Some 11 days away from the National Elections, Pakistan is embroiled in a great tug of war by politicians vying for power.
In this context, a statement from a recent article on the blog by Wendy seems to have stuck to my mind. It is really relevant to us Pakistanis since we have recently finished term under inarguably the most corrupt government ever in our history and that too a democracy.
In the article, C&G MISCONCEPTION 2 – EMPOWERMENT EQUALS DEMOCRATISATION OF THE WORKPLACE, Wendy says that the real issue is not about there being democracy or autocracy in the workplace but about establishing legitimate leadership.
So what is legitimate leadership?
It is a leadership that serves the people in the best interest even if doing so could harm their own self interest. Such a leadership chooses to do the right thing irrespective of what it might incur as a consequence. For instance, the leadership of Japan decided to never venture into nuclear weaponry after the Heroshima Nagasaki disaster and instead focus on developing economic might. So while many of the so called super powers spend gazillion dollars on establishing their military might, Japan has over the last many decades become an economic power. Another example is that of Nelson Mandela who forgave the ‘whites’ for the excesses inflicted on him and his race during the Apartheid and altered the course of history for South Africa.
To elect such a legitimate leadership that ‘does the right thing’, the nation itself must choose to elect leaders for the right reasons. Let me elaborate.
I recently happened to watch a news show where the anchor walked about in downtown Lahore asking random people who they would vote for. I was intrigued by the answers of some of them. In spite of being ruled by a bunch of crooks who have emptied the state coffers for personal frivolity, some people still wanted to vote for them again!
I felt that these people cited reasons for their choice of vote which showed where their attention was. They wanted to vote for the same party again because (1) They have been voting for them since 4 decades, (2) Because this party has lent monthly income support fund of several thousand rupees to very poor families, (3) Because the assassinated former leader of the party; Benazir Bhutto was a fantastically charismatic woman who connected really well with the poor. If I connect this with the Self and Other Diagram I feel that these reasons belong to the left side of the diagram where a person’s attention is towards the taking side.
The Self and Other Diagram explains our relationship with all that is other than ourselves. In a sense we are one and all that is the social other encapsulates us. We either get from the Other or give out to it. We have little or no choice over what we get from the other but we have a great deal of influence over what we give; our response to the other.
The Self and Other Diagram explains that if you focus consistently on what you are getting in a situation, you will be resentful (because you won’t always get what you want in a situation), therefore your resentment shall make you feel in conflict with the other entitled and you shall focus on what ought to be getting in a situation i.e. your rights. This demeanour shall make you consistently weak with respect to your relation with the Other because you are permanently focused on getting.
People who vote for someone because the person belongs to their ethnic background show they are on the getting side because consciously or unconsciously they feel that people from other ethnic backgrounds are inferior or against them. People who vote for someone because the person gratifies their ego with his or her sense of style, speech, charisma or dressing are also on the getting side because it has more to do with what they get from voting a person than what the person is contributing to lets say building the constituency.
Likewise, one has to carefully see where a politician’s attention rests in an election campaign. If they are on the left side of the picture i.e. the getting side, they will speak of a sense of paranoia, ethnic or political discrimination (for instance, the George W. Bush’s second tenure campaign focused on rousing public sentiment by constantly playing around the issue of terrorism from Iraq and Afghanistan specially in states where their popularity was low).
For us Pakistanis, this is an immensely important juncture as we are on the crossroads of being declared a bankrupt nation. We have to realise where our attention rests as we head out to vote. Here are some pointers which might be useful:
- If we cannot rise above our self interest while voting, we will not get rulers who rise above their selfish interests. While making the final decision to vote, people should ask themselves, can this person rise above self interest and do the right thing? What is his or her past record in such situations where doing the right thing was against self interest and whether the person chose the right thing?
- Our attention should be on the side of contribution; of what we can do to build the country, to hold our leaders and ourselves accountable for our conduct. In the current frame, nobody might seem to be the perfect choice but thankfully and ironically we have seen enough happening during the last two plus decades to be able to make a wiser choice.
- A lone individual or group of individuals shall not transform the entire country’s affairs no matter how skilled or experienced at the job if the intent to serve is not there. When Obama got elected in the U.S. many people were expecting incredible miracles from him. In reality, a nation’s transformation takes place slowly but surely when the intent of a collective mass of people or the majority seeks to change from within and for the better.
So Pakistanis heading out to vote in a few days should know that all they can possibly do right now is to vote for a candidate with their best intentions; that rise above their own self interest, and then leave no stone unturned to hold their elected leaders accountable for performing as they should.