country would destabilise Nazimuddin’s government and pave the way for his own political ambitions to be realised. To his disappointment, the movement did not take off in other provinces, and his own province became its focus.
The power-holders attained a number of objectives by removing Nazimuddin. He was replaced as the premier by Mohammad Ali Bogra, hitherto Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington. His Bengali ethnicity suggested that Nazimuddin was not removed because of being a Bengali. Bogra could also be useful in cajoling the US to befriend Pakistan, whose rulers were desperate to get Western approbation for themselves and their country. Bogra’s appointment followed the end of the US embargo on food aid to Pakistan, and he later succeeded in seeking a place for his country in the Western military pacts.
All the while, Bogra was also under pressure to take the process of constitution-making ahead. Six precious years had been lost while no breakthrough was in sight for resolving the East-West representation issue that had almost stalled the constitution-making exercise.
Eventually by the end of 1953, prime minister Bogra succeeded in finally devising a formula. Popularly known as the ‘Bogra Formula’, it suggested representation on the basis of population in the lower house and equal representation for five provinces in the upper house. Seats allocated to each province in the lower house were such that when it joined the upper house with equal seats for all provinces, the joint session of parliament could have equal representation for both the wings of the country. The difficult Gordian knot had been disentangled and the making of the constitution was now a matter of days.
Meanwhile, the Bengali legislators along with some of those coming from the smaller provinces in the western part of the country compelled Bogra to assert his and the Assembly’s position. The prime minister thus had a series of legislation passed reducing the powers of the governor general. The latter was now prohibited from appointing and dismissing a prime minister at will. Also, to form the government, he was to call upon a person who was a member of the assembly, and who could be removed only by a vote of no-confidence. This and other restrictions on the power of the Ghulam Mohammad apparently took the wind out of the governor general’s sails. Having done this, the prime minister left for the US. The governor general returned to Karachi and decided to outsmart the prime minister as well as the recalcitrant assembly.
A special plane was sent to London and when prime minister Bogra reached there after completing his visit to the US, he was forced to return to Pakistan rather than spending some time in the UK as planned. Commander-in-chief Ayub Khan and Iskander Mirza, former defence secretary and at that point of time the governor of East Bengal, accompanied the prime minister from London to Karachi. It was an escort of sorts — or perhaps a kidnap.
Upon reaching the governor general’s house, the PM was literally abused by Ghulam Mohammad, who forced Bogra’s removal and dissolved the federal assembly. Rubbing salt on the PM’s wounds, he was now asked to lead a new cabinet that was decided and made then and there in the room where the governor general lay in bed recuperating from an illness. The combination designated as ‘the Cabinet of all Talents’ comprised, among others, the sitting commander-in-chief who was also made the defence minister, Iskander Mirza, and Chaudhri Mohammad Ali.
The cabinet lost no time in devising the merger of all the provinces and states in the western wing of the country, thus creating the province of West Pakistan. This was done to neutralise the numerical majority of East Bengal. The engineering of the situation in this manner could enable the argument that since the country had now only two provinces, East and West Pakistan, they should therefore have equal representation. The term ‘parity’ thus entered Pakistan’s political lexicon.
Ghulam Mohammad’s decision of Oct 24, 1954, to dissolve the assembly was declared illegal by the Sindh High Court, which held that the governor general had the right to dissolve the legislative assembly under the interim constitution, but the assembly dissolved by him also served as the constituent assembly, whose dissolution was not within his competence. However, the historic decision was overruled by the federal court which observed that the constituent assembly, by not being able to furnish the constitution in seven years, had lost its legitimacy. Pakistan’s judiciary, therefore, derailed the country’s constitutional and democratic journey with this decision. Subsequently, the Federal Court and, later the Supreme Court, followed the tradition of un-seating the civilian regimes. But it all started in 1954.
In June 1955, a new assembly was elected through the electoral college of the provincial assemblies. By then, the provincial assembly in East Bengal had been re-elected, and in the provincial elections, held in early 1954, the United Front had defeated, rather routed, the Muslim League. This change was reflected in the elections to the new National Assembly in which the Muslim League lost its majority though it was still the single largest party. It formed the next government in coalition with the United Front. With the Bengali component of the Muslim League parliamentary party having shrunk, the Bengali prime minister, Mr Bogra, was replaced with Chaudhri Mohammad Ali.
Pakistan became a Republic on March 23, 1956 under Prime Minister Chaudhri Mohammad Ali (extreme left). Seen from right to left are Yusuf Haroon (secretary, Muslim League), I.I. Chundrigar (the law minister and future prime minister), Sher-e-Bengal A.K. Fazlul Huq (former interior minister and United Front leader who was instrumental in helping Prime Minister Chaudhri Mohammad Ali in steering the bill through the assembly) and the Speaker Abdul Wahab Khan. — The Press Information Department, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting & National Heritage, Islamabad
The main achievement of Mohammad Ali’s government was the approval of the 1956 constitution which brought to an end the dominion status of Pakistan and made it a republic. Notwithstanding this achievement, the constitution was infested with numerous weaknesses. It was not drafted by any constitutional body; rather it was drafted by the staff of the law ministry and was later put before the constituent assembly. It was a compromise among different factions represented in the assembly but it was an unnatural compromise for it was made under unusual compulsions and duress. The most prominent was the adoption of parity between East and West Pakistan, on which the Bengali leadership’s compromise could not last long as the subsequent months proved.
Similarly, the constitution remained silent on the question of the form of representation — separate electorate or joint electorate. The parliamentary system itself was subdued by giving extraordinary powers to the president. This was done only because the last governor general, Iskander Mirza, had to become the first president after the adoption of the constitution.
Chaudhri Mohammad Ali lost his premiership when he was compelled to support president Mirza in creating the Republican Party, which had to be given the responsibility of governing the newly-formed province of West Pakistan. It was a pretty unusual situation where the prime minister who belonged to the Muslim League was supporting the Republican Party in the West Pakistan assembly where the League itself was serving as the opposition. This annoyed the newly-elected League president, Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar, who asked the League ministers to resign from the federal cabinet thus pulling the carpet from under the prime minister’s feet.
A manipulator of the highest order, Mirza lost no time in asking Mohammad Ali to resign. Now Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy was invited to form the government. The Awami League leader managed to form a coalition, but within 13 months he was shown the door once he failed in keeping the coalition together. Mirza then looked towards Muslim League leader I.I. Chundrigar, who could survive less than two months, losing his office on the electorate issue. Then came Feroz Khan Noon of the Republican Party who managed a coalition with the Awami League that lasted 10 months until Mirza imposed martial law in collaboration with Gen Ayub Khan.
Course: Political & Constitutional Development in Pakistan-I(4667)
Semester: Spring 2019
Level: M. Sc (Pak Studies)
ASSIGNMENT No. 2
Q. 1 Critically analyze the role of Republican Party with reference to creating political stability inPakistan. What were the causes of the failure of Republican Party in this regard?
Answer:
Nazimuddin assumed the premiership on Liaquat’s death, and Ghulam Muhammad took his place as the governor-general. Ghulam Muhammad, a Punjabi, had been Jinnah’s choice to serve as Pakistan’s first finance minister and was an old and successful civil servant. The juxtaposition of these two very different personalities—Nazimuddin, known for his piety and reserved nature, and Ghulam Muhammad, a staunch advocate of strong, efficient administration—was hardly fortuitous. Nazimuddin’s assumption of the office of prime minister meant the country would have a weak head of government, and, with Ghulam Muhammad as governor-general, a strong head of state. Pakistan’s viceregal tradition was again in play.
In 1953 riots erupted in the Punjab, supposedly over a demand by militant Muslim groups that the Aḥmadiyyah sect be declared non-Muslim and that all members of the sect holding public office be dismissed. (Special attention was directed at Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, an Aḥmadiyyah and Pakistan’s first foreign minister.) Nazimuddin was held responsible for the disorder, especially for his inability to quell it, and Ghulam Muhammad took the opportunity to dismiss the prime minister and his government. Although another Bengali, Muhammad Ali Bogra, replaced Nazimuddin, there was no ignoring the fact that the viceregal tradition was continuing to dominate Pakistani political life and that Ghulam Muhammad, a bureaucrat and never truly a politician, with others like him, controlled Pakistan’s destiny.
Meanwhile, in East Bengal (East Pakistan), considerable opposition had developed against the Muslim League, which had managed the province since independence. This tension was capped in 1952 by a series of riots that sprang from a Muslim League attempt to make Urdu the only national language of Pakistan, although Bengali—the predominant language of the eastern sector—was spoken by a larger proportion of Pakistan’s population. The language riots galvanized the Bengalis, and they rallied behind their more indigenous parties to thwart what they argued was an effort by the West Pakistanis, notably the Punjabis, to transform East Bengal into a distant “colony.”
With a Punjabi bureaucratic elite in firm control of the central government, in March 1954 the last in a series of provincial elections was held in East Bengal. The contest was between the Muslim League government and a “United Front” of parties led by the Krishak Sramik party of Fazlul Haq (Fazl ul-Haq) and the Awami League of Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy, Mujibur Rahman, and Maulana Bhashani. When the ballots were counted, the Muslim League had not only lost the election, it had been virtually eliminated as a viable political force in the province. Fazlul Haq was given the opportunity to form the
new provincial government in East Bengal, but, before he could convene his cabinet, riots erupted in the factories south of the East Bengali capital of Dhaka (Dacca). This instability provided the central government with the opportunity to establish “governor’s rule” in the province and overturn the United Front’s electoral victory. Iskander Mirza, a civil servant, former defense secretary, and minister in the central government, was sent to rule over the province until such time as stability could be assured.
Iskander Mirza had no intention of implementing the results of the election, nor did he wish to install a new Muslim League government in East Bengal. But the Muslim League’s defeat and de facto elimination in the province necessitated realigning the Constituent Assembly—still grappling with the drafting of a national constitution—at the centre. Before this could be done, however, the Constituent Assembly moved to curtail Ghulam Muhammad’s viceregal powers. The governor-general’s response to this parliamentary effort to undermine his authority was to dissolve that body and reorganize the central government. The country’s high court cited the extraordinary powers of the chief executive and ruled not to reverse his action. The court, however, insisted that another constituent assembly should be organized and that constitution making should not be interrupted. Ghulam Muhammad assembled a “cabinet of talents” that included major personalities such as Iskander Mirza, Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan (the army chief of staff), and H.S. Suhrawardy (the last chief minister of undivided Bengal, and the only Bengali with national credentials).
In 1955 the bureaucrats who now took control of what remained of the Muslim League combined the four provinces of West Pakistan into one administrative unit and argued for parity in any future national parliament between West Pakistan and East Bengal (now officially renamed East Pakistan). Ghulam Muhammad, by then seriously ill, was forced to relinquish his office, and Iskander Mirza succeeded to the post of governor-general. In the meantime a new Constituent Assembly was seated; and in 1956 that body, under new leadership but still subject to the power of the bureaucracy—and now to the military as well—completed Pakistan’s long-awaited constitution, using the parity formula that supposedly gave equal power to both wings of the country.
The constitution of 1956 embodied objectives regarding religion and politics that had been set out in the Basic Principles Report published in 1950, one of which was to declare the country an Islamic republic. The national parliament was to comprise one house of 300 members, equally representing East and West Pakistan. Ten additional seats were reserved for women, again with half coming from each region. The prime minister and cabinet were to govern according to the will of the parliament, with the president exercising only reserve powers. Pakistan’s first president was its last governor- general, Iskander Mirza, but at no time did he consider bowing to the wishes of the parliament.
Along with a close associate, Dr. Khan Sahib, a former premier of the North-West Frontier Province, Mirza formed the Republican Party and made Khan Sahib the chief minister of the new province of West Pakistan. The Republican Party was assembled to represent the landed interests in West Pakistan, the basic source of all political power. Never an organized body, the Republican Party lacked
an ideology or a platform and merely served the feudal interests in West Pakistan.
Mirza made an alliance between the Republican Party and the East Pakistan Awami League and called on H.S. Suhrawardy to assume the office of prime minister. But the quixotic character of the alliance between the two parties, as well as the distance between the major personalities, produced only a short-lived association. Suhrawardy suffered the same fate as his predecessors and was ousted from office by Mirza without a vote of confidence. Unable to sustain alliances or govern in accordance with the constitution, the central government mirrored the chaos in the provinces. This was especially true in East Pakistan, where even in the absence of the Muslim League the different provincial parties—now further complicated by the formation of the National Awami Party, in 1957—struggled against forces that could not be reconciled. Pakistan was close to becoming unmanageable. The situation had become so grave that Khan Sahib circulated his idea that it was time to cease the political charade and give all power to a dictator.
Military government
In light of such dissent and with secession being voiced in different regions of the country (notably in East Pakistan and the North-West Frontier Province), on Oct. 7, 1958, Mirza proclaimed the 1956 constitution abrogated, closed the national and provincial assemblies, and banned all political partyactivity. He declared that the country was under martial law and that Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan had been made chief martial-law administrator. Mirza claimed that it was his intention to lift martial law as soon as possible and that a new constitution would be drafted; and on October 27 he swore in a new cabinet, naming Ayub Khan prime minister, while three lieutenant generals were given ministerial posts. The eight civilian members in the cabinet included businessmen and lawyers, one being a young newcomer, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a powerful landlord from Sind province. However, Ayub Khan viewed his being named prime minister as the president’s attempt to end his military career and ultimately to force him into oblivion. Clearly, the country could not afford two paramount rulers at the same time. Therefore, if one had to go, Ayub Khan decided that it should be Mirza. On the evening of October 27, Ayub Khan’s senior generals presented Mirza with an ultimatum of facing permanent exile or prosecution by a military tribunal. Mirza immediately left for London, never again to return to Pakistan. Soon thereafter, Ayub Khan, who now assumed the rank of field marshal, proclaimed his assumption of the presidency.
Martial law lasted 44 months. During that time, a number of army officers took over vital civil serviceposts. Many politicians were excluded from public life under an Electoral Bodies (Disqualification) Order; a similar purge took place among civil servants. Yet, Ayub Khan argued that Pakistan was not yet ready for a full-blown experiment in parliamentary democracy and that the country required a period of tutelage and honest government before a new constitutional system could be established. He therefore initiated a plan for “basic democracies,” consisting of rural and urban councils directly elected by the people that would be concerned with local governance and
would assist in programs of grassroots development. Elections took place in January 1960, and the Basic Democrats, as they became known, were at once asked to endorse and thus legitimate Ayub Khan’s presidency. Of the 80,000 Basic Democrats, 75,283 affirmed their support. Basic democracies was a tiered system inextricably linked to the bureaucracy, and the Basic Democrats occupied the lowest rung of a ladder that was connected to the country’s administrative subdistricts (tehsils, or tahsils), districts, and divisions.
It was soon clear that the real power in the system resided in the bureaucrats who had dominated decision making since colonial times. Nevertheless, the basic democracies system was linked to a public-works program that was sponsored by the United States. The combined effort was meant to confer responsibility for village and municipal development to the local population. Self- reliance was the watchword of the overall program, and Ayub Khan and his advisers, as well as important donor countries, believed the arrangement would provide material benefits and possibly even expose people to self-governing experiences.
Ayub Khan also established a constitutional commission to advise on a form of government more appropriate to the country’s political culture, and his regime introduced a number of reforms. Not the least of these was the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance of 1961, which restricted polygamy and provided more rights and protection for women. He also authorized the development of family- planning programs that were aimed at tackling the dilemma of Pakistan’s growing population. Such actions angered the more conservative and religiously disposed members of society, who also swelled the ranks of the opposition. Under pressure to make amends and to placate the guardians of Islamic tradition, the family-planning program was eventually scrapped.
An important feature of the Ayub Khan regime was the quickening pace of economic growth. During the initial phase of independence, the annual growth rate was less than 3 percent, and that was scarcely ahead of the rate of population growth. Just prior to the military coup, the rate of growth was even smaller. During the Ayub Khan era—with assistance from external sources, notably the United States—the country accelerated economic growth, and by 1965 it had advanced to more than 6 percent per annum. Development was particularly vigorous in the manufacturing sector, but considerable attention was also given to agriculture. U.S. assistance was especially prominent in combating water logging and salinity problems that resulted from irrigation in the more vital growing zones. Moreover, plans were implemented that launched the “green revolution” in Pakistan, and new hybrid wheat and rice varieties were introduced with the goal of increasing yields.
Despite positive economic developments, overall, most investment was directed toward West Pakistan, and the divisions between East and West grew during this period. Ayub Khan attempted to answer Bengali fears of becoming second-class citizens when—after work was begun, at his order, on building a new Pakistan capital at Islamabad—he declared it was his intention to build a second, or legislative, capital near Dhaka, in East Pakistan. However, the start of construction on the new second
capital did not placate the Bengalis, who were angered by Ayub Khan’s abrogation of the 1956 constitution, his failure to hold national elections, and the decision to sustain martial law.
East Pakistanis had many grievances, and in no instance did they genuinely believe their purposes and concerns could be served under Ayub Khan’s military government. Subsequent developments only served to enforce these beliefs. Water rights agreements signed with India and hydroelectric projects along the Indus River benefited the West, as did military agreements reached with the United States. The Pakistani officer class was largely from West Pakistan, and all the key army and air installations were located there—even in the case of naval capability, Karachi was a far more formidable base of operations than Chittagong in East Pakistan.
In 1962 Ayub Khan promulgated another constitution. Presidential rather than parliamentary in focus, it was based on an indirectly elected president and a reinforced centralized political system that emphasized the country’s viceregal tradition. Although Ayub anticipated launching the new political system without political parties, once the National Assembly was convened and martial law was lifted, it was apparent that political parties would be reactivated. Ayub therefore formed his own party, the Convention Muslim League, but the country’s political life and its troubles were little different from the days before martial law.
Ayub Khan won another formal term as president of Pakistan in January 1965, albeit in an election in which only the Basic Democrats cast ballots. Opposed by Fatima Jinnah, the sister of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who ran on a Combined Opposition Parties ticket, the contest was closer than expected. During the election campaign, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto—who as foreign minister was supposedly a loyal member of the Ayub Khan cabinet—promised in a public address that the conflict over Kashmir would be resolved during Ayub Khan’s presidency. Bhutto indicated that Kashmir would be released from Indian occupation by negotiation or, if that failed, by armed force, but there was little indication that Ayub Khan had sanctioned Bhutto’s pronouncement. Nevertheless, the foreign minister’s speech appeared to be both solace to the pro-Kashmiri interests in West Pakistan and a green light to the Pakistan army to begin making plans for a campaign in the disputed region.
A new war over Kashmir was not long in coming. Skirmishes between Indian and Pakistani forces on the line of control between the two administrated portions of the region increased in the summer of
1965, and by September major hostilities had erupted between the two neighbours. Indian strategy confounded Pakistani plans, as New Delhi ordered its forces to strike all along the border between India and West Pakistan and to launch air raids against East Pakistan and even threaten to invade the East. Pakistan’s military stores soon were exhausted, a situation made worse by an American- imposed arms embargo on both states that affected Pakistan much more than India. Ayub Khan had to consider halting the hostilities.
Q. 2 Discuss in detail administrative reforms introduced by Ayub Khan Regime. What were the results of these administrative reforms?
Answer:
On October 7, 1958, President Iskander Mirza abrogated the Constitution and declared Martial Law in the country. This was the first of many military regimes in Pakistan’s history. The Constitution of 1956 was abrogated, ministers were dismissed, Central and Provincial Assemblies were dissolved and all political activities were banned. General Muhammad Ayub Khan, the then Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, became the Chief Martial Law Administrator. The parliamentary system in Pakistan came to end. Iskander Mirza was ousted by General Ayub Khan, who then declared himself President. This was actually welcomed in Pakistan as the nation had experienced a very unstable political climate since independence. Despite economic growth, continuing economic and social inequalities, the disadvantaged position of East Pakistan, and limitation of civil liberties provoked increasing discontent with his regime. Ayub Khan used two main approaches to governing in his first few years. He concentrated on consolidating power and undermining the opposition. He also aimed to establish the groundwork for future stability through altering the economic, legal, and constitutional institutions. The imposition of martial law targeted “antisocial” practices such as abducting women and children, black marketeering, smuggling, and hoarding. Many in the Civil Service of Pakistan and Police Service of Pakistan were investigated and punished for corruption, misconduct, inefficiency, or subversive activities. Corruption had become so widespread within the national and civic systems of administration that Ayub Khan was welcomed as a national hero by the people. The new military government promised that they would carry out reforms in the entire government structure and would cleanse the administration of the rampant corruption.
A thorough screening process of all government servants was conducted and service records were closely scrutinized. Public servants were tried for misconduct by tribunals consisting of retired judges of the Supreme Court or High Court. Disciplinary actions such as dismissal or compulsory retirement of the public servant could take place against corrupt officials. A public servant could also be disqualified from holding any public office for 15 years. About 3,000 officials were dismissed and many other were reduced in rank as a result of these measures. A law called the Elective Bodies Disqualification Order, popularly known as E. B. D. O, was promulgated for the disqualification of politicians. Under this law, a person could be disqualified from being a member of any elective body. Under this harsh law, several politicians like Suhrawardy and Qayyum Khan were disqualified.
The E. B. D. O, particularly its application, was severely criticized in the legal and political circles throughout Pakistan. Moreover, Ayub Khan focused on the long-standing question of land reforms in West Pakistan. It was meant to reduce the power of groups opposing him like landed aristocracy. The Land Reform Commission was set up in 1958. In 1959, the government imposed a ceiling of 200 hectares of irrigated and 400 hectares of unirrigated land in the West Wing for a single person. In the East Wing, the landholding ceiling was raised from thirty-three hectares to forty-eight hectares. Landholders retained their dominant positions in the social hierarchy and their political influence. Four
million hectares of land in West Pakistan was released for public acquisition between 1959 and
1969.It was sold mainly to civil and military officers. It created a new class of farmers having medium- sized holdings. These farms became immensely important for future agricultural development, but the peasants benefited scarcely at all. In addition, a legal commission was set up to suggest reforms of the family and marriage laws. Ayub Khan examined its report and issued the Family Laws Ordinance in 1961. It restricted polygamy and “regulated” marriage and divorce, giving women more equal treatment under the law. It was a humane measure supported by women’s organizations in Pakistan. The ordinance could not have been promulgated owing to opposition from the ulema and the fundamentalist Muslim groups. This law like family planning was relatively mild and did not seriously transform the patriarchal pattern of society. Furthermore, Ayub Khan adopted an energetic approach toward economic development. It soon bore fruit in a rising rate of economic growth. Ayub Khan period is credited with Green Revolution and economic and industrial growth. Land reform, consolidation of holdings, and strict measures against hoarding were combined with rural credit programs and work programs, higher procurement prices, augmented allocations for agriculture, and, especially, improved seeds put the country on the road to self-sufficiency in food grains. This is popularly known as the Green Revolution.
The Export Bonus Vouchers Scheme (1959) and tax incentives stimulated new industrial entrepreneurs and exporters. Bonus vouchers facilitated access to foreign exchange for imports of industrial machinery and raw materials. Tax concessions were offered for investment in less- developed areas. These measures had important consequences in bringing industry to Punjab and gave rise to a new class of small industrialists. Moreover, Ayub khan introduced certain reforms in the field of education. It was meant to raise the literacy level and trained manpower in Pakistan. He made technical education mandatory. Two year degree program was extended to three years. Civil Defense training was made mandatory in the schools and colleges. Last but not the least, Ayub khan introduced labor reforms. Ayub showed interest to work for the betterment of the labor class. It was made mandatory for the factory owners to recognize the elected union council and to consider its opinion in all the issues. The government provided the security to the leader and members of the union council from any revengeful activity of the factory owner. In September 1961, a law was passed about the basic daily wages of the laborers. Social security scheme was promulgated by which the labor were to be facilitated in case of any emergency. Ayub’s policies of concentrating political power in his own hands, his control over the press and media, imposing state of emergency in the country, and his interference in religion were also responsible for his downfall. By the end of 1968, the public resentment against the Ayub’s regime touched a boiling point and an anti-Ayub movement was launched by the urban-middle class; including students, teachers, lawyers, doctors, and engineers. Law and order broke down and Ayub was left with no other option but to step down.
Q. 3 What were the powers of the President and the process of his impeachment provided for inthe Constitution of 1962. Elaborate in detail.
Answer:
EVERY so often I find someone arguing that the present disarray in our government and politics will not go away unless we adopt a presidential system. But no one has spelled out the relevant specifics and told us what kind of a presidential system he is commending. We did once have such a system, and I propose to recall its principal features to provide a frame of reference, or a point of departure, for further thinking.
The 1962 Constitution that Ayub Khan had bestowed upon us vested the executive authority of the Republic in the president. He appointed such ministers as he might want to have without reference to the legislature, and they served during his pleasure. He allocated the central government’s work to divisions, approved its rules of business, and specified the manner in which his orders and instructions were to be carried out.
He could appoint from amongst members of the National Assembly a number of persons (as many as the number of government divisions) as parliamentary secretaries to perform such functions as he might assign to them. Since his ministers could not be members of the Assembly (because of the required separation of powers), these parliamentary secretaries could serve as his agents in the legislature, for they remained its voting members.
The president was to be elected by 80,000 members of “basic democracies” (rural and urban local councils). The ordinary citizens of Pakistan were thus excluded from participation in his election. He could be removed from office for reasons of physical or mental incapacity, or for wilful violation of the Constitution or gross misconduct. The initial move for his removal or impeachment must be endorsed by at least one third of the total membership of the National Assembly. It must have the support of three quarters of the Assembly’s members to succeed. If one half of them did not vote for it, those who had initiated the move would lose their seats in the National Assembly forthwith. (Enough to scare those who might contemplate his removal.)
Strangely enough, the Constitution did not specifically vest the legislative power of the Republic in the National Assembly. This may have been the case because, as we will see shortly, it gave the president extensive control over legislation and authority to issue instruments having the force of law. It did not prescribe any specific number of days, or the times, for which the assembly must meet. The Speaker could call it to session at the request of one third of its membership, and the president could summon and prorogue it from time to time.
The Assembly was not empowered to override the president’s veto. If he declined assent to a bill it had passed, and if it passed the bill again, in its original version or with amendments, with a two-thirds majority of its total membership, it would resubmit the bill to him. If he still did not like it, he could submit it to a referendum to be conducted among the members of the Electoral College (80,000 “basic democrats”). It would become law only if it passed that hurdle.
The Assembly could not take up and pass legislation that would require, for its implementation, expenditure of public funds without the president’s prior approval. Thus the Constitution, in effect, deprived it of the authority to legislate on its own initiative, in that it is hard to imagine a law that would require no public funds whatsoever for its execution. The president could make and promulgate any number of ordinances, having the force of law, at times when the National Assembly was not in session. An ordinance so made could remain in effect for as long as six months if the Assembly had not been called to session during that time, and for 42 days after its first meeting following the promulgation of the said ordinance. The president could also promulgate ordinances, as he might deem fit, while a proclamation of emergency he had issued remained in force even if the National Assembly was in session at the time. The Assembly would not have the power to annul them. The Constitution allowed the president to dissolve the National Assembly at any time, except during the last 120 days of its term or when proceedings for his own removal from office had been initiated but not yet concluded. He was not required to give his reasons for dissolving the Assembly.
Apart from making laws that would bring about societal improvement, it is the normal function of a legislature to levy taxes and authorize the purposes for which their proceeds are to be spent. But, amazing though it may be, the Constitution of 1962 did not assign this function, and the corresponding authority, to the National Assembly of Pakistan.
Expenses related to the offices of the president, his ministers and parliamentary secretaries, speaker and members of the National Assembly, judges of the Supreme Court, and several other presidential appointees, plus service charges on the national debt, were to be charged upon the Central Consolidated Fund without needing legislative approval. Also exempted from that necessity were demands not shown in the annual budget as new expenditures. “Recurring expenditures” were not subject to the Assembly’s approval except in relation to an excess of more than 10 per cent over the amount approved for the same purpose the previous year. The Assembly might accept, reject, or reduce demands for new expenditures. But it could not appropriate funds for projects of its own choosing.
Nor could it levy new taxes or make changes in the existing ones. It could not authorize borrowing or place any financial obligation upon the government without the president’s concurrence. The Constitution required the placement of a sum of money not less than 10 per cent of the government’s total expenditures as a “contingency” fund to be used by the president in his discretion to meet unanticipated, and unnamed, needs. The president, acting in his discretion and without reference to the legislature, appointed the heads of the armed services, chief justice of the Supreme Court, chairman and members of the Central Public Service Commission, the attorney general, comptroller and auditor general, chief election commissioner, chairman and members of the Advisory Council of Islamic Ideology. He also appointed the provincial governors who, in the discharge of their functions, were to follow his directions. He approved the postings of persons belonging to an “All Pakistan Service” (Civil Service of Pakistan, Police Service of Pakistan, etc.), and holding positions connected
with the affairs of the centre.
This Constitution disenfranchised citizens except for choosing local councillors (40,000 in each of the two provinces), who in turn elected the president, and members of the central and provincial legislatures. The present advocates of a presidential system do not necessarily want to restore this abominable usurpation of the people’s right to be governed by their chosen representatives. We shall, therefore, disregard it and limit ourselves to a brief comment on the president’s authority and powers as outlined above.
The ideas of the separation of powers and checks and balances, which distinguish a presidential from a parliamentary system, did not get more than a perfunctory recognition in the Constitution of 1962. In order to have a frame of comparative reference, let us take a quick look at the salient features of the American presidential system. Legislative power vests unequivocally in Congress. It may adopt any number of bills that its own members may have introduced at the president’s request or on their own initiative. The president may veto a bill, but a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress can override his veto. Congress levies taxes and authorizes expenditures. The president proposes a budget for the next fiscal year but Congress is free to appropriate more or less than what he has requested, and allocate funds for purposes of its own choosing.
Congress may impeach and try the president for grave misdemeanours and send him home, but he cannot dissolve Congress. Normally, he does not even summon or prorogue it. Congress is authorized to oversee the administration’s performance in executing the laws it has made. Presidential appointments to higher posts in the judiciary, executive departments, and the diplomatic service cannot take effect until confirmed by the Senate. It should be apparent that the National Assembly of Pakistan under the 1962 Constitution was not a legislature in the normal sense of that term. As we have seen above, it was not free to make laws, levy taxes, or allocate funds without the president’s consent. It could not oversee the administration’s performance. The president’s ministers were free to address the house but they were not required to be present on the floor to answer questions or respond to criticism. The “representative institutions” Ayub Khan allowed us were wanting not only in the mode by which they came into being but also with reference to the authority they were permitted. Those who advocate a presidential system for Pakistan do so in the hope of doing away with “horse trading,” defections, intrigues, and the resulting political instability witnessed during our more recent parliamentary regimes. They believe these vices will disappear if the chief executive has a fixed term of office and need not, therefore, bend to fickle and covetous politicians.
At this point we may ask what exactly these advocates have in mind for us. If they want to give us anything like the American presidential system, the chief executive in our present political culture may have security of tenure, but he will not be allowed to govern. Our assembly men and senators will hassle and harass him, his ministers, and higher civil servants every step of the way, demand all kinds of favours, before they authorize his budget and accept his legislative proposals. On the other hand, if
our political engineers wish to return us to the Constitution of 1962, then evidently they consider us as deserving of nothing better than a presidential dictatorship.
Q. 4 What were the economic institutions established by the Ayub Khan regime? Make a critical analysis of the role of these institutions in strengthening Financial-Industrial Groups
A:
n January 1951, Ayub Khan succeeded General Sir Douglas Gracey as commander in chief of the Pakistan Army, becoming the first Pakistani in that position. Although Ayub Khan's military career was not particularly brilliant and although he had not previously held a combat command, he was promoted over several senior officers with distinguished careers. Ayub Khan probably was selected because of his reputation as an able administrator, his presumed lack of political ambition, and his lack of powerful group backing. Coming from a humble family of an obscure Pakhtun tribe, Ayub Khan also lacked affiliation with major internal power blocks and was, therefore, acceptable to all elements.
Within a short time of his promotion, however, Ayub Khan had become a powerful political figure. Perhaps more than any other Pakistani, Ayub Khan was responsible for seeking and securing military and economic assistance from the United States and for aligning Pakistan with it in international affairs. As army commander in chief and for a time as minister of defense in 1954, Ayub Khan was empowered to veto virtually any government policy that he felt was inimical to the interests of the armed forces.
By 1958 Ayub Khan and his fellow officers decided to turn out the "inefficient and rascally" politicians--a task easily accomplished without bloodshed. Ayub Khan's philosophy was indebted to the Mughal and viceregal traditions; his rule was similarly highly personalized. Ayub Khan justified his assumption of power by citing the nation's need for stability and the necessity for the army to play a central role. When internal stability broke down in the 1960s, he remained contemptuous of lawyer-politicians and handed over power to his fellow army officers.
Ayub Khan used two main approaches to governing in his first few years. He concentrated on consolidating power and intimidating the opposition. He also aimed to establish the groundwork for future stability through altering the economic, legal, and constitutional institutions.
The imposition of martial law in 1958 targeted "antisocial" practices such as abducting women and children, black marketeering, smuggling, and hoarding. Many in the Civil Service of Pakistan and Police Service of Pakistan were investigated and punished for corruption, misconduct, inefficiency, or subversive activities. Ayub Khan's message was clear: he, not the civil servants, was in control.
Sterner measures were used against the politicians. The PRODA prescribed fifteen years' exclusion from public office for those found guilty of corruption. The Elective Bodies Disqualification Order (EBDO) authorized special tribunals to try former politicians for "misconduct," an infraction not clearly defined. Prosecution could be avoided if the accused agreed not to be a candidate for any elective body for a
period of seven years. About 7,000 individuals were "EBDOed." Some people, including Suhrawardy, who was arrested, fought prosecution.
The Press and Publications Ordinance was amended in 1960 to specify broad conditions under which newspapers and other publications could be commandeered or closed down. Trade organizations, unions, and student groups were closely monitored and cautioned to avoid political activity, and imams (see Glossary) at mosques were warned against including political matters in sermons.
On the whole, however, the martial law years were not severe. The army maintained low visibility and was content to uphold the traditional social order. By early 1959, most army units had resumed their regular duties. Ayub Khan generally left administration in the hands of the civil bureaucracy, with some exceptions.
Efforts were made to popularize the regime while the opposition was muzzled. Ayub Khan maintained a high public profile, often taking trips expressly to "meet the people." He was also aware of the need to address some of the acute grievances of East Pakistan. To the extent possible, only Bengali members of the civil service were posted in the East Wing; previously, many of the officers had been from the West Wing and knew neither the region nor the language. Dhaka was designated the legislative capital of Pakistan, while the newly created Islamabad became the administrative capital. Central government bodies, such as the Planning Commission, were now instructed to hold regular sessions in Dhaka. Public investment in East Pakistan increased, although private investment remained heavily skewed in favor of West Pakistan. The Ayub Khan regime was so highly centralized, however, that, in the absence of democratic institutions, densely populated and politicized Bengal continued to feel it was being slighted.
Between 1958 and 1962, Ayub Khan used martial law to initiate a number of reforms that reduced the power of groups opposing him. One such group was the landed aristocracy. The Land Reform Commission was set up in 1958, and in 1959 the government imposed a ceiling of 200 hectares of irrigated land and 400 hectares of unirrigated land in the West Wing for a single holding. In the East Wing, the landholding ceiling was raised from thirty-three hectares to forty-eight hectares (see Farm Ownership and Land Reform , ch. 3). Landholders retained their dominant positions in the social hierarchy and their political influence but heeded Ayub Khan's warnings against political assertiveness. Moreover, some 4 million hectares of land in West Pakistan, much of it in Sindh, was released for public acquisition between 1959 and 1969 and sold mainly to civil and military officers, thus creating a new class of farmers having medium-sized holdings. These farms became immensely important for future agricultural development, but the peasants benefited scarcely at all.
In 1955 a legal commission was set up to suggest reforms of the family and marriage laws. Ayub Khan examined its report and in 1961 issued the Family Laws Ordinance. Among other things, it restricted polygyny and "regulated" marriage and divorce, giving women more equal treatment under the law than they had had before. It was a humane measure supported by women's organizations in Pakistan, but the
ordinance could not have been promulgated if the vehement opposition to it from the ulama and the fundamentalist Muslim groups had been allowed free expression. However, this law which was similar to the one passed on family planning, was relatively mild and did not seriously transform the patriarchal pattern of society.
Ayub Khan adopted an energetic approach toward economic development that soon bore fruit in a rising rate of economic growth. Land reform, consolidation of holdings, and stern measures against hoarding were combined with rural credit programs and work programs, higher procurement prices, augmented allocations for agriculture, and, especially, improved seeds to put the country on the road to self-sufficiency in food grains in the process described as the Green Revolution.
The Export Bonus Vouchers Scheme (1959) and tax incentives stimulated new industrial entrepreneurs and exporters. Bonus vouchers facilitated access to foreign exchange for imports of industrial machinery and raw materials. Tax concessions were offered for investment in less-developed areas. These measures had important consequences in bringing industry to Punjab and gave rise to a new class of small industrialists.
Q. 5 What were the causes of downfall of Ayub Khan? Elaborate the causes with special reference to dislike developed within the military for Ayub Khan?
A
In the midst 1950s Pakistan was like Hobbes State of Nature. The political situation was deteriorating day by day. So on October 7th 1958, President Maj. Gen. Sikander Mirza imposed Martial Law and appointed Gen. Muhammad Ayub Khan as the CMLA. The Revolution of 1958 was welcomed by the people of Pakistan and they heaved a sigh of relief as the Martial Law regime at once restored law and order situation in the country. However, after some time Gen Ayub Khan deposed Sikander Mirza and assumed the office as the second President of Pakistan. In 1962 he gave a new constitution to the country and ailed the country for about 11 years. During this prolonged era, he adopted such policies and committed such blunders, which led the people to rise his regime in the shape of strong country- wide anti-government agitation and demonstrations. At last on 25th March 1969 he announced his resignation and handed over power to Gen. Yahya Khan the then C-in-C of the army and explained the reasons of his resignation in his broadcast to the nation.
Failure of Mohammad Ayub Khan
Following are the major causes of the failure of Ayub's regime
Ayub’s Constitutional Dictatorship
In 1958 Ayub's Martial Law had been held by a popular acclaim as it put promise to put an end to the misuse of power, corruption and political stability but when he ascended to thrown, he started thinking of life-long rule and when he gave 'his one rule' legal cover under the 1962 Constitution, the
political parties and democratic minded people were not ready to tolerate his dictatorship for a long time and bitterly opposed the system.
Presidential System
President Ayub introduced Presidential system under 1962 Constitution because he considered strong executive to be sole panacea of all the political ills prevalent in the country at that time, but the fact was that he wanted to concentrate everything in his own hands. There was no real division of powers between the legislature and the executive. As a result the legislature became less important and executive more authoritarian.
Federal form of Government
Under 1962 Constitution Pakistan was a federation. It is the essence of a federation that all federating units must autonomous in their internal affairs and decisions but it was not the case with Ayub's federation. It was federal only in theory while in practice the units were under the supreme control of the centre. They depended upon the centre regarding all their matters and decisions. The centre dictated them in terms.
Ayub's System of indirect Election
Under the 1962 Constitution indirect system of election was adopted. The primary voters were to elect Basic Democrats who were to serve as an electoral college for the election of the President, members of National and Provincial Assemblies. Their strength was 80,000 equally distributed between both the wings. Later on their strength was raised to 120,000. His indirect system of election was criticized on the ground that the government and other political parties could easily force the limited number of Basic Democrats to vote for their candidates and the common had been deprived of their right of proper participation in the affairs of the state or we can say that there was very restricted franchise.
The 1965 War and the Tashkent Declaration
The 965 War proved to be a great setback in Ayub's career. He had adopted a war strategy according to which the East-Pakistan was left defenseless. However, the strategy remained useless during the war. The Tashkent Agreement after the 1965 war was not welcomed by the people because it provided withdrawal retreat of the troops to their respective pre-war positions. That why Z.A. Bhutto declared that what Pakistan had gained in the battlefield was lost on the diplomatic table.The core issue of the war was Kashmir dispute but it was not mentioned in the Tashkent Declaration. Hence no advancement was made for the solution of this problem in the post-Tashkent Agreement period, which created disappointment not only among masses but also in the army.
Economic instability and Disparity
After coming into power Muhammad Ayub Khan resolved to make Pakistan economically developed.
But he failed to stabilize Pakistan's economy on sound footings. Wealth began to concentrate in few hands particularly to 22 families. In 1968 Dr. Mehboob-ul-Haq a chief economist, disclosed that these
22 families controlled 67% of the entire industrial capital, 80% of banking and 97% of insurance capital. This socio-economic injustice widened the gap between the rich and the poor. The number of educated jobless people was increasing day-by-day, prices of essential commodities raised to such an extent that in 1968 there occurred serious shortage of sugar and drinking, water in Karachi. Ayub's economic activities did not bring any change and revolution in socio-economic position of common man. Hence the people frustrated slowly and gradually of his regime.
Insistence on One Unit
In October 1955 One Unit was established to create parity between the two wings. Small provinces and regional political parties had been condemning. One Unit from the very beginning of its creation when Ayub came to power, he insisted on One Unit, which produced instance reaction among the small provinces and regional political parties of Bengal. For this purpose they started agitation against Ayub’s regime to force him to dissolve One Unit.
Ayub's Elective Body Disqualification Ordinance
President Muhammad Ayub Khan had introduced EBDO. Many politicians of both the wings of Pakistan were EBDOed for misuse of power. In addition many politicians including Ayub Khuro were arrested on specific grounds and charges. Ayub Khan' aim of this ordinance was in fact to remove his political opponents from political scene. This ordinance was severely criticized by the politicians who termed it as everybody disqualification ordinance.
Ayub's Family Law Ordinance
Ayub's regime had promulgated Family Law Ordinance under which polygamy was banned, age limit was fixed for both the sexes from 14 to 16 years, husbands were restricted to divorce and sale of daughters was banned etc. Such laws invited the wrath of orthodox religious leaders and people. Besides, his family planning programme was declared un-Islamic by the staunch Ulama. All the above policies were also bitterly criticized by religious scholars. Even some enthusiastic mullahs passed a verdict and declared him 'Kafir'.Their response also came in the shape of agitation and demonstrations.
Press and Publication Ordinance
Ayub khan had issued Press and Publication Ordinance in order to revise the existing laws pertaining to the proprietorship editorship of newspapers etc. But this ordinance severely affected the freedom of the press as it was used to propagate the idea of the Government and to defame the Opposition parties. People and the political parties were deadly opposed to this ordinance, which brought the press under tight grip.
Ayub's University Ordinance
Under the University Ordinance of Ayub’s regime, Bachelor degree course was extended from 2 to 3 years and a method of monthly exam was introduced. The results of monthly tests were to be considered while determining the annual final results etc. These measures were rejected by the students and universities staff. Students of East-Pakistan formed a Students Action Committee to stress him to carry out their 11 Points programme. The movement gained further momentum when on
20th January 1969 a student leader was killed by police firing in Decca.
Course: Political & Constitutional Development in Pakistan-II (4668)
Semester: Spring 2019
Level: M. Sc (Pak Studies)
ASSIGNMENT No. 1
Q.1 Critically analyze the economic causes of separation of East Pakistan.
Answer:
Political system in Pakistan broke down in 1971 because of output failure arising out of dissension and conflict among East and West Pakistan. Though separation of East Pakistan occurred in 1971, the separation’s elements had begun to work with the emergence of Pakistan in 1947. Following were the main causes of the separation of East Pakistan.
1. Hindu Influence
The 14% Hindu population had full control over the economy of East Pakistan. They were better educated than the native Bengali Muslims. They owned press and mass media. At First, the Hindus were the members of the Indian National Congress but after partition they founded their own organization, Pakistan National Congress (PAC). The members of PAC were, in fact, the political agents of India in East Pakistan.
2. Failure of Muslim League leadership in East Pakistan
The Cabinet did not pay due attention towards the problems of the people, hence its capability became zero in the eyes of people. The selfish politicians fought among themselves for the lust of chair.
The principal leaders and groups representing East Bengal in the Muslim League came from upper-class, land-owning, Urdu speaking families of Dhaka or the mercantile group of Calcutta. Soon after the creation of Pakistan, the conflict between those who claimed to represent popular and more radical factors in Bengal and those more conservative elements, began.
3. The Conflict over Language
The Bengalis took processions in favour of their Bengali language even in the life time of Quaid-e-Azam. Although, Bengali was adopted as one of the two state languages, Governor Munim Khan banned the broad cast of Tagots songs or poems over Dhaka Radio and prevented the imports of the Bengali books from Calcutta.
4. Unity of Bengali Muslims and Hindus
To establish majority on Pak-legislature, they had to unite with their fellow Bengali Hindus. Therefore, the man like H.S. Sehrwardy was a consistent advocate of joint electorates.
5. The Delay in Constitution Making Process
The delay in Constitution making process gave rise to suspicions and misunderstandings between the people of two halves. The population of East Pakistan was 56%. The Bengalis demanded their representation according to the percentage of population in the national assembly.
6. Presidential Form of Government
A parliamentary system could have at least partially offset West Pakistan dominance in the civil and military services. Again the same mistake was made. Instead of opting for loose Confederate Form of Government, the power elite decided in favour of highly centralized presidential system. The opposition from East Pakistan was intense and un-equivocal for progressive increase in the amount of autonomy.
7. Six Point Formula of Sh. Mujeeb
The Awami League view was supported by 75% of the electorate in East Pakistan who voted in the elections in 1970.
Pakistan shall be Federation grooming full autonomy on the basis of 6 Points to each of Federating units.
i. The character of Government shall be Federal and Parliamentary. The representation in the Federal legislature shall be on the basis of population.
ii. The Federal Government shall be responsible only for Defence and Foreign Affairs.
iii. There shall be two separate currencies mutually or freely convertible in each wing for each region.
iv. Fiscal Policy shall be the responsibility of the Federating units.
v. Separate accounts of foreign exchange earning of each of the federating units.
vi. The units shall be empowered to maintain a Para-military fore in order to contribute towards national security.
These were interpreted by West Pakistan as designed to bring about the disintegration of the country.
8. Role of Ruling Elite
1) Civil Service
2) Military Hierarchy
Their clear ascendancy as a ruling group had long been established, particularly since military coup of Ayub in 1958.
· This group made all major decisions in terms of economic and defence policies.
· East Pakistan bitterly complained that there were few East Pakistani officers at highest posts of the civil service. Until 1969 all the higher officers were from West Pakistan or had emigrated from Muslim minority areas of India.
· Pakistan Army was recruited from 4 districts of Northern Punjab (Rawalpindi, Cambellpur, Jehlum and Gujrat ) and two districts of NWFP (Peshawar and Kohat). 60% Army consisted of Punjabi and 35% Pakhtoon Jawans.
· The Bengalis were still considered non-martial race.
· Separation between Ruling elite from the majority of population.
Pakistan bureaucratic and military elite were not only separated from the majority of their population who lived in East Pakistan, but they were also separated in both social and regional terms even from the people of regions like Sindh, Balochistan and Frontier.
9. Economic Disparity Between East and West Pakistan
· The West Pakistan elite favoured the policies of economic growth of the West Pakistan.
· The policy of industrialization through the encouragement of private sector dates back to 1948.
· Most of lucrative import licences were given to the West Pakistan.
· Share of East Pakistan was about 26% of total investment (Public and Private) during the First Five Years Plan (1955-1960). Total revenue expenditure in East Pakistan was 2.5 billion as compared to 8.9 billion in West Pakistan.
· The wave of resentment against this disparity had been rising since 1954 elections. But no drastic and significant change was made in policies. This resulted into bitter-opposition and resentment towards the central government.
· The major factor responsible for slower growth of East Pakistan was agriculture.
· Doctrine that economic inequalities were necessary for rapid economic growth of the country.
· 22 families controlled over the economy of the entire country.
· 66% Native industrial assets.
· 80% banking assets.
· 79% Insurance assets.
· Political system of Pakistan could not cope with the stresses and strains generated by native economic policies and so eventually broke down.
10. The Failure in the Enforcement of Legal Framework Order of 1970.
· This order was drawn up to provide a basis for the elections for the creation of National and Provincial assemblies and for the drafting of a constitution.
· National Assembly had to complete the task of framing a constitution within 120 days.
· After the original failure of the NA to meet in spring of 1971, modifications were introduced into LFO, relieving the assembly of the responsibility of framing a constitution but conferring powers to amend constitution.
· General Yahya Khan failed to enforce legal frame work order, and the result was the political unrest between the 2 parts of the country.
11. The War of Power Between Bhutto and Mujeeb
The Awami League, by virtue of its over-whelming majority in election, was entitled to establish its government, but Mr. Z.A. Bhutto having the patronage from General Yahya Khan boycotted the session of National Assembly at Dhaka, which was postponed by General Yahya Khan. Mr. Mujeeb-ur-Rehman alleged Yahya Khan with partiality and began to agitate the people for civil war.
12. Military Operation in East Pakistan
· Mr. Mujeeb refused to go to Islamabad.
· His home became centre of all policies and administrative affairs of East Pakistan.
· On March 23, 1971, a lot of West Pakistanis were massacred and Bangladesh Flag was hoisted instead of Pakistani Flag. The Pakistan Day was celebrated as the Resistance Day.
· General Tikka Khan was made the Governor of East Pakistan. He successfully crushed the anti-government elements, but could not manage the affairs properly due to the non-cooperation of Bengali bureaucracy who were responsible for the revolt.
· The military operation brought inexpressible miseries and sufferings to the Bengalis. The result was that Central Government deprived herself of the public support and sympathies.
13. Hijacking of Indian Plan to Lahore on Jan 30, 1971
· Hijacking if the aircraft Ganga was arranged by the Indian Intelligence Agencies as the culmination of a series of actions taken by the Indian Government.
· Incident occurred at a time when talks were in progress between the leaders of Awami League and PPP for the resolution of differences.
· India banned Pakistani flights over its territory to disrupt communications between two halves and strengthened the separatist tendencies.
14. The Intrigues of the Super-Powers
Pakistan was an intimate friend of China but the super powers like America and Russia wanted to terrorize China by surrounding it on all sides. This was not possible in case of united Pakistan. TheUSA not only encouraged Israel, provided arms to India but also forbade Saudi Arabia and Jordan to supply arms to Pakistan. The USA did not care for the defence treaty of 1959 (SENTO), by which America was bound to help Pakistan in case of foreign aggression.
{================}
Q.2 Make a critically analyze of reservations of leadership of West Pakistan about Awami League forming a government after winning majority seats. What was the justification of those reforms?
Answer:
Pakistan lost its eastern wing on December 16, 1971, but the seeds of discord were sown much earlier. It’s not possible to pinpoint what led to the dismemberment of Pakistan and why the Bengalis who played a pivotal role in Pakistan Movement opted for a separatist path, but there were some significant developments such as the postponement of the inaugural session, on March 3, of the National Assembly after the December 7, 1970 elections that led to the splitting of a country in 1971.
Following the postponement of this inaugural session of National Assembly till the launching of ‘Operation Search Light’ on March 25 to crush the civil disobedience movement launched by the majority party Awami League (162 out of 300 seats of National Assembly in December 1970 elections), East Pakistan existed as a part of Pakistan. Events taking place after the military operation, however, diminished the hopes to save Jinnah’s Pakistan from dismemberment.
Around 47 years have passed since a chain of events unfolding in March 1971 deepened the wedge and hostility between the two wings of Pakistan leading to their violent break-up. How the unilateral postponement of the National Assembly session acted as a catalyst to accelerate the disintegration of Pakistan, and was there a thought process at the national level to visualise the grave consequences, remain unanswered questions.
The postponed assembly session may have triggered a series of events that led to the emergence of Bangladesh
In February 1971, the hawkish generals of Yahya Khan’s regime in connivance with Z.A. Bhutto, whose party was in the minority and mostly represented Punjab and Sindh (in West Pakistan) had decided to sort out Bengalis for their refusal to compromise on Awami League’s six points. G.W. Choudhury, who served in the cabinet of Presidents Ayub and Yahya from 1967-71 in his book The Last Days of United Pakistan (Dhaka: The University Press Limited, 1998) reveals that when President Yahya Khan decided to postpone the inaugural session of the National Assembly. Choudhury, as part of the three-member committee set up by the president to transfer power to the elected representatives, advised him to give another date for the Assembly session so as to diffuse the reaction of the people of East Pakistan. He even drafted the postponement announcement to be delivered by the president in which he wrote that, “I would, however, wish to make it absolutely clear that the postponement will not exceed two to three weeks and during this short period I shall make all endeavours to bring rapprochement between the elected representatives of the two regions of our country.”
Choudhury laments that “I handed over the draft of the statement to President Yahya who gave it to Lt Gen G.S.M.M Peerzada (PSO of Yahya Khan), who in alliance with Bhutto, torpedoed it.” Unfortunately, Choudhury’s conciliatory and damage control sentence about the timeline to hold the assembly session within two to three weeks was deleted and the statement to indefinitely postpone the assembly session was issued, triggering a violent response from the majority party Awami League.
The reaction of Awami League was predictable. According to Choudhury, “As soon as the postponement of the assembly session was announced over the radio, the reaction in Dhaka was violent. Mujib started what he termed non-violent non-cooperation, but it was not the Gandhian type of non-violent non-cooperation, nor was the Pakistan ruling junta’s reaction marked by any moderation as was that of British authorities. Mujib’s open revolt virtually amounted to a unilateral declaration of independence for Bangladesh, and an almost parallel government began to function under Mujib’s instructions. Between March 3 and 25, the central government’s writ did not run in East Pakistan.” The die was cast and the days of united Pakistan were numbered.
It cannot be said whether it was a well-crafted plan by the Yahya regime to provoke Mujib and his Awami League by postponing the assembly session in order to pave the way for military action, or whether Islamabad miscalculated the reaction of the people of East Pakistan who had overwhelmingly voted for the Awami League. By early February 1971, it became clear to the military regime and Bhutto that the Awami League would not be flexible about its six points which, according to them, would have meant a weak central government.
Three different perceptions on the postponement of assembly session and the subsequent mishandling of the crisis in East Pakistan reflect how unprofessional and imprudent the political leaders and the military regime were to save the country from an impending disaster. Was Bhutto’s invitation to the top military brass in February 1971 for a hunting trip, just a cover for launching the military operation?
By January 1971, it was quite clear that neither the Awami League nor the West Pakistani leadership led by the military generals and Z.A. Bhutto wanted a solution based on flexibility, accommodation and political wisdom. Likewise, Awami League leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman remained inflexible as far as his party’s six points were concerned. There was one country and two contenders for prime minister. Principally, since the Awami League had gained a simple majority in the 300-member national assembly, Mujib was sure to be elected as prime minister. But Bhutto raised the issue of his party’s non-acceptance of Mujib’s six points which, according to him, were against the interests of West Pakistan and the territorial integrity of the country as a whole. In a public meeting in Lahore in February 1971, Bhutto threatened dire consequences for the newly-elected National Assembly members from West Pakistan if they dared to attend the inaugural session in Dhaka. Yet 30 members, including the PPP MNA Ahmed Raza Kasuri, reached Dhaka.
In January 1971, President Yahya Khan had visited East Pakistan and congratulated Mujib for his electoral victory. He had invited Mujib to visit West Pakistan as the leader of the majority party and asked him to dispel the reservations and apprehensions there about his six-point programme. But instead of being magnanimous and wise, Mujib rejected Yahya’s offer, thus missing a chance to gain the confidence of the people of West Pakistan. His hard line, intransigent and unwise approach to deal with an impending crisis, provided an opportunity to the Yahya regime to postpone the assembly session.
Had Mujib and his party been serious in assuming the reins of power after the 1970 general elections, they would have pursued a conciliatory approach instead of an arrogant and irrational approach while addressing the reservations of West Pakistan vis-à-vis the six points. His speech on March 7 at Ramna Race Course ground in Dhaka is often quoted as just short of a Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). However, after the postponement of the assembly session, it seemed that apparently Mujib was pressurised by his party hardliners and student groups to take extreme action and declare UDI from Pakistan.
In his book A Stranger in My Own Country (2012), Major General Khadim Hussain Raja, who was GOC 14th Division in East Pakistan at the time of military operation, gave a vivid account of the events unfolding after the postponement of the assembly session and Mujib’s March 7 speech. According to him, “Early in the evening on March 6, one of my senior staff officers, accompanied by a Bengali gentleman, came to my residence and asked to see me. He said he was a close confident of Sheikh Mujib who had sent him to plead with me that he [Mujib] was under great pressure from the extremists and student leaders within the party to declare unilateral declaration of independence during his public address on the afternoon of March 7. Sheikh Mujib claimed that he was a patriot and did not want any responsibility for the break-up of Pakistan. He therefore, wanted me to take him into protective custody and confine him in the cantonment. For this he wanted me to send a military escort to fetch him from his Dhanmandi residence.”
Three different perceptions on the postponement of assembly session and the subsequent mishandling of crisis in East Pakistan reflect how unprofessional and imprudent the political leaders and the military regime were to save the country from an impending disaster.
But Raja refused to send a military escort to Mujib’s residence, assuring him that if he came of his own will, he would be given full protection. Interestingly, according to Raja “Sheikh Mujib did not give up. He decided to try one more time. At 2 am between March 6 and 7, I was woken up and informed that two guests, accompanied by my staff officers, were waiting in the drawing room to see me for an urgent matter.” Mujib’s emissary once again stressed “the threat on Sheikh Mujib’s person and the need to take him in protective custody. As before, I did not buy the story.” But Raja warned Mujib’s emissary to tell Mujib that in case he declares UDI in his speech “I would have the army march immediately with orders to wreck the meeting and, if necessary, raze Dhaka to the ground.” Succumbing to the threat, Mujib refrained from announcing UDI in the March 7 public meeting.
In his speech, Mujib talked about how West Pakistan had been exploiting the people of East Pakistan and was not ready to transfer power to the elected representatives. By calling the West Pakistani army deployed in East Pakistan ‘brothers’ he, however, warned them not to kill Bengali people otherwise he would take extreme action. The four demands made in his speech reflected popular Bengali sentiments: immediate lifting of martial law; immediate withdrawal of all military personnel to their barracks; immediate transfer of power to elected representatives of the people; and proper inquiry into the loss of life during the conflict.
{================}
Q.3 Discuss in detail health reforms introduced by Z.A Bhutto government and impact of those reforms.
Answer:
Bhutto’s domestic policies included reforming the army, economic, social, health and constitutional reforms. Bhutto was determined to limit the power of the army so that it would not intervene to thwart his policies. He removed the most important army leaders (about 29 in his first four months). These included head of Air Force, Air Marshal Rahim Khan and the Commander-in-chief of the army, General Gul Khan. He appointed his own leaders in their place, for example, General Tikka Khan under a new post, ‘Chief of Army Staff’. He set up the Federal Security Force form October 1972, a government controlled military force was set up ‘to assist the police force’. Also, the 1973 constitution stated that no army leader could be a member of a political party. However, the FSF was used to punish those who opposed Zulfikar and the army continued to remain an important part of politics.
His constitutional reforms included the drafting of a new constitution in 1973. It established a Senate which offered the opportunity for professionals, academics, specialists to work together. It also safeguarded the interests of the provinces that now had an equal representation in the Senate. The constitution encouraged provincial autonomy and the national assembly could only change provincial leadership if 75 % of the national assembly members agreed. The constitution was an attempt to return to parliamentary democracy and this is important since it is the basis upon which Pakistan has been governed till the 20th century. One of the main weaknesses of the constitution was that power lay with party leadership and Bhutto in particular. That also meant if anything went wrong, Bhutto was blamed.
However, other aspects of his domestic policies were also important. Bhutto introduced educational reforms. He made primary education free. New schools were to be build for this purpose. Also, all private sector schools were nationalized. Three new universities were build at Sukkar, Saidu and Multan. The engineering collages in Karachi, Peshawar and Jomshora were upgraded to universities. However, existing schools were overcrowded till new schools were build. Recruiting new teachers and building new schools was expensive and only 13 % of the government budget was allocated to education. Also, many people in rural areas resented the educational reforms as it meant a loss of earnings.
Bhutto also had many industrial reforms. Major industries in the private sector were nationalized. Rules were announced regarding bonuses, retirement and compensation. Workers were given medical cover and factory owners were expected to bear the expenditure of the education of at least one child of a worker. The net result was that many local and foreign businesses moved money out of Pakistan or stopped investing in new projects. Though, nationalization did cause problems such as mismanagement, inflation fell to 6 % from 25 % in 1970.
Bhutto introduced many reforms but their impact was reduced by corruption and inefficiency of the government. Bhutto’s reforms to the army were not so beneficial and the FSF was a despised organization. In fact Bhutto was charged with sending the FSF to kill a political opponent. The educational reforms resulted in only 1 % rise in literacy rate. Economic reforms also faced problems as the nationalization of industries caused inefficient people to take high managerial posts and had a negative impact for the years that followed as he had lost the trust of many investors. Also, there was lack of coordination due to corruption. Bhutto’s constitutional reforms, however, were very important and is the current constitution of Pakistan.
{================}
Q.4 What was the alliance of PPP-JUI-NAP of December 1971 and why had that alliance been reptured? What as the need of accord of March 1972? Elaborate the politics of Z.A Bhutoo with regard to the Accord of March 1972?
Answer:
Rare precedents do exist in Pakistan where the National Awami Party (NAP), a political party of its time, was barred twice from taking part in active politics after it was accused by the incumbent rulers of being involved in anti-state activities, annals of history show. Although first Chief Martial Law Administrator and second Pakistani President Ayub Khan (1907-74) had banned all political parties after coming into power for four years till 1962, only the National Awami Party was de-notified twice on November 26, 1971, and February 10, 1975, by the third President Agha Yahya Khan (1917-1980) and then by the country’s ninth Premier and fourth head of state Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1928-1979) respectively. NAP had then resurrected under the name of National Democratic Party, which had finally surfaced on the political arena as the Awami National Party (ANP) in 1986, but not before it had received a lot of battering from powerful Pakistani rulers—both military and civilian. Founded in 1957 in Dhaka by Maulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani (1880-1976), who is known to have supported Ayub Khan in the controversial 1965 Presidential election against Fatima Jinnah, the pro-Chinese National Awami Party was split into two factions in 1967. Maulana Bhashani was supported by renowned politicians like Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo (1917-1989), G.M Syed (1904-1995), Maulana Mufti Mahmood (1919-1980) and Abdul Samad Khan Achakzai (1907-1973) etc. However, Sindhi nationalist GM Syed only remained associated with NAP for five initial years till 1962.
In East Pakistan, this political entity was headed by Maulana Bhashani while in West Pakistan, the pro-Soviet Abdul Ghaffar Khan’s son Wali Khan (1917-2006) had gone on to lead it.
NAP contested the 1970 election, winning the second largest number of seats in the then North-West Frontier Province (Now Khyber Pakhtukhwa), the largest number in Balochistan and just a handful of seats in East Pakistan’s provincial assembly. It did not field any candidates in the Punjab, and had failed to win any support in Sindh too. Wali Khan was the first politician from West Pakistan who visited East Pakistan to show sympathy with the flood and famine affected masses of East Pakistan. He had stayed there for 12 days and was also the first politician from West Pakistan to have given party tickets to 49 candidates of NAP. He also visited East Pakistan during the election campaign. He had managed to emerge triumphant from his home district of Charsadda, bagging both National and provincial assembly seats.
In 1971, in a bid to form a United Front against Awami League of East Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had visited Charsadda to meet Wali Khan for cooperation, but the NAP chief had refused to do so. Wali Khan, as newspaper archives of the time reveal, had viewed that Mujeebur Rehamn of Awami league was the future Prime Minister of the country. Bhutto had reacted by threatening that if Wali Khan didn’t support him against Awami League, he would boycott the scheduled assembly session. Wali Khan had politely informed the country’s chief executive of the dangerous consequences a step such as that might have. (References: The Emergence of the Federal Pattern in Pakistan Malik Journal of Asian and African Studies, Hamid Khan’s book “Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan” and Sherbaz Khan Mazari’s book “Journey into disillusionment”)
On March 23, 1971, Wali Khan and other Pakistani politicians had called on Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. According to NAP, these leaders had offered support to Mujeeb in the formation of a government, but Yahya Khan had decided to hit the nail hard on the Awami League’s Chief Mujeeb by banning it.
Wali Khan, in his book “Facts are sacred” writes that NAP had opposed the military operation in East Pakistan and had stressed for a political solution to the issue. Therefore, on November 26, 1971, Yahya Khan had banned NAP. However, after coming into power on December 21, 1971, Bhutto had removed this ban in his first address to the nation. Abdul Wali Khan had welcomed Bhutto’s address and had offered unconditional support of his party. This PPP-ANP friendship had proved to be very short-lived as immediately after consolidating his position, Bhutto had allegedly by-passed NAP while appointing the governors of NWFP and Balochistan. Arbab Sikandar Khan was appointed Governor of the NWFP and Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo was asked to sit on Governor of Balochistan’s seat.
It is imperative to recall that after the division of Pakistan in 1971, NAP had formed coalition governments in the NWFP and Balochistan. While Sardar Akhtar Mengal was elected the first Chief Minister of Balochistan, NAP had supported Maulana Mufti Mahmud of the JUI as chief minister of the NWFP. Within a couple of years following the 1971 war, the Pakistani faction of NAP had surely became a thorn in the flesh for the Zulfikar Ali Bhutto-led government of the Pakistan People’s Party. On March 23, 1973, the Federal Security Force of Bhutto had attacked a public opposition rally at Rawalpindi’s Liaquat Bagh and had allegedly killed a dozen people. Many NAP leaders, including Ajmal Khattak, had to flee to Kabul. Bhutto had dissolved the coalition government of the NAP and JUI in Balochistan in February 1973. Wali Khan was accused as an enemy of Islam, besides being dubbed an anti-state element and a traitor.
Unveiling the “London Conspiracy,” late Nawab Akbar Bugti had then come out alleging that NAP-led governments in Balochistan and NWFP were striving to gain independence from Pakistan. Top NAP leaders like Ataullah Mengal, Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo and Khair Bakhsh Marri were hence arrested.
Wali khan was consequently arrested on February 8, 1975, while he was on way to Peshawar from Lahore to attend the funeral of a federal minister and President of the PPP in NWFP, Hayat Sherpao, (killed on February 7, 1975 while addressing an oath taking ceremony in the History Department of the University of Peshawar).
The NAP was disbanded by Bhutto on February 10, 1975, and the party offices were closed down. The NAP funds were frozen, its important record was either seized or allegedly destroyed completely in vengeance. A reference in this context was hence sent to the Supreme Court of Pakistan in June 1975. NAP was accused to be an anti-state party that was busy in destroying Pakistan on the instigation of the Afghan government.
Invoking the First Amendment of the 1973 Constitution, the Bhuttio government had charged Wali Khan and his 58 colleagues under the Hyderabad Conspiracy Case in 1976, although they were acquitted of the charge of the murder of Hayat Sherpao.
The Bhutto government had then established a special tribunal inside the Hyderabad Jail to hold trials of high treason cases against Wali Khan and dozens of his like-minded colleagues. The first formal hearing of the case was held on May 10, 1976, and the sitting government had presented 455 witnesses in this case. As historians write, the main aim behind this was to get Wali Khan and his party officially banned through the apex court. Wali khan had appealed to the court against the time being bought by the rulers because only 22 witnesses were brought to the court in 18 months. Wali Khan’s wife Begum Nasim Wali Khan had then held the NAP reins and had laid the foundation of the National Democratic Party. Sardar Sher Baz Mazari, a renown politician from Sindh, was appointed its first president and Begum Nasim Wali was chosen as its vice president.
Talking about NAP East Pakistan, the party wasn’t very popular in Bangladesh as many of its key stalwarts had become members of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party after the death of Maulana Bhashani in 1976.
{================}
Q.4 Elaborate the social provisions of the constitution of 1973. To what extent these provisions were adopted in policies by Z.A Bhutto government?
Answer:
Articles 31 to 40 provide such principles for which state is responsible to observe in law making.
1. Islamic way of life: Article 31 says that state shall arrange and enable the Muslims, individually and collectively, to order their live in accordance with the injunctions of Quran. They may understand the Quran. Teaching of Quran and Islamiyat has become compulsory. Arabic language also has become compulsory from class one to tenth. Government has made certain rules to observe Islamic moral standard. Law regarding the correct and authentic publishing of Quran has been made. There is no room of mistake in publication of Quran. It is punishable at law. Zakat Ordinance has been enforced and Waqf has been established to maintain and continue Waqf (Trust) property. Many mosques have been taken under auqaf. These all things have became possible under the umbrella of principles of policy.
2. Promotion of local government: State is responsible to establish and maintain local government institutions so that locality may be satisfied at their doorsteps. Elected representatives run local governments. General public elects them. This is another step taken under principles of policy.
3. Discouragement of prejudices: Bias-ness based upon locality, province, tribe, race, and sect shall be liable to discourage under principles of policy. State is obliged to educate citizens so that they may protect themselves from such prejudices.
4. Role of women: Spheres of national life requires the full participation of female gender actively. Principles of Policy have urged the demand of their full participation and government has made certain laws in this respect. Government has reserved their seats in local bodies and as well as legislation either provincial or federal.
5. Protection of minorities: Principles of Policy ensure the protection of interest and legitimate rights of minorities including their due representation in national and provincial services.
6. Protection of family: Article 35 of constitution provides surety for the protection of family such as marriage, family, mother, and child.
7. Promotion of social justice and eradication (prevention) of social evils: Article 37 of constitution under Principles of Policy provides long list on the above matters:
1. State is liable to provide facilities for education and economic activities in backward areas so that they come upto the level of rest developed part of the country.
2. State is not only responsible to remove illiteracy but to promote literacy through compulsory secondary education within shortest possible time limit.
3. Availability of professional and technical education enables people to wish higher education. It should be equally accessible for all on the basis of merit. Practically government cannot provide such facility but within limited resources government has tried her best to provide education under slogan education for all.
4. These principles also make liable government in provision immediate (expeditious) and inexpensive justice at their doorsteps. Practically it could not be possible so far.
5. Law shall be made which is best suited as regard of age and sex, for women and children. Working conditions would be made just and fair. Placement of right person in right job shall be ensured. Maternity benefits shall be provided during the course of employment of females’ workers.
6. Participation in national activities including employment in the service of Pakistan is right of every citizen and state shall enable them irrespective area to take part through education, training, agricultural, and industrial development and other matters. Government has provided different tax free zones and tax holidays in different areas. Different vocational and training centers are established to achieve this object.
7. As with as promotion of certain activities, state is also responsible for prevention (eradication) of social evils, such as, prostitution, gambling and taking of injurious drugs, printing, publishing, circulation, and display of obscene literature and material and advertisements. Government has taken certain preventive measures in the eradication of such social evils but still the net of underworld is unbreakable. Drug trafficking is going on. Dacoity, theft, robbery, prostitution in the name of cultural shows, gambling in the name of cultural activities like horse race is in action and obscene material is in operation under the garb of recreation films, songs, and advertisements.
8. Since the alcoholic consumption is prohibited item in all religions so its prevention is also duty of state. It can be consumed for medical purpose and also for religious purpose for non-Muslims.
9. Centralization of government administration creates burdens to facilitate public in business and convenience. Government shall decentralize its administration to meet above objects.
8. Social and economic well being: Principles of Policy has also provided under Article 38 of constitution, provisions of the social and economic well being of the people. Article 38 provides six provisions on the topic such as:
1. State shall ensure the due compliance of social contracts, which is meant between government and people and employers and employees. State shall also ensure equitable distribution of wealth and means of production.
2. These principles bind the state to provide facilities for work and adequate livelihood with reasonable rest and leisure. This is for all citizens within available and limited resources. Government has fixed working hours to eight hours with recess time. Overtime in working is allowed to some extent. Minimum wages have been defined. Medical, casual, and annual leaves are provided under labour laws.
3. State is responsible to provide sufficient social security by compulsory social insurance or other main means.
4. State is also obliged to provide necessities to its citizens either in service or not. These necessities include food, clothing, housing, education, and medical relief. No distinction is allowed with relation to age, sex, creed, tribe, caste, and race.
5. Even distribution of wealth within territory of Pakistan is ensured under Principles of Policy.
6. According to Quranic injunction riba (BIj»A) “(not just interest or eÌm)” is to be eradicated as soon as possible.
{========
Course: Political & Constitutional Development in Pakistan-II (4668)
Semester: Spring 2019
Level: M. Sc (Pak Studies)
ASSIGNMENT No. 2
Q.1 It is said by some scholars that March 1977 parliamentary elections are those election where everyone lost. What is meant by this statement? Critically analyze this statement in the perspective of 1977 election and its aftermath.
Answer:
General elections were held in Pakistan on 7 March 1977 to elect the 200 parliamentarians to both houses (Senate and National Assembly) of the Parliament of Pakistan. The general elections were the second elections held in the history of the country and the first after the split of the country.
The elections saw a massive victory for the ruling PPP against the PNA, which was an alliance of 9 parties who opposed Bhutto's regime. However, the PNA ended up accusing PPP rigging the elections in her favour. Such allegations were denied by PPP and Bhutto refused to hold any re-election. This sparked off unrest that resulted from mass demonstrations and violent anti-Bhutto protests. Bhutto and the security forces were unable to control the situation, thus, Martial Law became the last hope. The Chief of Army Chief Gen. Zia-ul-Haq called a secret meeting of senior military officials to plan a coup. This plan was successfully executed when the government was overthrown, Parliament was dissolved and Pakistan came under its third period of military rule.
The elections were held earlier than originally planned, and were expected to be held in the second half of 1977. However, on 7 January 1977, Bhutto appeared on national television, announcing the elections would be held earlier, and started his political campaign shortly after appearing on national television. On 10 January, Election Commissioner of Pakistan Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan announced the election schedule and declared 19 and 22 January as the last date for receipt of nominations for the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies, respectively.
Bhutto responded aggressively, immediately issuing party tickets to his workers. Unlike the 1970 elections, when Pakistan Peoples Party mainly banked on socialistic slogans, this time Bhutto also relied on political heavyweights, issuing tickets to feudal lords and other influential members. Bhutto himself held public meetings all over the country, and to get further support from the common man, he announced labour reforms on 4 January, and on 5 January, a second set of land reforms. The attendance in the public meetings was amazing in all parts of the country, especially in interior Sindh and Punjab. Bhutto's motives for holding elections earlier was that not to give sufficient time to the opposition to make decisions and arrangements for the forthcoming elections.
The PNA had become a big problem for Pakistan Peoples Party that was targeting Peoples Party on a number of occasions. Throughout the elections, the PNA failed justify their plans for the country but instead targeted the Peoples' Party, concentrating on misdeed, alleged corruptions (although there were no evidences that linked to Bhutto), financial mismanagement, heavy expenditures on administration and disastrous economic policies evidenced by inflation.
According to the original schedule, the second general elections in the history of Pakistan, and the first after the dismemberment of the country, were to be held in the second half of 1977. However, on January 7, 1977, Bhutto announced that the elections would be held earlier. On January 10, Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan, Chief Election Commissioner, announced the election schedule and declared January 19 and 22 as the last date for receipt of nominations for National Assembly and Provincial Assemblies, respectively. To many, the idea was not to give sufficient time to the opposition in order to make decisions and arrangements for the forthcoming elections. Election symbols were allocated to all the political parties. The total registered voters in the country were 30,899,052. Two hundred and fifty five Returning Officers were appointed for the National Assembly elections by the Election Commission.
Immediately after the announcement, Bhutto started his election campaign. The first step he took was the allocation of tickets to his party men. Unlike the 1970 elections, when Pakistan Peoples Party mainly banked on socialistic slogans, this time Bhutto also relied on political heavyweights. A number of feudal lords and other influential persons were allocated party tickets. Bhutto himself held public meetings all over the country, and to get further support from the common man, he announced labor reforms on January 4, and a second set of land reforms on January 5. The attendance in the public meetings was amazing in all parts of the country, especially in interior Sindh and Punjab. The opposition blamed Bhutto for using Government machinery in running his election campaign.
The biggest problem for Bhutto and his Pakistan Peoples Party was that nine important parties of the opposition had joined hands and formed an alliance, named as Pakistan National Alliance. P. N. A. decided to contest the elections under one election symbol “plough” and a green flag with nine stars as its ensign. Throughout their election campaign, instead of giving their own agenda, P. N. A. leadership mainly concentrated on echoing the alleged misdeeds of Bhutto’s Government, corruption, mismanagement of national wealth, heavy expenditures on administration and disastrous economic policies evidenced by inflation. The P. N. A. leaders also exploited the deteriorating law and order situation and misuse of law enforcing agencies against the political opponents. They claimed that the fundamental rights had been curtailed during Bhutto’s era.
P. N. A. managed to exploit anti-Bhutto sentiments among a huge section of masses and thus their election campaign received an unexpectedly positive response. Their claim, that their manifesto was Quran, also helped them in winning over a sizable number of voters from all over Pakistan. The attendance in P. N. A. public meetings and rallies was at times unexpected, even for the Alliance leadership itself.
Finally the elections were held on March 7 in which Pakistan Peoples Party managed to win 155 out of 200 seats in the National Assembly. The results of the elections astonished political pundits both inside and outside Pakistan. Pakistan National Alliance was only able to win 36 National Assembly seats. To add insult to injury, the Alliance could only win 8 out of 116 seats of the National Assembly from Punjab, and failed to win even a single seat from Lahore and Rawalpindi, cities in which they had organized big public gatherings and processions.
Pakistan National Alliance leaders protested that there had been a systematic rigging of election results to defeat them. At many places, particularly where the P. N. A. candidates were strong, the polling was alleged to have been blocked for hours. There were also reports that P. P. P. armed personnel in police uniform removed ballot boxes. Marked ballot papers were also found on the streets in Karachi and Lahore. Rumors quickly circulated that the results in key constituencies were issued directly from the Prime Minister’s office. P. N. A. boycotted the provincial elections. P. P. P. resorted to bogus voting merely to prove that voters had come to cast their ballot. Overall P. P. P. gained 99 percent seats. The voting figures showing the success of the P. P. P. candidates often surpassed the actual number that turned up for voting.
At last Martial Law was imposed by Zia-ul-Haq who appointed a committee to inquire into the alleged rigging of the National Assembly polls. This committee was reported to have found a blueprint of the plan of rigging from the Prime Minister House. The inquiry committee alleged that Bhutto had prepared this plan as early as April 1976, under the title of “A Model Election Plan”, later known as the “Larkana Plan”. In an interview to Associated Press of Pakistan, Sajjad Ahmad Jan, the Chief Election Commissioner admitted that the failure of the electoral process was by and large due to the candidates of the ruling party, who exploited their position and party machinery and thus destroyed the sanctity of the ballot box.
{================}
Q.2 Make a critically analyze of politics of Islam in Pakistan. Why have the leaders been using Islam as slogan for prolonging their rule? Elaborate the politics of Islam in the perspective of Zia regime.
Answer:
Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq, (born Aug. 12, 1924, Jullundur, Punjab [now in India]—died Aug. 17, 1988, near Bahÿwalpur, Pakistan), Pakistani chief of Army staff, chief martial-law administrator, and president of Pakistan (1978–88).
Zia was commissioned in 1945 from the Royal Indian Military Academy in Dehra Dun and served with the British armoured forces in Southeast Asia at the end of World War II. After 19 years spent in various staff and command appointments he was made an instructor at the Command and Staff College in Quetta. He successively commanded a regiment, brigade, division, and a corps during the period 1966–72. A major general from 1972, he was president of the military courts that tried several Army and Air Force officers alleged to have plotted against the government of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1972. Bhutto promoted him to lieutenant general in 1975 and made him chief of Army staff in 1976.
Zia seized power from Bhutto in a bloodless coup on July 5, 1977, and became chief martial-law administrator while retaining his position as Army chief of staff. He assumed the presidency after Fazal Elahi Chaudhry resigned. Zia tightened his hold on the government after having the charismatic and still-popular Bhutto executed on charges of attempted murder in 1979. Zia suspended political parties in that year, banned labour strikes, imposed strict censorship on the press, and declared martial law in the country (nominally lifted 1985). He responded to the Soviet Union’s invasion of neighbouring Afghanistan in 1979 by embarking on a U.S.-financed military buildup. He also tried to broaden his base of support and worked for the Islamization of Pakistan’s political and cultural life. He died in an airplane crash.
"Sharization" or "Islamisation" was the "primary" policy, or "centerpiece" of the government of General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, the ruler of Pakistan from 1977 until his death in 1988. Zia has also been called "the person most responsible for turning Pakistan into a global center for political Islam".
The Pakistan movement had gained the country independence from the British Empire as a Muslim-majority state. At the time of its founding, the Dominion of Pakistan had no official state religion prior to 1956, when the constitution had declared it the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Despite this, no religious laws had yet been adopted for government and judicial protocols and civil governance, until the mid 1970s with the coming of General Muhammed Zia Ul-Haq in a military coup also known as Operation Fair Play which deposed the Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.
Zia-ul-Haq committed himself to enforcing his interpretation of Nizam-e-Mustafa ("Rule of the prophet" Muhammad), i.e. to establish an Islamic state and enforce sharia law.
Zia established separate Shariat judicial courts and court benches to judge legal cases using Islamic doctrine. New criminal offenses (of adultery, fornication, and types of blasphemy), and new punishments (of whipping, amputation, and stoning to death), were added to Pakistani law. Interest payments for bank accounts were replaced by "profit and loss" payments. Zakat charitable donations became a 2.5% annual tax. School textbooks and libraries were overhauled to remove un-Islamic material. Offices, schools, and factories were required to offer praying space. Zia bolstered the influence of the ulama (Islamic clergy) and the Islamic parties, whilst conservative scholars became fixtures on television. 10,000s of activists from the Jamaat-e-Islami party were appointed to government posts to ensure the continuation of his agenda after his passing. Conservative ulama (Islamic scholars) were added to the Council of Islamic Ideology.
In 1984 a referendum gave Zia and the Islamization program, 97.7% approval in official results. However, there have been protests against the laws and their enforcement during and after Zia's reign. Women's and human rights groups opposed incarceration of rape victims under hadd punishments, new laws that valued women's testimony (Law of Evidence) and blood money compensation (diyat) at half that of a man. Religious minorities and human rights groups opposed the "vaguely worded" Blasphemy Law and the "malicious abuse and arbitrary enforcement" of it.
Possible motivations for the Islamisation programme included Zia's personal piety (most accounts agree that he came from a religious family), desire to gain political allies, to "fulfill Pakistan's raison d'etre" as a Muslim state, and/or the political need to legitimise what was seen by some Pakistanis as his "repressive, un-representative martial law regime".
How much success Zia had strengthening Pakistan's national cohesion with state-sponsored Islamisation is disputed. Shia-Sunni religious riots broke out over differences in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) – in particular, over how Zakat donations would be distributed. There were also differences among Sunni Muslims.
{================}
Q.3 Discus in detail the performance of Junejo government. What sorts of measures had been undertaken by Junejo government to curb corruption and to what extent those measures produced results.
Answer:
After the Presidential referendum of December 1984, elections for the National and Provincial Assemblies were held in February 1985 on a non-party basis. President Zia-ul-Haq nominated Muhammad Khan Junejo as the Prime Minister of Pakistan on March 20, 1985.
On being nominated, Muhammad Khan Junejo promised the nation that he would lift the Martial Law and restore a civilian government as soon as possible. Junejo’s position was weak and vulnerable under the constitutional amendments made by Zia, which made the position of the President paramount and that of the Prime Minister subordinate. Despite his weak position, Junejo, after being sworn in as the Prime Minister, carried out his promise of lifting the Martial Law and the restoration of fundamental rights, but at the price of the Eight Amendment and validating the Revival of the Constitutional Order.
Muhammad Khan Junejo introduced a five-point program in December 1985. The program was multidimensional in nature. The main objectives were to induct a new and progressive civilian order, establish institutions of social justice, introduce an egalitarian economy, increase employment opportunities, strike hard at corruption and other social evils, liberate at least 50 percent of the people from illiteracy, and to start socio-economic development of the country.
After the lifting of Martial Law, Junejo tried to take a course independent of Zia. He annoyed military generals by withdrawing big staff cars from them and replacing them with small cars. He tried to conduct an independent foreign policy, particularly on Afghanistan, by taking into confidence and consulting leaders of political parties, including Benazir Bhutto, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party. His government even tried to probe into the military fiasco at the Ojheri Camp near Islamabad on April 10, 1988, which resulted in the death and serious injuries to a large number of civilians. This probe perhaps became the immediate cause for the dismissal of his government.
Junejo’s regime met its sudden and unexpected end while he was returning from a visit to South Korea on May 29, 1988. General Zia dismissed Junejo’s Government using the controversial rule under Article 58(2) b of the Constitution. According to General Zia, Junejo’s Government had been dismissed because the law and order situation had broken down to an alarming extent and the government could not be run in accordance with the Constitution. Not only were the Junejo Government dismissed, but also were the Federal and Provincial Assemblies and the Provincial Cabinets and their Chief Ministers. General Zia installed a new caretaker government in the Center and Provinces. Fresh elections were promised after 90 days but were eventually held on November 16, 1988, three months after Zia’s death in a plane crash.
Although Junejo had no claim to power on his own, as Zia had appointed him Prime Minister, but his performance was commendable. With limited options, he did what was possible for him. He restored the fundamental rights of citizens under the Constitution that had been denied to them for a very long time. He tried to put the country on the course of development and some progress was made, particularly in the area of construction of roads in rural areas and the electrification of villages. He was honest, polite and had a low-key political personality, traits which are not easy to find in political leaders of today.
Measures had been undertaken by Junejo government to curb corruption:
After Benazir Bhutto`s return from exile, General Ziaul Haq had assigned Prime Minister Mohammad Khan Junejo the task of facing the PPP chief in her tirade against the government. But Junejo could not accomplish the assignment, and the general thought that perhaps Junejo too had joined forces with Benazir. In truth, Junejo was struggling to assert himself as an elected prime minister his mission to strengthen the roots of democracy was being compromised by the sheer disregard shown by the bureaucracy and military officers.
In the budget for 1987-88, for example, Junejo sought to introduce austerity in governance. He scrapped the head of purchasing new, big and imported cars for official use and for officers who had been entitled to them. Under the scheme of austerity, he ordered that all officers who were entitled to use cars would now use locally-assembled Suzuki cars instead of imported cars.
No doubt this decision brought huge savings to the national exchequer, but it angered the officers group. The army officers, showing disregard for Junejo`s wishes, preferred to use old jeeps instead. This summed up Junejo`s travails: a prime minister whose wings had been clipped by the Eighth Amendment.
Junejo came from a modest feudal family of Sanghar, Havingexperienced local politics for some time, he joined the mainstream in 1958 when the former military ruler General Ayub Khan appointed him as the federal communications minister. A thorough gentleman, he possessed a reputation of unquestionable integrity. A true disciplinarian, he retained this credit throughout his political career. A follower of Pir Pagara, he had no illusion about his ability to rid society of corruption.
Pir Pagara` advice to appoint him as prime minister was based on Junejo`s past record, but unfortunately, Gen Zia did not subscribe to the PM`s views on restoring political parties within the house. Certain actions undertaken by Junejo had pointed to his intention of working independently, which in turn, earned him the general`s annoyance.
But Junejo was resolute on trying, again and again. For the PM, the arrival of Benazir Bhutto was a political development that could be helpfulin advancing the effort to restore democracy. But in the backdrop of the prevailing situation, it required concerted efforts else many feared that Gen Zia would send the parliament packing. Unfortunately forJunejo, his hope to secure Benazir`s support was also shattered as there were clear ideological differences between the two.
Meanwhile, Benazir continued meeting with political party leadersand some like-minded figures who wanted to exchange views about a future course of action. Most PPP workers poured in to extend their condolences on Bhutto`s demise, but simultaneously, they alsorededicated their efforts to evolve a workable strategy in the changed political environment.
{================}
Q.4 What was fourteen constitutional amendment and what were the impact of this amendment on the politics hypocrisy in Pakistan?
Answer:
The following Act of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) received the assent of the President on the 3rd July, 1997 and is hereby published for general information: --
Whereas it is expedient further to amend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in order to prevent instability in relation to the formation of functioning of Government;
It is hereby enacted as follows:--
1. Short title and commencement.
(1) This Act may be Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) Act. 1997.
(2) It shall come into force at once.
2. Addition of new Article 63A in the Constitution.
In the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan after Article 63 the following new Article shall be inserted, namely:-
"63A Disqualification on ground of defection, etc.---
(1) If a member of a Parliamentary Party defects, he may be means of a notice in writing addressed to him by the Head of the Political Party or such other person as may be authorized in this behalf by the Head of the Political Party, be called upon the show cause, within not more than seven days of such a notice, as to why a Declaration under clause (2) should not be made against him. If a notice is issued under this clause, the Presiding Officer of the concerned House shall be informed accordingly.
Explanation: A member of a House shall be deemed to defect from a political party if he, having been elected as such, as a candidate or nominee of a political party: or under a symbol of political party or having been elected otherwise than as a candidate or nominee of a political party, and having become a member of a political party after such election by means of a declaration in writing –
(a) commits a breach of party discipline which means a violation of the party constitution, code of conduct and declared policies, or
(b) votes contrary to any direction issued by the Parliamentary Party to which he belongs, or
(c) abstain from voting in the House against party policy in relation to any bill.
(2) Where action is proposed to be taken under the Explanation to clause (1), sub-clause (a) the disciplinary committee of the party on a reference by the Head of the Party, shall decide the matter, after giving an opportunity of a personal hearing to the member concerned within seven days. In the event the decision is against the member, he can file an appeal, within seven days, before the Head of the Party, whose decision thereon shall be final, in cases covered by the Explanation to clause (1), sub-clauses (b) and (c), the declaration may be made by the Head of the Party concerned after examining the explanation of the member and determining whether or not that member has defected.
(3) The Presiding Officer of the House shall be intimated the decision by Head of the Political Party in addition to intimation which shall also be concerned member. The Presiding Officer shall within two days transmit the decision to the Chief Election Commissioner. The Chief Election Commissioner, shall give effect to such decision, within seven days from the date of the receipt of such intimation by declaring the seat vacant and amend it under the schedule of the bye-election.
(4) Nothing contained in this Article shall apply to the Chairman or Speaker of a House.
(5) For the purpose of this Article—
(a) “House” means the National Assembly or the Senate, in relation to and the Federation; and a Provincial Assembly in relation to the Province, as the case may be.
(b) “Presiding Officer” means the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Chairman of the Senate or the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly, as case may be.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, no court including the Supreme Court and a High Court shall entertain any legal proceedings, exercise any jurisdiction, or make any order in relation to the action under this Article.”
Impact:
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan was an amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan passed in 1997, during the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League party. It subjected Members of Parliament to very strict party discipline. Party leaders received unlimited power to dismiss any of their legislators from Parliament if they spoke or voted against their party.
Since Nawaz' party had an overwhelming majority in Parliament, the Fourteenth Amendment effectively prevented the Prime Minister from being dismissed by a no confidence vote. A few months earlier, the Thirteenth Amendment took away the President's reserve power to remove a Prime Minister by dissolving Parliament and calling new elections. The amendments removed nearly all checks and balances on the Prime Minister's power, since there was virtually no way he could be legally dismissed.
In Pakistan, once legislators are elected to national or provincial assemblies, there is no way for the people to recall them before the end of their five-year terms. In the past, this has contributed to a sense of immunity on the part of members of the ruling party, and to rampant corruption among leading politicians. The Fourteenth Amendment increased this perception, and contributed to the overwhelming popular support for General Pervez Musharraf's coup in 1999. The Supreme Court subsequently validated the coup on the grounds that the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments created a situation for which there was no constitutional remedy.
{================}
Semester: Spring 2019
Level: M. Sc (Pak Studies)
ASSIGNMENT No. 1
Q. 1 What are the distinctions between moderate and non-moderate government? Elaborate the differences in the light of the writings of Montesquieu?
Answer:
It often seems there's no center in American politics anymore. Increasingly polarized camps on the right and left hold diametrically opposed, irreconcilable views on seemingly every issue.
And yet more than a third of American voters call themselves neither liberal or conservative but moderate, indicating a substantial chunk of dissenters from the left-right paradigm. Are they just confused? Are they closet ideologues with strongly partisan opinions but a distaste for labels? Are they politically disconnected? What, in short, is their deal?
The folks at Third Way, a Democratic think tank that urges moderate positions, decided to find out. They commissioned a poll of 1,500 American registered voters, asking detailed questions about a variety of issues to find out whether those who called themselves moderate were a distinct group and what sets them apart. The Democratic pollster Peter Brodnitz of the Benenson Strategy Group conducted the inaugural "State of the Center" poll last month; it carries an overall margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction.
What the poll found is fascinating. Moderates, according to the poll, aren't tuned-out or ill-informed, but they tend to see both sides of complex issues—for example, they want the government to do more to help the economy, but they worry that it may be ineffective or counterproductive. They see both parties as overly ideological and wish politicians would compromise more. A plurality are Democrats, but they see themselves as slightly right-of-center ideologically, and one-third say they vote equally for Democrats and Republicans. And they are surprisingly young and diverse: Self-described moderates represent a 44 percent plurality of Hispanic and nonwhite voters and a 42 percent plurality of the Millennial generation.
"Moderates wrestle with, and often reject, what they see as the false either/or ideological choices that define modern politics," Michelle Diggles and Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, two Third Way officials, wrote in a memo on the poll, which was provided exclusively to The Atlantic in advance of its release Thursday. "They recognize that both sides have a piece of the truth and see flaws in the standard liberal and conservative perspectives."
The poll provides a road map for both parties as they hone their messages. For Democrats, it shows the party will have a hard time winning if it shifts to a self-consciously liberal tone: Just 38 percent of Democrats see themselves as liberal, while 37 percent call themselves moderate and another 25 percent call themselves conservative. (I've written about this dynamic before.) For Republicans, it shows that there's a group of swing voters skeptical of big government who might be open to the party's message—but only if the GOP jettisons some of its harsh rhetoric toward the underprivileged.
The poll finds that 40 percent of moderates consider themselves Democrats, while just 21 percent are Republicans and 39 percent are independents. (This finding jibes with the conventional wisdom of a GOP whose increasingly doctrinaire conservatism has alienated much of the middle of the electorate.) About a quarter of moderates say they always vote for Democratic candidates, and another 18 percent do so more often than not; 9 percent of moderates always vote for Republican candidates, while 12 percent vote for Republicans more often than Democrats. A solid 33 percent are swing voters who say they vote equally for Democrats and Republicans.
Moderates' perspective on the role of government has elements in common with both liberals and conservatives. Only 23 percent of moderates favor a larger government that provides more services (compared to 54 percent of liberals and 13 percent of conservatives); 37 percent favor a smaller government with fewer services (compared to 12 percent of liberals and 62 percent of conservatives).
Liberals overwhelmingly (75 percent) worry government isn't involved enough in the economy, while conservatives mostly (60 percent) worry government is too involved in the economy; moderates lean toward the liberal side of the argument, with 53 percent saying not enough involvement to 40 percent who cite too much. Still, more moderates fear big government (52 percent) than big business (41 percent). Two-thirds of moderates think government often gets in the way of economic growth, and a majority (54 percent) think that if government is involved in something, it often goes wrong.
On the issues, moderates often see virtue in both sides' arguments. A huge majority (84 percent) want more background checks for gun buyers, but 58 percent say our current gun laws are "sufficient to protect me and my community." Three-quarters want to expand domestic exploration of coal, oil, and natural gas, but nearly 90 percent want to invest more in renewable energy. Seventy-six percent agree that it's immoral "to leave our children a country that is $17 trillion in debt," but 72 percent agree that "we need to increase investments in infrastructure and education rather than worrying about long-term debt."
On immigration and national security, however, moderates are mostly on one side of the issue: 86 percent of moderates see undocumented immigrants as hardworking people trying to care for their families, and a slim majority disagree with the idea that giving them citizenship would "reward bad behavior," 50 percent to 47 percent. Meanwhile 72 percent worry about the government going too far monitoring phone and internet usage, and a majority say they are not worried we're not doing enough to stop the next terror attack on U.S. soil.
On issues of poverty and opportunity, moderates worry about structural obstacles to the American dream, but they don't see themselves as victims. Just 28 percent of moderates agree that discrimination against racial minorities is a thing of the past, compared to 18 percent of liberals and 43 percent of conservatives. Four in 10 moderates think people are poor primarily because they've made bad choices; a quarter of liberals believe this, while 60 percent of conservatives do.
Majorities of moderates believe government should play a role in creating equal opportunity and that a strong safety net is important even if "a few lazy people game the system," but moderates also largely believe the government has created incentives for poor people not to work. Most interestingly, even as they see society as unequal, seven in 10 moderates disagree with the idea that "the deck is stacked against people like me." In fact, it was conservatives who were most likely to see themselves as victims: 35 percent said the deck was stacked against them, versus 28 percent of liberals and moderates.
Moderates see both parties as overly ideological—they say Democrats are too liberal and Republicans too conservative—and they are distressed by the harsh nature of modern political discourse, more likely than liberals or conservatives to say they avoid political conversations because they're too divisive. But they aren't disengaged: Only 35 percent say they tune out politics, about the same as liberals and conservatives.
The Third Way researchers are what might be termed partisans of moderation—the importance of moderates in politics is their raison d'etre, and they have an obvious interest in reinforcing that notion. But this poll provides compelling evidence that they're correct. There is indeed a major segment of the electorate that doesn't belong firmly to either ideological camp, and it is distinct in its ideas and sympathies from either liberals or conservatives. Democrats' success in recent national elections can be attributed to their arguments' generally greater resonance with voters in the middle. But Republicans could win them back with a more centrist message—and Democrats could lose them if they stray too far to the left.
{============}
Q. 2 Although Montesquieu had condemned despotism yet he explained that despotism is more or less inevitable. Why despotism had been inevitable according to Montesquieu? Explain with cogent reasons.
Answer:
Montesquieu was one of the great political philosophers of the Enlightenment. Insatiably curious and mordantly funny, he constructed a naturalistic account of the various forms of government, and of the causes that made them what they were and that advanced or constrained their development. He used this account to explain how governments might be preserved from corruption. He saw despotism, in particular, as a standing danger for any government not already despotic, and argued that it could best be prevented by a system in which different bodies exercised legislative, executive, and judicial power, and in which all those bodies were bound by the rule of law. This theory of the separation of powers had an enormous impact on liberal political theory, and on the framers of the constitution of the United States of America.
t is commonplace for citizens of liberal, democratic nations to believe that despotism is foreign to their own experiences. Their political constitutions display in some form or other a separation of powers, which is specifically intended to prevent the amassing of arbitrary and irresponsible power in any one function of their government. Conversely, despotism is an extreme form of rule that concentrates arbitrary power, which can extend into every realm of life. With constitutional and legal barriers in place, the citizens of liberal societies can believe that victimisation at the hands of despots is an experience reserved for less fortunate peoples. Nevertheless, laws forbid sexual harassment and assault, though recent revelations about their pervasiveness remind us of the limited efficacy of mere paper or legal barriers.
If legal barriers sometimes fail to protect us from miniature despots, then political despotism is not as distant as many think. Montesquieu, the 18th-century French philosopher who brought the term ‘despotism’ into our political vocabulary, would not be surprised at the disjunction between the putative liberty of our society and the experience many have as the victims of irresponsible power within it. In The Spirit of the Laws (1748), he shows that despotism is an ever-present danger and a persistent threat to human flourishing everywhere and always. Even those fortunate to live outside the borders of a despotic government can still be victimised by despotic practices. In response, Montesquieu teaches that the unmasking of despotism must remain a central endeavour in social and political life.
To the extent that he is remembered at all today, Montesquieu is credited with being the inspiration for the theory of the separation of powers, those constitutional barriers to despotism that can, paradoxically, render us complacent as to our liberty. The framers of the Constitution of the United States, in fact, termed him the ‘oracle’ of the separation of powers when drawing liberally from his political teachings. Nevertheless, reflection on his writings reveals that despotism is a vastly more pervasive and intransigent phenomenon than individuals in so-called enlightened and free societies tend to believe. Throughout The Spirit of the Laws, he shows that despotism lies at the very core of the European mindset. Salient aspects of its religious and philosophical traditions encourage the concentration of power and a harshness that can too readily eventuate in despotic violence. With this constant countervailing pressure, constitutional arrangements, as critical as they are, cannot alone contain this phenomenon.
Montesquieu’s overt depiction of despotism would seem to undermine the claim that Europe harbours despotism. After all, he draws from the history of Asia and the Middle East to depict despots of large empires, those contemptible figures who, although enthralled by private pleasures, absorb all the powers in the state. Such immense power allows for the exploitation of the ruled in a way that inflicts violence, both physical and psychological, on its victims. In so doing, it denies individuals opportunities for human development and agency, and thus ultimately robs them of their human dignity. It terrifies all who might oppose it as it is often murderously oppressive. As a result of this depiction, Montesquieu seems to many of today’s readers to be an Orientalist, yet another European intellectual who belittles foreign societies in order to laud the achievements of the West in a process that ultimately justifies colonialism. But this is a superficial reading of a deep thinker and writer. It was common defensive practice for intellectuals of his time to use exotic locations as a stalking horse for criticisms of their own societies.
Much of Montesquieu’s critique of despotism, in fact, amounts to a critique of Europe. Montesquieu sees Europe – seemingly mild and Christian – as home to some of the most brutal despotic practices. Despite his apparent focus on Eastern despotism, he also manages to underscore the despotic practices of venerated European institutions: the Catholic Church and the French monarchy. He unmasks the despotism of the Portuguese Inquisitors, who burn alive an adolescent girl for practising the Judaism of her parents, and even of his own homeland, which executes for treason those who merely reproach the monarch’s minister. He thus highlights the cruelty of Europe at a time when voicing such criticism was still decidedly dangerous.
Montesquieu takes his strongest stand against cruel punishments, declaring that ‘the knowledge’ of the correct way to proceed in ‘criminal judgments’ is more important ‘than anything else in the world’. Liberty, he maintains, is a feeling of security that the threat of arbitrary punishment necessarily contravenes. His acolyte, Cesare Beccaria, proceeded to lead the liberal reform of criminal law and punishment in Europe in the late 18th century. But that liberalisation had to proceed against the grain – against venerated European ideas, which were, according to Montesquieu’s analysis, despotic. Indeed, so important are ideas in Montesquieu’s view that he termed some philosophers ‘legislators’. Not only did these philosophic legislators aspire themselves to found utopias, but their musings can, in fact, impact real practices.
In Montesquieu’s analysis, some of the despotic ideas of Europe derive from the most exalted of sources, from the writings of Plato and Aristotle and the teachings of the Church, for example. Although these sources are understood to inculcate the virtues and thus to attempt to make human beings better, he subtly reveals throughout his work the immoderation, even the cruelty, of the ideas that can be found in old and venerated volumes slumbering on dusty bookshelves. Montesquieu highlights Plato’s harmful doctrines that slaves do not have a right to self-defence, that magistrates should be absolute, and that punishments should be frequent and severe. Similarly, Aristotle’s teachings abet despotic practices by relying too much on the virtue of princes for necessary restraint, and by vilifying the practice of demanding interest on loans, which is the very lifeblood of commerce among nations. Aristotle’s teachings help to undermine commerce which, according to Montesquieu, promotes the ‘gentle mores’ that in turn preserve life by countering both belligerent martial virtues and aggressive suspiciousness of foreigners. He shows also how the Church promulgates a far too expansive law, deriving from the ancient Romans, that equates treason and heresy. The Church and compliant civil authorities slew many so-called heretics as a result of its promulgation.
As events unfolded after his death, Montesquieu’s assessment of Europe’s continuing susceptibility to despotism proved to be remarkably prescient. No one who merely glances at this history can deny the enduring need for the lesson that Montesquieu endeavours to teach in The Spirit of the Laws – that there is no final victory over despotism, and that the West too remains susceptible. It is, in fact, an ever-present threat in the human condition. Liberty, Montesquieu shows, demands the continual scrutiny of ruling practices and ideas, no matter how sacred. Despotic ideas can lodge in our most cherished ideas, and even in our own hearts.
{============}
Q. 3 Mill called his philosophy as philosophy of experience. What were the reasons that Mill termed his philosophy as philosophy of experience? Discuss in detail.
Answer:
John Stuart Mill (1806–73) was the most influential English language philosopher of the nineteenth century. He was a naturalist, a utilitarian, and a liberal, whose work explores the consequences of a thoroughgoing empiricist outlook. In doing so, he sought to combine the best of eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinking with newly emerging currents of nineteenth-century Romantic and historical philosophy. His most important works include System of Logic (1843), On Liberty (1859), Utilitarianism (1861) and An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy (1865).
Mill’s Theoretical Philosophy: Self-Supporting or Self-Undermining?
Mill’s theoretical philosophy is, in an important sense, circular and self-supporting (Skorupski 1989: 125, 149). As noted, Mill views enumerative induction—the sole method of warranted theoretical reasoning—as self-validating and self-improving. We spontaneously take certain initial inductive moves to be justified. Induction’s self-examination then leads to an increasing confidence that induction is a warranted way of reasoning about the world, and to a general sharpening of that method of reasoning. Induction could have been self-undermining—its success as a form of reasoning about the world, established on its own terms, is not trivial.
More broadly, however, Mill’s theoretical view of mind and world is as a whole circular and self-supporting. Mill’s naturalistic picture of the relation between mind and world—of the mind as itself part of the natural order and incapable of knowledge a priori—must itself be treated as a substantive discovery. As such, it could only be arrived at by inductive reasoning. Inductive investigation allows us to better understand that the mind is itself governed by natural laws—and to better understand the processes of sense perception that allow us to be causally receptive to the world. Elements of Mill’s associationist psychology are apt to strike us as outdated—but that does not alter the basic point that the naturalistic study of mind has been enormously successful in affording a better understanding of how we process the world we occupy. Such discoveries clarify and strengthen our sense of why a priori knowledge is impossible in the first place, and why empirical investigation is necessary for any genuine knowledge.
The view that Mill sketches is rich in potential—and it has sufficient breadth to promise a successful means of theoretically orienting ourselves in the world. The issue, of course, is, whether naturalism is the only possible view. Granting that Mill’s theoretical philosophy is impressive on the grounds of offering a systematic and coherent way of thinking about the world and the history of our theoretical engagement with it, the question remains whether that coherence and systematicity is any guarantee of truth. The question must remain whether there are equally good non-naturalistic ways of thinking about the world and our place within it. Because naturalism is a substantive doctrine, that is a possibility to which Mill must remain open.
A more pressing question still is whether Mill’s picture truly is coherent. As discussed above, Mill’s naturalistic approach drives him, via his inductivism and endorsement of the Relativity of Knowledge, towards idealism. Ultimately, he holds, the only things that we can be warranted in believing are permanent possibilities of sensation. But such objects are not—at least not obviously—natural entities. Mill is never entirely clear about the status of the permanent possibilities of sensation. To the extent that they are ideal objects, we might doubt their status as natural entities; the further reified such entities are in relation to actual sensations, the less plausible it is to characterise the inference from sensation to the possibility of sensation as an inductive one. Whether Mill’s naturalism is compatible with his idealism is very much an open question.
The worry enters from multiple directions. Perhaps most obviously, it calls into question the down-to-earth realism that Mill endorses within the philosophy of science. Mill’s claim that that the process of science involves finding the structure already present in nature seems at least in tension with the claim that all knowledge is phenomenal and relativized. More subtly, Mill’s basic conception of the relation of mind and world also seems challenged. Mill claims that a priori knowledge is impossible because we cannot know
that the universe of thought and that of reality, the Microcosm and the Macrocosm (as they were once called) must have been framed in in complete correspondence with one another. (Examination, IX: 68)
But if the world is fundamentally ideal—if, as Mill seems to claim, our world is the world as conditioned by our mediating senses, because we can know and represent it in no other way—we might wonder why a basic harmony between the architecture of mind and world should not be taken as given, and a priori knowledge not be possible. Indeed, Mill’s claim that cognition must be mediated by some method of cognising—that any creature must perceive in this way—itself seems suspiciously unrevisable and a priori.
These problems emerge because the priority between mind and world in Mill’s work is unclear: the mind is seen as both the condition for the representation of the only world we ever encounter, and as a natural object within the world. The former is brought to the foreground only in Mill’s most philosophical moments—the latter is present throughout Mill’s characterisation of scientific and ordinary thinking. One option to resolve this tension, of course, is to follow Kant in distinguishing transcendental and empirical levels of reflection—another is to follow the post-Kantian idealists in attempting to unite and overcome such oppositions wherever they occur. Mill, however, never worked through the internal pressures of his own position with sufficient rigour to feel the push within naturalism towards these positions.
{============}
Q. 4 The essay on ‘Nature’ represents Mill’s mature and considered opinion on nature. Critically analyze Mill’s views propounded in the essay on ‘Nature’.
Answer:
"NATURE," "natural," and the group of words derived from them, or allied to them in etymology, have at all times filled a great place in the thoughts and taken a strong hold on the feelings of mankind. That they should have done so is not surprising when we consider what the words, in their primitive and most obvious signification, represent; but it is unfortunate that a set of terms which play so great a part in moral and metaphysical speculation should have acquired many meanings different from the primary one, yet sufficiently allied to it to admit of confusion. The words have thus become entangled in so many foreign associations, mostly of a very powerful and tenacious character, that they have come to excite, and to be the symbols of, feelings which their original meaning will by no means justify, and which have made them one of the most copious sources of false taste, false philosophy, false morality, and even bad law.
The most important application of the Socratic Elenchus, as exhibited and improved by Plato, consists in dissecting large abstractions of this description; fixing down to a precise definition the meaning which as popularly used they merely shadow forth, and questioning and testing the common maxims and opinions in which they bear a part. It is to be regretted that among the instructive specimens of this kind of investigation which Plato has left, and to which subsequent times have been so much indebted for whatever intellectual clearness they have attained, he has not enriched posterity with a dialogue peri phuseos. If the idea denoted by the word had been subjected to his searching analysis, and the popular commonplaces in which it figures had been submitted to the ordeal of his powerful dialectics, his successors probably would not have rushed, as they speedily did, into modes of thinking and reasoning of which the fallacious use of that word formed the cornerstone; a kind of fallacy from which he was himself singularly free.
According to the Platonic method, which is still the best type of such investigations, the first thing to be done with so vague a term is to ascertain precisely what it means. It is also a rule of the same method that the meaning of an abstraction is best sought for in the concrete - of an universal in the particular. Adopting this course with the word "nature," the first question must be, what is meant by the "nature"of a particular object, as of fire, of water, or of some individual plant or animal ? Evidently the ensemble or aggregate of its powers or properties: the modes in which it acts on other things (counting among those things the senses of the observer), and the modes in which other things act upon it; to which, in the case of a sentient being, must be added its own capacities of feeling, or being conscious. The nature of the thing means all this; means its entire capacity of exhibiting phenomena. And since the phenomena which a thing exhibits, however much they vary in different circumstances, are always the same in the same circumstances, they admit of being described in general forms of words, which are called the laws of the thing's nature. Thus it is a law of the nature of water that, under the mean pressure of the atmosphere at the level of the sea, it boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
As the nature of any given thing is the aggregate of its powers and properties, so Nature in the abstract is the aggregate of the powers and properties of all things. Nature means the sum of all phenomena, together with the causes which produce them; including not only all that happens, but all that is capable of happening; the unused capabilities of causes being as much a part of the idea of Nature as those which take effect. Since all phenomena which have been sufficiently examined are found to take place with regularity, each having certain fixed conditions, positive and negative, on the occurrence of which it invariably happens, mankind have been able to ascertain, either by direct observation or by reasoning processes grounded on it, the conditions of the occurrence of many phenomena; and the progress of science mainly consists in ascertaining those conditions. When discovered they can be expressed in general propositions, which are called laws of the particular phenomenon, and also, more generally, Laws of Nature. Thus the truth, that all material objects tend towards one another with a force directly as their masses and inversely as the square of their distance, is a law of nature. The proposition, that air and food are necessary to animal life, if it be, as we have good reason to believe, true without exception, is also a law of nature, though the phenomenon of which it is the law is special, and not, like gravitation, universal.
Nature, then, in this, its simplest, acceptation, is a collective name for all facts, actual and possible; or (to speak more accurately) a name for the mode, partly known to us and partly unknown, in which all things take place. For the word suggests, not so much the multitudinous detail of the phenomena, as the conception which might be formed of their manner of existence as a mental whole, by a mind possessing a complete knowledge of them: to which conception it is the aim of science to raise itself, by successive steps of generalisation from experience.
Such, then, is a correct definition of the word "nature." But this definition corresponds only to one of the senses of that ambiguous term. It is evidently inapplicable to some of the modes in which the word is familiarly employed. For example, it entirely conflicts with the common form of speech by which Nature is opposed to Art, and natural to artificial. For, in the sense of the word "nature" which has just been defined, and which is the true scientific sense, Art is as much Nature as anything else; and everything which is artificial is natural - Art has no independent powers of its own: Art is but the employment of the powers of Nature for an end. Phenomena produced by human agency, no less than those which as far as we are concerned are spontaneous, depend on the properties of the elementary forces, or of the elementary substances and their compounds. The united powers of the whole human race could not create a new property of matter in general, or of any one of its species. We can only take advantage for our purposes of the properties which we find. A ship floats by the same laws of specific gravity and equilibrium as a tree uprooted by the wind and blown into the water. The corn which men raise for food grows and produces its grain by the same laws of vegetation by which the wild rose and the mountain strawberry bring forth their flowers and fruit. A house stands and holds together by the natural properties, the weight and cohesion of the materials which compose it: a steam engine works by the natural expansive force of steam, exerting a pressure upon one part of a system of arrangements, which pressure, by the mechanical properties of the lever, is transferred from that to another part where it raises the weight or removes the obstacle brought into connection with it. In these and all other artificial operations the office of man is, as has often been remarked, a very limited one: it consists in moving things into certain places. We move objects, and, by doing this, bring some things into contact which were separate, or separate others which were in contact; and, by this simple change of place, natural forces previously dormant are called into action, and produce the desired effect. Even the volition which designs, the intelligence which contrives, and the muscular force which executes these movements, are themselves powers of Nature.
It thus appears that we must recognise at least two principal meanings in the word "nature". In one sense, it means all the powers existing in either the outer or the inner world and everything which takes place by means of those powers. In another sense, it means, not everything which happens, but only what takes place without the agency, or without the voluntary and intentional agency, of man. This distinction is far from exhausting the ambiguities of the word; but it is the key to most of those on which important consequences depend.
Such, then, being the two principal senses of the word "nature," in which of these is it taken, or is it taken in either, when the word and its derivatives are used to convey ideas of commendation, approval, and even moral obligation?
It has conveyed such ideas in all ages. Naturum sequi was the fundamental principle of morals in many of the most admired schools of philosophy. Among the ancients, especially in the declining period of ancient intellect and thought, it was the test to which all ethical doctrines were brought. The Stoics and the Epicureans, however irreconcilable in the rest of their systems, agreed in holding themselves bound to prove that their respective maxims of conduct were the dictates of nature. Under their influence the Roman jurists, when attempting to systematise jurisprudence, placed in the front of their exposition a certain Jus Naturale, "quad natura," as Justinian declares in the Institutes, "omnia animalia docuit ": and as the modern systematic writers, not only on law but on moral philosophy, have generally taken the Roman jurists for their models, treatises on the so-called Law of Nature have abounded; and references to this Law as a supreme rule and ultimate standard have pervaded literature. The writers on International Law have done more than any others to give currency to this style of ethical speculation; inasmuch as, having no positive law to write about, and yet being anxious to invest the most approved opinions respecting international morality with as much as they could of the authority of law, they endeavoured to find such an authority in Nature's imaginary code. The Christian theology during the period of its greatest ascendancy opposed some, though not a complete, hindrance to the modes of thought which erected Nature into the criterion of morals, inasmuch as, according to the creed of most denominations of Christians (though assuredly not of Christ), man is by nature wicked. But this very doctrine, by the reaction which it provoked, has made the deistical moralists almost unanimous in proclaiming the divinity of Nature, and setting up its fancied dictates as an authoritative rule of action. A reference to that supposed standard is the predominant ingredient in the vein of thought and feeling which was opened by Rousseau, and which has infiltrated itself most widely into the modern mind, not excepting that portion of it which calls itself Christian. The doctrines of Christianity have in every age been largely accommodated to the philosophy which happened to be prevalent, and the Christianity of our day has borrowed a considerable part of its colour and flavour from sentimental deism. At the present time it cannot be said that Nature, or any other standard, is applied as it was wont to be, to deduce rules of action with juridical precision, and with an attempt to make its application co-extensive with all human agency. The people of this generation do not commonly apply principles with any such studious exactness, nor own such binding allegiance to any standard, but live in a kind of confusion of many standards; a condition not propitious to the formation of steady moral convictions, but convenient enough to those whose moral opinions sit lightly on them, since it gives them a much wider range of arguments for defending the doctrine of the moment. But though perhaps no one could now be found who, like the institutional writers of former times, adopts the so-called Law of Nature as the foundation of ethics, and endeavours consistently to reason from it, the word and its cognates must still be counted among those which carry great weight in moral argumentation. That any mode of thinking, feeling, or acting, is "according to nature " is usually accepted as a strong argument for its goodness. If it can be said with any plausibility that "nature enjoins" anything, the propriety of obeying the injunction is by most people considered to be made out; and, conversely, the imputation of being contrary to nature is thought to bar the door against any pretension, on the part of the thing so designated, to be tolerated or excused; and the word "unnatural " has not ceased to be one of the most vituperative epithets in the language. Those who deal in these expressions may avoid making themselves responsible for any fundamental theorem respecting the standard of moral obligation, but they do not the less imply such a theorem, and one which must be the same in substance with that on which the more logical thinkers of a more laborious age grounded their systematic treatises on Natural Law.
Is it necessary to recognise in these forms of speech another distinct meaning of the word "nature"? Or can they be connected, by any rational bond of union, with either of the two meanings already treated of? At first it may seem that we have no option but to admit another ambiguity in the term. All inquiries are either into what is or into what ought to be: science and history belonging to the first division; art, morals, and politics to the second. But the two senses of the word "nature" first pointed out agree in referring only to what is. In the first meaning, Nature is a collective name for everything which is. In the second, it is a name for everything which is of itself, without voluntary human intervention. But the employment of the word "nature" as a term of ethics seems to disclose a third meaning, in which Nature does not stand for what is, but for what ought to be, or for the rule or standard of what ought to be. A little consideration, however, will show that this is not a case of ambiguity; there is not here a third sense of the word. Those who set up Nature as a standard of action do not intend a merely verbal proposition; they do not mean that the standard, whatever it be should be called Nature; they think they are giving some information as to what the standard of action really is. Those who say that we ought to act according to Nature do not mean the mere identical proposition that we ought to do what we ought to do. They think that the word "nature" affords some external criterion of what we should do and if they lay down as a rule for what ought to be, a word which in its proper signification denotes what is, they do so because they have a notion, either clearly or confusedly, that what is constitutes the rule and standard of what ought to be.
The examination of this notion is the object of the present Essay. It is proposed to inquire into the truth of the doctrines which make Nature a test of right and wrong, good and evil, or which in any mode or degree attach merit or approval to following, imitating, or obeying Nature. To this inquiry the foregoing discussion respecting the meaning of terms was an indispensable introduction. Language is, as it were, the atmosphere of philosophical investigation, which must be made transparent before anything can be seen through it in the true figure and position. In the present case it is necessary to guard against a further ambiguity, which, though abundantly obvious, has sometimes misled even sagacious minds, and of which it is well to take distinct note before proceeding further. No word is more commonly associated with the word "nature" than "law"; and this last word has distinctly two meanings, in one of which it denotes some definite portion of what is, in the other of what ought to be. We speak of the law of gravitation, the three laws of motion, the law of definite proportions in chemical combination, the vital laws of organised beings. All these are portions of what is. We also speak of the criminal law, the civil law, the law of honour, the law of veracity, the law of justice; all of which are portions of what ought to be, or of somebody's suppositions, feelings, or commands respecting what ought to be. The first kind of laws, such as the laws of motion and of gravitation, are neither more nor less than the observed uniformities in the occurrence of phenomena; partly uniformities of antecedence and sequence, partly of concomitance. These are what, in science, and even in ordinary parlance, are meant by laws of nature. Laws in the other sense are the laws of the land, the law of nations, or moral laws; among which, as already noticed, is dragged in, by jurists and publicists, something which they think proper to call the Law of Nature. Of the liability of these two meanings of the word to be confounded there can be no better example than the first chapter of Montesquieu, where he remarks that the material world has its laws, the inferior animals have their laws, and man has his laws; and calls attention to the much greater strictness with which the first two sets of laws are observed than the last; as if it were an inconsistency, and a paradox, that things always are what they are, but men not always what they ought to be. A similar confusion of ideas pervades the writings of Mr. George Combe, from whence it has overflowed into a large region of popular literature, and we are now continually reading injunctions to obey the physical laws of the universe, as being obligatory in the same sense and manner as the moral. The conception which the ethical use of the word "nature" implies, of a close relation if not absolute identity between what is and what ought to be, certainly derives part of its hold on the mind from the custom of designating what is by the expression "laws of nature," while the same word "law" is also used, and even more familiarly and emphatically, to express what ought to be.
When it is asserted, or implied, that Nature, or the laws of Nature, should be conformed to, is the Nature which is meant Nature in the first sense of the term, meaning all which is - the powers and properties of all things? But in this signification there is no need of a recommendation to act according to nature, since it is what nobody can possibly help doing, and equally whether he acts well or ill. There is no mode of acting which is not conformable to Nature in this sense of the term, and all modes of acting are so in exactly the same degree. Every action is the exertion of some natural power, and its effects of all sorts are so many phenomena of nature, produced by the powers and properties of some of the objects of nature, in exact obedience to some law or laws of nature. When I voluntarily use my organs to take in food, the act, and its consequences, take place according to laws of nature: if instead of food I swallow poison, the case is exactly the same. To bid people conform to the laws of nature when they have no power but what the laws of nature give them - when it is a physical impossibility for them to do the smallest thing otherwise than through some law of nature, is an absurdity. The thing they need to be told is what particular law of nature they should make use of in a particular case. When, for example, a person is crossing a river by a narrow bridge to which there is no parapet, he will do well to regulate his proceedings by the laws of equilibrium in moving bodies, instead of conforming only to the law of gravitation and falling into the river.
{============}
Q. 5 What are the errors which the historians are liable to indulge in according to Ibn Khaldun? Why those errors occur? Explain in the light of the reasons mentioned in the Muqaddimah.
Answer:
Some consider the Italian philosopher Vico (1668-1744) to have been the founder of philosophy of history; others give the credit to the French philosopher Montesquieu (1689-1755). In fact, the Arabic philosopher and historian ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) was the first pioneer to discover that history, like any other science, required research. “It is the science of circumstances and events and its causes are profound, thus it is an ancient, original part of wisdom and deserves to be one of its sciences.”
In his The Introduction (1377), ibn Khaldun also wrote, “History is an art of valuable doctrine, numerous in advantages and honourable in purpose; it informs us about bygone nations in the context of their habits, the prophets in the context of their lives and kings in the context of their states and politics, so those who seek the guidance of the past in either worldly or religious matters may have that advantage.”
Ibn Khaldun’s theory divided history into two main parts: the historical manifest and the historical gist. According to him, history should not limit itself to recording events, but should examine environments, social mores and political bases: “True history exists to tell us about human social life, which is the world’s environment, and the nature of that environment as it appears from various events. It deals with civilisation, savagery and tribalism, with the various ways in which people obtain power over each other, and their results, with states and their hierarchies and with the people’s occupations, lifestyles, sciences, handicrafts and everything else that takes place in that environment under various circumstances.”
Ibn Khaldun’s method relied on criticism, observation, comparison and examination. He used scientific criticism to analyse accounts of historical events, the sources of these accounts and the techniques used by historians, examining and comparing various different accounts in order to get rid of falsifications and exaggerations and obtain some objective idea of what had actually happened. Many accounts contained lies because they had been written to flatter some ruler or to further the interests of some sect, the newsmakers and storytellers deliberately cheating and falsifying things for their own purposes. Ibn Khaldun, therefore, urged the historian to become erudite, accurate in observation and skilled in comparing text with subtext in order to be capable of effective criticism and clarification.
Although ibn Khaldun strongly believed in God, he never mentioned any celestial aim for history, or any divine end at which history would come to stop. He states, in fact, the “past is like the future, water from water”, which seems to imply that human history has no end. Ibn Khaldun went further to criticise other historians for imposing metaphysical ideas upon historical events to make the latter appear subordinate to the gods or to divine providence, turning history, properly a science, into something more closely akin to the arts and literature.
As a result, some Muslims and Westerners seized his concept of history to denounce ibn Khaldun as an atheist, a charge of which he was innocent; his point was that the science of history was not subject to metaphysics and could not be made so. Ibn Khaldun never questioned the existence of God. His work, according to him, was “inspired by God, pure inspiration”, which should be evidence enough of his belief in God.
However, his views on prophecy are crystal clear, unlike those of certain of his predecessors in Muslim philosophy, in particular Alfarabi (870-950) and Avicenna (980-1037). As an experimental philosopher he was interested in the holy experiments of the Prophet Mohammed (570-632), which means he cannot have seen history as having no end. If the existence of God is regarded as an absolute fact and His prophets and their religious experiments as proof of this fact, then the statement that in history the past is just like the future must mean it consists of a continuous series of events not stopping with any nation, but continuing in cycles.
Ibn Khaldun believed even the minutest of facts should be scrutinised in analysing historical events, since these were not simple phenomena, but complex. He regarded history as far from easy to study, being “the knowledge of qualitative events and their causes in depth.” Since metaphysical theories of history were in his view irrelevant, Ibn Khaldun imported the idea of causality from the theoretical field of philosophy into the practical arena of history by concentrating on the worldly ‘causes and reasons’ of historical events. His method was directly inductive, relying on the senses and the intellect without referring to any other norm. There was, in his view, a yawning void between the abstractive and the experimental, the first being based on logic and second on the reality of the sensible world. The subject of divine knowledge was an invisible spirit unable to be subjected to experimentation and of which there was no sensory evidence, so there could be no certain proof of it in this world. Since the sensible and the non-sensible thus had no terms in common, ibn Khaldun banished the abstractive or divine world from his logical syllogisms. This is precisely the approach taken by modern positivism, and even pragmatism followed in ibn Khaldun’s footsteps during its early stages.
In his diagnosis of “the causes of lies in history”, ibn Khaldun identifies a number of reasons, such as: sectarianism, misplaced trust in the sources, ignorance of some hidden purpose and the wish to flatter rulers. Hence, many historians, copyists and tellers have made the mistake of accepting untrue accounts or recording events that did not take place because they have relied on report alone, without bothering to research its sources closely for truth or falsehood, compare it with anything else or apply their own intelligence to it. In this they have showed themselves to be poor historians. For example, al-Mas’udi and various other Arab historians accepted that the Israelite armies led by the Prophet Moses numbered 600,000 or more men aged twenty and upwards. If we examine this tale carefully it is clearly false. When Jacob and his kinsmen entered Egypt there were only seventy of them. Only four generations separated Jacob and Moses. Where, then, did Moses get this huge multitude of youths and men? The Israeli themselves, moreover, reported that Solomon’s army numbered 12,000 and his horses 1400, while calling his kingdom the vigour of their state and an expansion of their reign.
Al-Mas’ud also succeeded in ignoring physical reality. How exactly was this huge army squeezed into the maze? How could so massive a force have been lined up and moved in so limited an area of land? In the area of historical knowledge al-Mas’ud did no better. Historically each kingdom was manned by a certain number of garrisons according to its size. A kingdom having six hundred thousand or more fighters would have had borders far exceeding the limits of the ancient kingdom of Israel.
In his prescription of “requirements for a historian”, ibn Khaldun stated that several things were essential if a historian were to be qualified to deal with historical events and stories:
1. An understanding of the rules of politics and the nature of people.
2. Knowledge of the natural environment and how it differs according to time and place.
3. Acquaintance with the social environments of the various different nations in terms of way of life, morals, incomes, doctrines and so forth.
4. An understanding of the present time and an ability to compare it with the past.
5. Knowledge of the origins and motives of states and sects, their declared principles, their rules and major events in their histories.
To achieve a critical understanding of historical events, then, the historian must study the general circumstances of the period with which he is dealing and compare the particular events in which he is interested. He should then explore any similar events that have taken place at other periods along with the general circumstances of these periods. When he has completed these two main stages he should be able to recognise events as reasonable and probably true, or unacceptable and almost certainly false. Certain events need only be studied separately, along with the general circumstances of their periods, to know which parts of them must be true or false.
In his analysis of ‘the intellect’, ibn Khaldun believes the intellect has limits it cannot exceed and that these prevent it from reaching a complete understanding of God and His attributes. This is its reality, and man cannot upgrade it or increase its level of capability. Ibn Khaldun insisted that the intellect could not he aware of “the reality of the soul and the divine” or of anything else existing in the higher world, because it was incapable of reaching, knowing or proving it. We can be aware only of what is material; if a thing is immaterial we can neither prove it nor base any proof upon it.
Ibn Khaldun offered the intellect little encouragement to dwell on metaphysics, preferring to emulate Algazel (1059-1111), by dealing a final and near-fatal blow to philosophical thought by the Arabic-Islamic intellect. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that in closing one door ibn Khaldun threw open to the human mind an entirely new one: the sociology and philosophy of history.
Since the 18th century, the western world has taken ibn Khaldun seriously, especially as his scientific ideas were very much like those that were to develop much later on in human history. He has, however, still not taken his rightful place as the founder of philosophy of history and the pioneer of sociology, although translations of his historical and social treatises have helped to some extent.
Course: Social Theory–II (4670)
Semester: Spring 2019
Level: M. Sc (Pak Studies)
ASSIGNMENT No. 2
Q. 1 Discuss in detail the importance of group feeling by Ibn Khaldun as propounded in the Muqaddimah. To what extent the proposition of group feeling of Ibn Khaldun has semblance of idea of nationalism. Elaborate with convincing arguments.
Answer:
Abd al-Rahman ibn Khaldun, the well known historian and thinker from Muslim 14th-century North Africa, is considered a forerunner of original theories in social sciences and philosophy of history, as well as the author of original views in economics, prefiguring modern contributions. In the following detailed and documented article, Muhammad Hozien outlines the bio-bibliography of Ibn Khaldun and presents insights into his theories, especially by comparing his analysis with that of Thucydides, and by characterizing Ibn Khaldun's view on science and philosophy. Upon Ibn Khaldūn’s return to Egypt, he was restored to his position as Mālikījudge. Due to the political situation within the community of Mālikījudges, Ibn Khaldūn was dismissed and reinstated three times during the five-year period. He died while in office on 26 Ramaḍān 808/17 March 1406. He was buried in the Sufi cemetery outside Bāb al-Naṣr, Cairo, at the age of seventy-four.
Al-Muqaddima: Ibn Khaldūn's magnum opus
Ibn Khaldūn’s works can be classified in the categories of history and religion. Of his works on history, only his universal history has survived to our day. The history that was written specifically for Tamerlane, as Ibn Khaldūn mentioned in his autobiography, has been lost. His religious books are: Lubab al-maḥṣūl [Summary of the result]; a commentary on an uṣūl al-fiqh poem, and a few works of questionable attribution to him, namely a Sufi tract, Shifā‛ al-sā‛il[Healing of the inquirer].
Ibn Khaldūn’s magnum opus al-Muqaddima can be divided into three parts. The first part is the introduction, the second part is the universal history, and the third part is the history of the Maghrib. In this section, I concentrate on the first part. The second part is similar to the standard histories of Muslim historians, and there does not seem to be much divergence. The third part, which is concerned with the history of the Maghrib, is considered a primary source work. Much of the information in this section is from Ibn Khaldūn’s personal travels and contacts in the area, and is replete with firsthand accounts. An additional work that is not usually considered a part of this book is an appendix, which is an autobiography of the author.
The first part, the “Introduction,” is popularly known as al-Muqaddima; Ibn Khaldūn wrote this in a span of five months. It can be divided into six parts as follows:
1. Human society —ethnology and anthropology
2. Rural civilizations
3. Forms of government and forms of institutions
4. Society of urban civilization
5. Economic facts
6. Science and humanity
This impressive document is the essence of Ibn Khaldūn’s wisdom and hard-earned experience. He used his political and firsthand knowledge of the people of Maghrib to formulate many of his ideas and summarized almost every field of knowledge of the time. He discusses a variety of topics, including history and historiography. He rebukes some historical claims with a calculated logic, and discusses the contemporary sciences. He wrote about astronomy, astrology, and numerology; and dealt with chemistry, alchemy, and magic in a scientific way. He freely offered his opinions and well documented the “facts” of other points of view. His discussion of tribal societies and social forces is the most interesting part of his thesis. He illuminated the world with deep insight into the makings and workings of kingdoms and civilizations.
The following quotation describes his philosophy of the historical process of civilizations, including, for example, the role of economics:
“. . . in the field of economics, Ibn Khaldūn understands very clearly the supply and demand factors which affect price, the interdependence of prices and the ripple effects on successive stages of production of a fall in prices, and the nature and function of money and its tendency to circulate from country to country according to demand and the level of activity.” Ibn Khaldūn is well known for his explanation of the nature of state and society and for being “the founder of the new discipline of sociology”: “Ibn Khaldūn fully realised that he had created a new discipline, ‘ilm al-’umran, the science of culture, and regarded it as surprising that no one had done so before and demarcated it from other disciplines. This science can be of great help to the historian by creating a standard by which to judge accounts of past events. Through the study of human society, one can distinguish between the possible and the impossible, and so distinguish between those of its phenomena which are essential and those which are merely accidental, and also those which cannot occur at all.” Ibn Khaldūn’s contributions to the field of history must also be noted.
“He analysed in detail the sources of error in historical writings, in particular partisanship, overconfidence in sources, failure to understand what is intended, a mistaken belief in the truth, the inability to place an event in its real context, the desire to gain the favour of those in high rank, exaggeration, and what he regarded as the most important of all, ignorance of the laws governing the transformation of human society.”
On the development of the state, and the relationship between the state and society, Ibn Khaldūn believed that:
“. . . human society is necessary since the individual acting alone could acquire neither the necessary food nor security. Only the division of labour, in and through society, makes this possible. The state arises through the need of a restraining force to curb the natural aggression of humanity. A state is inconceivable without a society, while a society is well-nigh impossible without a state. Social phenomena seem to obey laws which, while not as absolute as those governing natural phenomena, are sufficiently constant to cause social events to follow regular and well-defined patterns and sequences. Hence a grasp of these laws enables the sociologist to understand the trend of events. These laws operate on masses and cannot be significantly influenced by isolated individuals.”
Ibn Khaldūn proposed that:
“. . . society is an organism that obeys its own inner laws. These laws can be discovered by applying human reason to data either culled from historical records or obtained by direct observation. These data are fitted into an implicit framework derived from his views on human and social nature, his religious beliefs and the legal precepts and philosophical principles to which he adheres. He argues that more or less the same set of laws operates across societies with the same kind of structure, so that his remarks about nomads apply equally well to Arab Bedouins, both contemporary and pre-Islamic, and to Berbers, Turkomen and Kurds. These laws are explicable sociologically, and are not a mere reflection of biological impulses or physical factors. To be sure, facts such as climate and food are important, but he attributes greater influence to such purely social factors as cohesion, occupation and wealth.”
For Ibn Khaldūn, history is a constantly changing cycle, with essentially two groups of people, nomads and townspeople, with peasants in between. He characterizes each group:
“Nomads are rough, savage and uncultured, and their presence is always inimical to civilization; however, they are hardy, frugal, uncorrupt in morals, freedom-loving and self-reliant, and so make excellent fighters. In addition, they have a strong sense of ‘asabiya, which can be translated as ‘group cohesion’ or ‘social solidarity’. This greatly enhances their military potential. Towns, by contrast, are the seats of the crafts, the sciences, the arts and culture. Yet luxury corrupts them, and as a result they become a liability to the state, like women and children who need to be protected. Solidarity is completely relaxed and the arts of defending oneself and of attacking the enemy are forgotten, so they are no match for conquering nomads.”
With regard to the political and social cycle, Ibn Khaldūn suggests the following sequence of events:
“Nomads conquer territories and their leaders establish a new dynasty. At first the new rulers retain their tribal virtues and solidarity, but soon they seek to concentrate all authority in their own hands. Increasingly they rule through a bureaucracy of clients—often foreigners. As their former supporters lose their military virtues there is an increasing use of mercenaries, and soldiers come to be more important than civilians. Luxury corrupts ethical life, and the population decreases. Rising expenditure demands higher taxes, which discourage production and eventually result in lower revenues. The ruler and his clients become isolated from the groups that originally brought them to power. Such a process of decline is taken to last three generations, or about one hundred and twenty years. Religion can influence the nature of such a model; when ‘asabiya is reinforced by religion its strength is multiplied, and great empires can be founded. Religion can also reinforce the cohesion of an established state. Yet the endless cycle of flowering and decay shows no evolution or progress except for that from the primitive to civilized society.”
Ibn Khaldūn acknowledges that there are turning points in history. He wrote that in his time, he believed the Black Death and Mongol invasions were turning points, as was the development of Europe. His observations and research focused on the etiology of civilizational decline, “the symptoms and the nature of the ills from which civilizations die.” Ibn Khaldūn’s thesis, that the conquered race will always emulate the conqueror in every way, and his theory about ‘aṣabiyya (group feeling/party spirit) and the role it plays in Bedouin societies is insightful. The genius of this work is his study of the science of human culture, the rise and fall of empires; Ibn Khaldūn termed this the science of ‘umrān (civilization), and it contains many pearls of wisdom. His “Introduction” is his greatest legacy, left for all of humanity and generations to come.
{============}
Q. 2 Why had Hegel considered monarchy as the mode to extinguish feudalism and produce national state? Critically analyze Hegel’s views regarding monarchy with special reference to German State.
Answer:
G.W.F. Hegel's aesthetics, or philosophy of art, forms part of the extraordinarily rich German aesthetic tradition that stretches from J.J. Winckelmann's Thoughts on the Imitation of the Painting and Sculpture of the Greeks (1755) and G.E. Lessing's Laocoon (1766) through Immanuel Kant's Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790) and Friedrich Schiller's Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man (1795) to Friedrich Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy (1872) and (in the twentieth century) Martin Heidegger's The Origin of the Work of Art (1935–6) and T.W. Adorno's Aesthetic Theory (1970). Hegel was influenced in particular by Winckelmann, Kant and Schiller, and his own thesis of the “end of art” (or what has been taken to be that thesis) has itself been the focus of close attention by Heidegger and Adorno. Hegel's philosophy of art is a wide ranging account of beauty in art, the historical development of art, and the individual arts of architecture, sculpture, painting, music and poetry. It contains distinctive and influential analyses of Egyptian art, Greek sculpture, and ancient and modern tragedy, and is regarded by many as one of the greatest aesthetic theories to have been produced since Aristotle's Poetics.
Hegel's close association of art with beauty and freedom shows his clear indebtedness to Kant and Schiller. Kant also maintained that our experience of beauty is an experience of freedom. He argued, however, that beauty is not itself an objective property of things. When we judge that a natural object or a work of art is beautiful, on Kant's view, we are indeed making a judgment about an object, but we are asserting that the object has a certain effect on us (and that it should have the same effect on all who view it). The effect produced by the “beautiful” object is to set our understanding and imagination in “free play” with one another, and it is the pleasure generated by this free play that leads us to judge the object to be beautiful (Kant, 98, 102–3).
In contrast to Kant, Schiller understands beauty to be a property of the object itself. It is the property, possessed by both living beings and works of art, of appearing to be free when in fact they are not. As Schiller puts it in the “Kallias” letters, beauty is “freedom in appearance, autonomy in appearance” (Schiller, 151). Schiller insists that freedom itself is something “noumenal” (to use Kant's terminology) and so can never actually manifest itself in the realm of the senses. We can never see freedom at work in, or embodied in, the world of space and time. In the case of beautiful objects, therefore—whether they are the products of nature or human imagination—“it is all that matters [ … ] that the object appears as free, not that it really is so” (Schiller, 151).
Hegel agrees with Schiller (against Kant) that beauty is an objective property of things. In his view, however, beauty is the direct sensuous manifestation of freedom, not merely the appearance or imitation of freedom. It shows us what freedom actually looks like and sounds like when it gives itself sensuous expression (albeit with varying degrees of idealization). Since true beauty is the direct sensuous expression of the freedom of spirit, it must be produced by free spirit for free spirit, and so cannot be a mere product of nature. Nature is capable of a formal beauty, and life is capable of what Hegel calls “sensuous” beauty (PK, 197), but true beauty is found only in works of art that are freely created by human beings to bring before our minds what it is to be free spirit.
Beauty, for Hegel, has certain formal qualities: it is the unity or harmony of different elements in which these elements are not just arranged in a regular, symmetrical pattern but are unifiedorganically. Hegel gives an example of genuinely beautiful form in his discussion of Greek sculpture: the famous Greek profile is beautiful, we are told, because the forehead and the nose flow seamlessly into one another, in contrast to the Roman profile in which there is a much sharper angle between the forehead and nose (Aesthetics, 2: 727–30). Beauty, however, is not just a matter of form; it is also a matter of content. This is one of Hegel's most controversial ideas, and is one that sets him at odds with those modern artists and art-theorists who insist that art can embrace any content we like and, indeed, can dispense with content altogether. As we have seen, the content that Hegel claims is central and indispensable to genuine beauty (and therefore genuine art) is the freedom and richness of spirit. To put it another way, that content is the Idea, or absolute reason, as self-knowing spirit. Since the Idea is pictured in religion as “God,” the content of truly beautiful art is in one respect the divine. Yet, as we have seen above, Hegel argues that the Idea (or “God”) comes to consciousness of itself only in and through finite human beings. The content of beautiful art must thus be the divine in human form or the divine within humanity itself (as well as purely human freedom).
Hegel recognizes that art can portray animals, plants and inorganic nature, but he sees it as art's principal task to present divine and human freedom. In both cases, the focus of attention is on the human figure in particular. This is because, in Hegel's view, the most appropriate sensuous incarnation of reason and the clearest visible expression of spirit is the human form. Colors and sounds by themselves can certainly communicate a mood, but only the human form actually embodies spirit and reason. Truly beautiful art thus shows us sculpted, painted or poetic images of Greek gods or of Jesus Christ—that is, the divine in human form—or it shows us images of free human life itself.
{============}
Q.3 Why had Hegel identified individualism with provincialism, violence, fanaticism, terrorism and atheism? Discuss in detail the critique of individualism of Hegel
Answer:
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) is one of the greatest systematic thinkers in the history of Western philosophy. In addition to epitomizing German idealist philosophy, Hegel boldly claimed that his own system of philosophy represented an historical culmination of all previous philosophical thought. Hegel's overall encyclopedic system is divided into the science of Logic, the philosophy of Nature, and the philosophy of Spirit. Of most enduring interest are his views on history, society, and the state, which fall within the realm of Objective Spirit. Some have considered Hegel to be a nationalistic apologist for the Prussian State of the early 19th century, but his significance has been much broader, and there is no doubt that Hegel himself considered his work to be an expression of the self-consciousness of the World Spirit of his time. At the core of Hegel's social and political thought are the concepts of freedom, reason, self-consciousness, and recognition. There are important connections between the metaphysical or speculative articulation of these ideas and their application to social and political reality, and one could say that the full meaning of these ideas can be grasped only with a comprehension of their social and historical embodiment. The work that explicates this concretizing of ideas, and which has perhaps stimulated as much controversy as interest, is the Philosophy of Right (Philosophie des Rechts), which will be a main focus of this essay.
Hegel's analysis of the moral implications of "good and conscience" leads to the conclusion that a concrete unity of the objective good with the subjectivity of the will cannot be achieved at the level of personal morality since all attempts at this are problematic. The concrete identity of the good with the subjective will occurs only in moving to the level of ethical life (Sittlichkeit), which Hegel says is "the Idea of freedom…the concept of freedom developed into the existing world and the nature of self-consciousness" (¶ 142). Thus, ethical life is permeated with both objectivity and subjectivity: regarded objectively it is the state and its institutions, whose force (unlike abstract right) depends entirely on the self-consciousness of citizens, on their subjective freedom; regarded subjectively it is the ethical will of the individual which (unlike the moral will) is aware of objective duties that express one's inner sense of universality. The rationality of the ethical order of society is thus constituted in the synthesis of the concept of the will, both as universal and as particular, with its embodiment in institutional life.
The synthesis of ethical life means that individuals not only act in conformity with the ethical good but that they recognize the authority of ethical laws. This authority is not something alien to individuals since they are linked to the ethical order through a strong identification which Hegel says "is more like an identity than even the relation of faith or trust" (¶ 147). The knowledge of how the laws and institutions of society are binding on the will of individuals entails a "doctrine of duties." In duty the individual finds liberation both from dependence on mere natural impulse, which may or may not motivate ethical actions, and from indeterminate subjectivity which cannot produce a clear view of proper action. "In duty the individual acquires his substantive freedom" (¶ 149). In the performance of duty the individual exhibits virtue when the ethical order is reflected in his or her character, and when this is done by simple conformity with one's duties it is rectitude. When individuals are simply identified with the actual ethical order such that their ethical practices are habitual and second nature, ethical life appears in their general mode of conduct as custom (Sitten). Thus, the ethical order manifests its right and validity vis-à-vis individuals. In duty "the self-will of the individual vanishes together with his private conscience which had claimed independence and opposed itself to the ethical substance. For when his character is ethical, he recognizes as the end which moves him to act the universal which is itself unmoved but is disclosed in its specific determinations as rationality actualized. He knows that his own dignity and the whole stability of his particular ends are grounded in this same universal, and it is therein that he actually attains these" (¶ 152). However, this does not deny the right of subjectivity, i.e., the right of individuals to be satisfied in their particular pursuits and free activity; but this right is realized only in belonging to an objective ethical order. The "bond of duty" will be seen as a restriction on the particular individual only if the self-will of subjective freedom is considered in the abstract, apart from an ethical order (as is the case for both Abstract Right and Morality). "Hence, in this identity of the universal will with the particular will, right and duty coalesce, and by being in the ethical order a man has rights in so far as he has duties, and duties in so far as he has rights" (¶ 155).
i. The Family
The family is characterized by love which is "mind's feeling of its own unity," where one's sense of individuality is within this unity, not as an independent individual but as a member essentially related to the other family members. Thus, familial love implies a contradiction between, on the one hand, not wanting to be a self-subsistent and independent person if that means feeling incomplete and, on the other hand, wanting to be recognized in another person. Familial love is truly an ethical unity, but because it is nonetheless a subjective feeling it is limited in sustaining unity (pars. 158-59, and additions).
ii. Civil Society
With civil society (bürgerliche Gesellschaft) we move from the family or "the ethical idea still in its concept," where consciousness of the whole or totality is focal, to the "determination of particularity," where the satisfaction of subjective needs and desires is given free reign (pars. 181-182). However, despite the pursuit of private or selfish ends in relatively unrestricted social and economic activity, universality is implicit in the differentiation of particular needs insofar as the welfare of an individual in society is intrinsically bound up with that of others, since each requires another in some way to effectively engage in reciprocal activities like commerce, trade, etc. Because this system of interdependence is not self-conscious but exists only in abstraction from the individual pursuit of need satisfaction, here particularity and universality are only externally related. Hegel says that "this system may be prima facie regarded as the external state, the state based on need, the state as the Understanding (Verstand) envisages it" (¶ 183). However, civil society is also a realm of mediation of particular wills through social interaction and a means whereby individuals are educated (Bildung) through their efforts and struggles toward a higher universal consciousness.
iii. The State
The political State, as the third moment of Ethical Life, provides a synthesis between the principles governing the Family and those governing Civil Society. The rationality of the state is located in the realization of the universal substantial will in the self-consciousness of particular individuals elevated to consciousness of universality. Freedom becomes explicit and objective in this sphere. "Since the state is mind objectified, it is only as one of its members that the individual has objectivity, genuine individuality, and an ethical life … and the individual's destiny is the living of a universal life" (¶ 258). Rationality is concrete in the state in so far as its content is comprised in the unity of objective freedom (freedom of the universal or substantial will) and subjective freedom (freedom of everyone in knowing and willing of particular ends); and in its form rationality is in self-determining action or laws and principles which are logical universal thoughts (as in the logical syllogism).
{============}
Q.4 Marx was less interested in perfecting dialectical materialism as a philosophy of history than in applying it to concrete situations especially with the purpose of finding a program of action for a consciously revolutionary proletariat. To what extent Marx’s dialectical materialism succeeded in achieving the said object? Explain with cogent arguments.
Answer:
Karl Marx (1818–1883) is best known not as a philosopher but as a revolutionary, whose works inspired the foundation of many communist regimes in the twentieth century. It is hard to think of many who have had as much influence in the creation of the modern world. Trained as a philosopher, Marx turned away from philosophy in his mid-twenties, towards economics and politics. However, in addition to his overtly philosophical early work, his later writings have many points of contact with contemporary philosophical debates, especially in the philosophy of history and the social sciences, and in moral and political philosophy. Historical materialism — Marx’s theory of history — is centered around the idea that forms of society rise and fall as they further and then impede the development of human productive power. Marx sees the historical process as proceeding through a necessary series of modes of production, characterized by class struggle, culminating in communism. Marx’s economic analysis of capitalism is based on his version of the labour theory of value, and includes the analysis of capitalist profit as the extraction of surplus value from the exploited proletariat. The analysis of history and economics come together in Marx’s prediction of the inevitable economic breakdown of capitalism, to be replaced by communism. However Marx refused to speculate in detail about the nature of communism, arguing that it would arise through historical processes, and was not the realisation of a pre-determined moral ideal.
Rationality
The driving force of history, in Cohen’s reconstruction of Marx, is the development of the productive forces, the most important of which is technology. But what is it that drives such development? Ultimately, in Cohen’s account, it is human rationality. Human beings have the ingenuity to apply themselves to develop means to address the scarcity they find. This on the face of it seems very reasonable. Yet there are difficulties. As Cohen himself acknowledges, societies do not always do what would be rational for an individual to do. Co-ordination problems may stand in our way, and there may be structural barriers. Furthermore, it is relatively rare for those who introduce new technologies to be motivated by the need to address scarcity. Rather, under capitalism, the profit motive is the key. Of course it might be argued that this is the social form that the material need to address scarcity takes under capitalism. But still one may raise the question whether the need to address scarcity always has the influence that it appears to have taken on in modern times. For example, a ruling class’s absolute determination to hold on to power may have led to economically stagnant societies. Alternatively, it might be thought that a society may put religion or the protection of traditional ways of life ahead of economic needs. This goes to the heart of Marx’s theory that man is an essentially productive being and that the locus of interaction with the world is industry. As Cohen himself later argued in essays such as ‘Reconsidering Historical Materialism’, the emphasis on production may appear one-sided, and ignore other powerful elements in human nature. Such a criticism chimes with a criticism from the previous section; that the historical record may not, in fact, display the tendency to growth in the productive forces assumed by the theory.
Alternative Interpretations
Many defenders of Marx will argue that the problems stated are problems for Cohen’s interpretation of Marx, rather than for Marx himself. It is possible to argue, for example, that Marx did not have a general theory of history, but rather was a social scientist observing and encouraging the transformation of capitalism into communism as a singular event. And it is certainly true that when Marx analyses a particular historical episode, as he does in the 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, any idea of fitting events into a fixed pattern of history seems very far from Marx’s mind. On other views Marx did have a general theory of history but it is far more flexible and less determinate than Cohen insists (Miller). And finally, as noted, there are critics who believe that Cohen’s interpretation is entirely wrong-headed (Sayers).
Morality
The issue of Marx and morality poses a conundrum. On reading Marx’s works at all periods of his life, there appears to be the strongest possible distaste towards bourgeois capitalist society, and an undoubted endorsement of future communist society. Yet the terms of this antipathy and endorsement are far from clear. Despite expectations, Marx never says that capitalism is unjust. Neither does he say that communism would be a just form of society. In fact he takes pains to distance himself from those who engage in a discourse of justice, and makes a conscious attempt to exclude direct moral commentary in his own works. The puzzle is why this should be, given the weight of indirect moral commentary one finds.
There are, initially, separate questions, concerning Marx’s attitude to capitalism and to communism. There are also separate questions concerning his attitude to ideas of justice, and to ideas of morality more broadly concerned. This, then, generates four questions:
(1) Did Marx think capitalism unjust?;
(2) did he think that capitalism could be morally criticised on other grounds?;
(3) did he think that communism would be just?
(4) did he think it could be morally approved of on other grounds? These are the questions we shall consider in this section.
The initial argument that Marx must have thought that capitalism is unjust is based on the observation that Marx argued that all capitalist profit is ultimately derived from the exploitation of the worker. Capitalism’s dirty secret is that it is not a realm of harmony and mutual benefit but a system in which one class systematically extracts profit from another. How could this fail to be unjust? Yet it is notable that Marx never concludes this, and in Capital he goes as far as to say that such exchange is ‘by no means an injustice’. Allen Wood has argued that Marx took this approach because his general theoretical approach excludes any trans-epochal standpoint from which one can comment on the justice of an economic system. Even though one can criticize particular behaviour from within an economic structure as unjust (and theft under capitalism would be an example) it is not possible to criticise capitalism as a whole. This is a consequence of Marx’s analysis of the role of ideas of justice from within historical materialism. That is to say, juridical institutions are part of the superstructure, and ideas of justice are ideological, and the role of both the superstructure and ideology, in the functionalist reading of historical materialism adopted here, is to stabilise the economic structure. Consequently, to state that something is just under capitalism is simply a judgement applied to those elements of the system that will tend to have the effect of advancing capitalism. According to Marx, in any society the ruling ideas are those of the ruling class; the core of the theory of ideology.
{============}
Q.5 ‘The value of a commodity is roughly proportionate to the quantity of average human labour power crystallized in it’. Make a critical analysis of the justifications of Marx in favor of this statement
Answer:
The wealth of societies in which a capitalistic mode of production prevails, appears as a ‘gigantic collection of commodities’ and the singular commodity appears as the elementary form of wealth. Our investigation begins accordingly with the analysis of the commodity.
The commodity is first an external object, a thing which satisfies through its qualities human needs of one kind or another. The nature of these needs is irrelevant, e.g., whether their origin is in the stomach or in the fancy. We are also not concerned here with the manner in which the entity satisfies human need; whether in an immediate way as food – that is, as object of enjoyment – or by a detour as means of production.
Each useful thing (iron, paper, etc.) is to be considered from a double point of view, in accordance with quality and quantity. Each such thing is a totality of many properties and is therefore able to be useful in different respects. The discovery of these different respects and hence of the manifold modes of utility of things is an historical act. Of such a kind is the invention of social measurement for the quantity of useful things. The diversity of the commodity-measurements arises partly from the diverse nature of the objects to be measured, and partly from convention.
It is the utility of a thing for human life that turns it into a use-value. By way of abbreviation let us term the useful thing itself (or commodity-body, as iron, wheat, diamond, etc.) use-value, good, article. In the consideration of use-values, quantitative determination is always presupposed (as a dozen watches, yard of linen, ton of iron, etc.). The use-values of commodities provide the material for a study of their own, the science of commodities. Use-value realizes itself only in use or in consumption; use-values form the substantial content of wealth, whatever its social form may be. In the form of society which we are going to examine, they form the substantial bearers at the very same time of exchange-value.
Exchange-value appears first of all as quantitative relationship, the proportion in which use-values of one kind are exchanged for use-values of another kind, a relationship which constantly changes in accordance with time and place. That is the reason why exchange-value appears to be something accidental and a purely relative thing, and therefore the reason why the formula of an exchange-value internal and immanent to the commodity (valeur intrinsique) appears to be a contradictio in adjecto (contradiction in terms). Let us examine the matter more closely.
A single commodity (e.g., a quarter of wheat) is exchanged with other articles in the most varied proportions. Nevertheless its exchange-value remains unchanged regardless of whether it is expressed in x bootblacking, y soap, z gold, etc. It must therefore be distinguishable from these, its various manners of expression.
Now let us consider two commodities: e.g., wheat and iron. Whatever their exchange relationship may be, it is always representable in an equation in which a given quantum of wheat is equated with some particular quantum of iron; e.g., one quarter of wheat = a cwt of iron. What does this equation say? That the same value exists in two different things, in one quarter of wheat and likewise in a cwt of iron. Both are equal, therefore, to a third entity, which in and for itself is neither the one nor the other. Each of the two, insofar as it is an exchange-value, must therefore be reducible to this third entity, independent of the other.
Consider a simple geometrical example. In order to determine and compare the areas of all rectilinear figures, one reduces them to triangles. One reduces the triangle itself to an expression which is entirely different from its visible figure – half the product of its base by its altitude. Likewise, the exchange-values of commodities can be reduced to a common-entity, of which they represent a greater or lesser amount.
The fact that the substance of the exchange-value is something utterly different from and independent of the physical-sensual existence of the commodity or its reality as a use-value is revealed immediately by its exchange relationship. For this is characterized precisely by the abstraction from the use-value. As far as the exchange-value is concerned, one commodity is, after all, quite as good as every other, provided it is present in the correct proportion.
Hence, commodities are first of all simply to be considered as values, independent of their exchange-relationship or from the form, in which they appear as exchange-values.
Commodities as objects of use or goods are corporeally different things. Their reality as values forms, on the other hand, their unity. This unity does not arise out of nature but out of society. The common social substance which merely manifests itself differently in different use-values, is – labour.
Commodities as values are nothing but crystallized labour. The unit of measurement of labour itself is the simple average-labour, the character of which varies admittedly in different lands and cultural epochs, but is given for a particular society. More complex labour counts merely as simple labour to an exponent or rather to a multiple, so that a smaller quantum of complex labour is equal to a larger quantum of simple labour, for example. Precisely how this reduction is to be controlled is not relevant here. That this reduction is constantly occurring is revealed by experience. A commodity may be the product of the most complex labour. Its value equates it to the product of simple labour and therefore represents on its own merely a definite quantum of simple labour.
A use-value or good only has a value because labour is objectified or materialized in it. But now how are we to measure the quantity of its value? By the quantum of the `value-forming substance’ (i.e., labour) which is contained in it. The quantity of labour itself is measured by its temporal duration and the labour-time in turn possesses a measuring rod for particular segments of time, like hour, day, etc.
It might seem that, if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantum of labour expended during its production, the more lazy- and incompetent a man the more valuable his commodity is, because he needs all the more labour-time for its completion. But only the socially necessary labour-time is labour-time required for the constitution of some particular use-value, with the available socially-normal conditions of production and the social average-level of competence and intensity of labour. After the introduction of the steam-driven loom in England, for example, perhaps half as much labour as before was sufficient to change a given quantum of yarn into cloth. The English hand-weaver needed in order to accomplish this change the same labour-time as before, to be sure, but the product of his individual labour-hour now represented only one half a social labour-hour, and sank accordingly to half its earlier value.
So it is only the quantum of socially necessary labour, or that labour-time which is socially necessary for the constitution of a use-value which determines the quantity of the value. The single commodity counts here in general as average sample of its own kind. Commodities in which equally large labour-quanta are contained, or which can be produced within the same labour-time for that reason have the same quantity of value. The value of a commodity is related to the value of every other commodity, as the labour-time necessary for the production of the one is related to the labour-time necessary for the production of the other. All commodities, as values, are only particular masses of coagulated labour-time.
The quantity of value of a commodity accordingly would remain constant if the labour-time required for its production were constant. The latter, however, changes with each change in the productive power of labour. The productive power of labour is determined by manifold conditions, among others by the average grade of competence of the workers, the level of development of science and its technological applicability, the social combination of the process of production, the scope and the efficacy of the means of production, and by natural relationships. The same quantum of labour manifests itself after propitious weather in 8 bushels of wheat, but after impropitious weather, in only 4, for example. The very same quantum of labour provides more metals in richly laden mines than in poor ones, etc. Diamonds are rare on the surface of the earth, and their discovery therefore costs on the average much labour-time. Consequently, they represent much labour in a small volume of space. Jacob doubts that gold has ever paid its complete value. This holds true even more for diamonds. According to Eschwege, by 1823 the complete yield of the eight-year old Brazilian diamond-diggings had not yet amounted to the value of the 1½ year average product of the Brazilian sugar or coffee plantations. Given more richly laden diggings the same quantum of labour would be represented by more diamonds and their value would sink. If one succeeds in converting coal into diamonds with little labour, then the value of diamonds would sink beneath that of paving stones. In general: the greater the productive power of labour the smaller is the amount of labour-time required for the production of an article, and the smaller the mass of labour crystallized in it, the smaller is its value. And on the contrary, the smaller the productive power of labour, the greater is the labour-time necessary for the-production of an article, and the greater its value is. The quantity of value of a commodity varies directly as the quantum, and inversely as the productive power of the labour embodying itself in the commodity.
{============}
.
417-Ans
Comments
Post a Comment