Does a Bachelor’s degree mean education in politics

Hobbyty mian, great.

Majority democracy is mythical but the one man dictatorship is `real` democracy? -- of course for MiaN Musharraf`s Kafkaesque world you can say that again -- and again.

By the way -- where is tahmed -- the Chowk Brahmin -- will he be kind enough to interpret the sign language -- of the Chowk`s famous woodcutter -- Professah Kalidasa Hobbs -- in rest of his post #38.

Fuzair #39
How many votes would that gardner you told chowk about get? Do you remember him, and his wise remarks about power tussles or st? He seemed to be more clearsighted than many presumed graduates on chowk(no offence intended).

Fuzair,

re. your posr #39 and weighted votes, why, I think that might be just the solution!

Good man, that Mr. Mills!

Re: Fuzair, PM

The college graduate criterion is less important than the issue of the sovereignty of the elected assembly and the exercise of popular will (even if it is to be expressed through college graduates). You can have an assembly packed with people whose IQ is 155+, but if it is still the guy who wields the trigger on a 155mm howitzer that calls the shots (no pun intended) then minutae like qualifications for candidature count for nothing.

That said, I am not in favor of using college education as a criterion because I know what the result would have been in India (where college degrees are restricted to perhaps less than 20% of the population) -- an elitist assembly with no representation of the rural poor. This criterion would make sense if the state could meet the lofty goal of providing universal education, but that is not going to happen for a long,long time. Look at it from ther perspective of a wretchedly poor person -- first he is asked to accept that he cannot be educated because the odds are stacked against him going to a decent school, much less a college; then he asked to accept that he cannot even represent people in the same boat as him. If this is not arrogance of the elites, then what is?

shammi #53
The percentage of Indians who are college graduates is 3% of men and 1% of women according to a 1998 document. The figure of 1.2% has been quoted for Pakistan in recent news items.

If anything the lowest and poorest deserve more than one vote each, after all its they and their children who are faced with starvation and destitution when prices rise even a little, when something costs Rs 20 instead of Rs 10, when rains donot fall and their crop suffers, when petty officials or middlemen demand bribes, when the police are partisan, when moneylenders demand high interest rates for loans forced to tide over periods of insolvency, when poor governance and self-serving higherups ensures their voices are never heard. When such people vote or fight for their rights, they are doing it on their stomachs and as a basic matter of survival, not as an intellectual exercise.


On the other hand, the educated and the wealthy know how to enjoy, prosper and remain safe under any government or even absence of government, why the heck do they need to vote and drown out others genuine concerns with their own flimsy flaky whims and nakharas.


http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2002-daily/23-07-2002/oped/o1.htm

``.. However, there has been at least one indicator in recent times of chinks in the armour. At a time where the impression is that political and civil society have conceded defeat, any signs of resistance are important, especially when the resistance is directly against the state. Anjuman Mazarain Punjab is the representative organisation of almost one million landless tenants on state land in the province. The tenants have tilled state land for almost a century, first under the British, and then for the government of Punjab. In recent times, these tenants have initiated a movement of civil disobedience, quite unlike anything witnessed over the past few decades. In an expression of almost complete revolt, the tenants refused to surrender harvest shares this season, demanding that proprietary rights of the land they till be conferred upon them instead.

The state has resorted to unprecedented violence to suppress the movement, killing six tenants, jailing hundreds, and lodging criminal cases against thousands more. But the tenants have persisted. The state is now facing embarrassment because every time it attempts to intimidate the tenants, thousands of women, men, and children take to the streets, sit on train tracks, or initiate indefinite hunger strikes. The use of local culture in the movement is an immensely powerful symbol: a thappa (a wooden stick used to wash clothes) force of thousands of women is the first line of defence that is ready to repel any aggressive action.

And so thappas defend almost one million tenants and their only real asset -- their land -- against the state and its six hundred thousand soldiers. It is a remarkable story, but one that must be acknowledged because of the very fact that the state has been brought to its knees, at a time when emphatic concentration of power is taking place. It might be time for us to finally learn a thing or two from landless tenants in the Punjab about principles, commitment, and politics. These tenants may not be able to directly challenge the military`s assault on democracy, but do espouse the kinds of democratic norms that we should promote, at times such as these, and when electoral democracy, in whatever shape or form, is restored. But first of all, we should finally stop pretending that the military in power is a good thing. It is the only truly bad thing that has ever happened to this country, and it happens again and again and again, because we never seem to learn our lessons.


The author is a social scientist working with katchi abadis and peasant communities across the country

A good thing, though not intentional, about the education qualifications was that it finally settled the issue of what is the real literacy rate in Pakistan. Since the nation is 98 percent illiterate, it assumes that Pakistan was not a democracy, but an illiterocracy where the trynny of the illiterates cowed the silent two percent majority of Pakistanis who were educated. Since the two percent have now been sanctioned political power, thanks to a consitutional amendment, Pakistan has become the trynny of the minority over the majority; perception has finally caught up with reality in Pakistan.

Educational qualification of political candidates is meaningless, because the education system in Pakistan, which will produce the future leaders of Pakistan, is itself flawed. Pakistani education stresses rote and memorization over learning and understanding and in a way, supports the ideals of a status quo due to its rigid adherence to an offical state mandated orthodoxy. The new leadership of Pakistan, true to their experience, will merely memorize the consitution and recite its amendments without thinking, when asked, but will not be able to learn the value of tolerance and empathy in a political discourse. They will not be able to understand the problems of those, in whose name they have been elected and neither will they represent the people, because the already polarized Pakistani society will further polarize - the educational qualification will be merely another add on to the social, culture and financial discprencies, which fissure the Pakistani polity.

The key to a political success and the ability, which seperates a brillient politican from a medicore one is the trait of compassion and not a degree! Pakistani politicans have never displayed this trait and they will never possess it, because they are incapble of understanding the reality that politics in Pakistan do not have de jure status and that there is a distinct ``reality disconnect`` between the politics of the nation and the reality of an average Pakistani`s daily existence. Unless the government understand this and tries to bridge it, no consitutional amendments will alter the basic reality of a Pakistani`slife and end his/her perpetual sufferings; sufferings, which are directly proportional to the political apathy shown by the politicans towards those in whose name they claim the mantle of power and rule this nation.

Political rights in Pakistan are a moot point, because in Pakistan, to paraphrase an old American phrase, there is taxation without representation and unless this changes, Pakistani politics will always remain a game to be played by aristocrats and the political reality in Pakistan will always reflect the sentiments expressed in the closing lines of William Butler Yeats`s poem:

``a waste of breath the years to come
and a waste of breath the years behind,
in balance with this life,
this death``

Ciao

re:Reply #: 40

Shah,

Education is no guarantee that the right person will get elected. It should make us all the more wiser, considering the fact that majority of support (as well as money)for BJP seems to come from NRIs (especially the ones in USA). These NRIs are without doubt well educated. Yet they have been supporting a neo-nazi party whose agend has become very clear after the Gujarat pogrom. It is the poor, illiterate people of India who have time and again shown common sense in electing the right kind of people. See how BJPs fate hangs in balance today? It is not sure it will ever win another election. It has adopted the Hindutva in full steam because it wants to hang on to its core vote and not lose those votes in an effort to be secular. One vote for every candidate, irrespective of his/her educational status, is the only way to go in the subcontinent.

Do not mind some chowkees who seem to delight at bashing Pakistan or India for that matter. We should stay clear in our thinking and not let hatred come in the way of clear thinking.

Sridhar

DullaBhatti: Good one! I thank Fuzair for giving me right of 10 votes besides I like J S Mill very much. But I still believe that garbage can be made to sink by its own weight, as I mentioned in my last post. Musharraf`s non-pyramidal model of strong top down commmand control through amending the constitution and NSC is much worse than more liberal, more secular, more freedom, more democratic and weaker top/ center broad-based pyramidal model. But then it is no secret that he is making all these changes to satisfy his hunger. He is no different than Zia or Ayub Khan in this sense. A snake can not fool people by pretending to be non-poisonous; a snake is a snake and people will remain wary of this animal just by the sight of it.

Nasah

You are a man of conscience but unaware that where intellect and argument will fail to counter, character assasination and sloganeering will not advance.

Counter argument with argument, if you can.

PM, Shammi,

Thats exactly the issue that`s been plaguing me since I`ve read this persuasive article. I`ve heard the concept that so called uneducated people arent qualified to even vote, let alone run for office, and it is a pretty elitist idea.

1. An education/non education doesn`t guarantee harmonious decision making

2. An education/non education doesn`t guarantee ethics, codes of honor, respect for law

3. An education/non education doesn`t guard against corruption

4. An education/non education doesn`t discount an individual from understanding the minutae of a sophisticated conflict.

So my question is, what do we expect an education to constitute? What is our criteria?

What about just change coming from the grassroots up, rather than trickle down theory?

It seems that there are a lot of loopholes around this, but way too much stereotype against the ``uneducated``- it seems to have more to do with an innate sense of self respect, honesty. tolerance and justice. How many ``educated`` people can offer that?

This reminds me of an excellent visual broadside/polemic I watched the other day, ``John Q``. African American metal worker takes an ER hostage (humanely, of course) to get his son a heart transplant his heartless HMO won`t cover. Interesting.

Rsridhar, B. Atashband, PM, Shammi, Fuzair – any interested

Rsirdhar, I Left you speechless? I wish! But that I`m a soft touch and your annoying and endearing quality of interest in the subject coupled with the challenge, comprehension represents to you (I kid, I kid ya, cause I luv ya, I luv ya cause, I don`t know ya)- (Sincere apologies, I did not mean injury - forgot to take my medicine) Here goes: If one wanted to play a game, should one first set up rules for the game or should one just wing it as we go along - would that be playing the game, at all. Does not playing the game, presuppose general agreement on the rules? The question comes down to agreement on general principles and not particulars. In a democracy the only agreement that matters is agreement on general principles, on method - on rules that apply to all - With your permission, I will return to this theme, a little later and tie it to what follows below:

The argument you suppose is the sovereignty of Parliament argument. However, we have laid that bit of rubbish bare, when we present that the question of ``where sovereignty lies``, is an insipid question in a democracy, for the defining characteristic of democracy is it`s mistrust of power, that it deals with the question of sovereignty with the separation of powers with a view to reduce the possibility of misrule and it`s consequences.

Besides the fact the Sovereignty of Parliament is contrary to the method and ethic of democracy, a sovereign parliament is by character, arbitrary, corrupt and weak. How So? You must be silently pondering? Legislatures: Where general principles, rules of just conduct are formulated – not where a marketplace business is conducted.

Legislature – Sovereign? (Unlimited powers)

To gain a better, fuller, understanding of the role of a legislature/assembly - you will recall that the role of the legislature is create rules, general principles, of just conduct. Ever since the English parliament declared in 1766, that it is ``sovereign`` (where it meant that it recognized no ``will`` other than its own) as opposed to the sovereignty of Law, the role of legislatures/Assemblies has become distorted and a stage set for majoritarianism, IL-liberal democracy, totalitarian democracy, plebescitary democracy, in effect, tyranny.

Recall that the reason for democracy is the determination of general principles of just conduct, so that justice can be done, So that we are guided in the particulars by the principles of just conduct. By claiming sovereignty of parliament, parliament and its partisans, by virtue of this argument, seek to shed constitutionalism. Because they no longer refer to constitution, those general principles, as Sovereign, indeed, now they make laws with no reference to the general principles, and instead make particular laws for particulars areas, for the benefit of particular persons. (In Indian terms of reference, think of the laws passed that favor, benefit, particular groups in society, think of reservations and quotas, trade unions, trade associations, individual persons) Is Justice applicable only to the particular? Can it be justice at all?

Consider now, the classical theory of representative government and of deputies (``Cato Letters`` By J. Trenchard & T. Gordon):

``When they make no laws but what they themselves and their posterity must be subject to; when they can give no money but what they must pay their share of; when they can do no mischief, but what must fall on their own heads in common with their countrymen; their principals may expect then good laws, little mischief an much frugality``.

Sovereign (unlimited powers) Parliament - Arbitrary

Now many (mis)understand democracy to be the rule of the majority, or some such idiotic notion - Can there be a more vile, a more barbaric conception of justice? Consider, is there any reason to believe that in a case where a majority because they want a particular thing, that this desire is an expression of their sense of justice? If an individual were to say that because he or she desires a particular thing, that, that desire is an expression of their sense of justice? If it is not right in the case of the individual, how can it be right in the case of a collection of individuals? (Notice something about ``our`` agreement in this case - it is not about a particular, but it is agreement about a general principle)

The foundation of civilization or civilized behavior is the restraint individuals have learned to exercise with regard to their desire for particular objects, and submit to generally recognized rules, conventions of just conduct. Majorities, have yet to be civilized in the same way, because they do not have to obey rules (look at anti Qaidiani laws, Blasphemy laws and look at the events of Gujjrat) When persons are persuaded that the agreement of a majority of persons, on a particular issue, issue, proves that the issue is just, they will cease to question whether it is so. The belief that the will of the majority on “particular” matters determines what is just, leads to the view that the majority cannot be arbitrary. Yet without reference to and agreement of, “general principles”, it cannot but be, arbitrary. It is in this way that the sovereign parliament is arbitrary. Some argue that this not the case, that a sovereign parliament does not mean that the constitution, those “general principles” are not sovereign – which, of course, leads one to ask, “Two Suns in The Sky”?

Sovereign (unlimited powers) parliament – Weak

A legislature/assembly that has unlimited powers is inherently weak. Without reference to general principles of just conduct, deputies and political parties/factions have little choice but be agents of pressure groups, deciding not the just rules of conduct, but bargaining and haggling with other groups in society, usually to detriment of some third group in society. In a democratic society, there is no such thing as a majority. What exist instead are groups of interest. The interest groups in order to promote their particular vision, whose benefit must, by definition be particular, bargains with other pressure groups who extort as a price for their agreement, benefits that favor their constituents. It is in this way that “will of the majority” is obtained. Notice here, that no where was there any reference to a larger general principle of just conduct, or what is right. Who will disagree that in our times, modern democratic legislatures have doled out subsidies, benefits, privileges to special interest groups, and who will posit these as just?” A protected against competition from cheap imports, B protected against more highly skilled, lower wage competition or C against job loss and on and on. Are these not all cases of the particular over the general? Consider the “myth of social justice”, have we made laid it bare for the unprincipled haggling and the benefit of the few or the many, that it really is? Sovereign legislatures are inherently weak because unable to refer to general principles, they are constantly reacting, lurching from one special interest or pressure groups demand to the next, with no regard to what is the right thing to do. The system discriminates against the deputy/politicians by denying the possibility of the Deputy/politician to say, no or refer to general principles to keep pressure groups at bay. In this way the entire structure of Democracy becomes but a market place, with obvious consequences for corruption.

Sovereign (unlimited powers) parliament – Corrupt

Sovereign parliaments are inherently corrupt. Unable to resist the pressure from component groups, the governing majority must do all it can to gratify the demands of the groups from which it needs support, regardless of the harm caused to other groups. If no superior judiciary authority can prevent the legislatures from granting privileges to particulars groups and persons, there would be no end to the blackmail to which government will be subject to (think of the case of the Pakistani sardars or the Obscuritanist religious figures and groups). In fact the very power to grant demands of pressure groups, makes government a slave of these very groups. However; there is even greater engine of corruption: By granting subsidies, privileges to particular groups in society, a perception is created that the groups must be deserving. This is again a by-product of the will of the majority being equated with justice – an erroneous and odious notion.

Agreement on general principles/rules and particulars – OR ON METHOD

Why do laws exist? Laws exist to reduce the possibility of conflict in society. They do this by serving as expressions of general moral principles. For instance, we seek to infuse the laws we make with our sense of justice. Justice is an idea about which there is universal understanding. We all agree what justice in the general means, when we apply it to a particular situation or measure, we are applying a general principle of conduct to a particular situation or measure, to do justice. Yet if we do not all agree if justice was done in a particular situation or measure, it must mean that we do not share the same conception of justice. In democratic society, majority agreement can only exist about general principles and not particulars; it’s inherent in the nature of the society, a “open” or “great” society. Even then, it is majority agreement of few general principles.

In our complex societies, can we ever possess knowledge of or have a point of view, about all the particulars, that may become the object of decisions by government? Obviously not. Does democratic government (not legislature) require that the consent of the individuals extend beyond the particular facts they are aware of? Obviously – we can’t all play the same game, if we don’t all agree to the same rules of the same game. We can only reconcile conflicts, if we all agree to the general principles/rules. These constitute our method. In the case of particulars, we refer to general principles for guidance. If we did not refer to general principles/rules, we would be in the position of constantly making up rules for particulars, that is to say, we would not gain agreement as to what constituted the rules of the game; with attendant consequences for the game. If Individuals refer to general principles to deal with particulars, ought not legislatures? And if they do, are they “sovereign”? Recall Laws are legislation only if they refer to general principles, and not because they were created in a legislature. (Clue, can you guess what the foundation of any argument countering the claim that proposed amendments are illegal might be? Other than the fact of the supreme court’s position)

So how does tie in with Pakistan? We clearly have a strong disagreement about the general principles or rather the lack thereof - Mr. khan of the ``Two Suns`` - using my example of rules of the game argues that mr. musharraf and company are out of line - that these are not the rules of English parliament - Mr. khan needs to be awakened from his dream. Pakistan is not England, The Majlis is not the Parliament, the History of democracy in Pakistan is not that of democracy in England, The circumstances of Pakistan are not the circumstances of England. Further, general agreement that parliament is sovereign cannot be said to exist in Pakistan - indeed, if it did, the present regime would be in a position of challenging it`s own legitimacy. Additionally, as we can see there is not a general agreement on what the role of the legislature ought to be. While clearly, the halcion days of loot and plunder in the service of the ``Awam`` are a distant memory, it cannot be argued that Mr. Musharraf`s regimen for reform includes a legislature that will restrict itself to formulating general rules of just conduct. However; and fortunately, neither will the legislature become the government, that is to mean, have both the authority to direct the day to day concerns of governement and policy and have control the resources required for that governance - as is eveident in the decision not to allow control over allocation of resources to deputies - but of course they will win some back. What is then clear is that Pakistan will create a hybrid (as if there was any doubt) morein keeping with the spirit of democracy than ever witnessed in Pakistan before.

eeds

Sadna

How is the happiness of individuals, the responsibility of the state? ``If rains don`t come...`` Does government control rain, is that to be included in the constitution? ``When their crops fail...`` The failure of their crops is the responsibility of government.

Indeed, in your understanding of government, it is panaecea. All pressure groups deserve a subsidy, are some persons entitled to subsidy but not all? To all who do love liberty, who do want to live as free men and women - when someone else, especially a government, is either handed over or usurps the right to take responsibilty for your individual happiness, or seeks to infuse content into the meaning of that happiness - they also take over your life, rather you give it over to them - you agree to be a serf of the state. You may then not complain that you are told what to do and when to do it, what you may or may not eat or drink, how you may or may dress and most importantly what you may and may no think.

Happiness is a thought, if you would bargain with those who would accept to take responsibility for your happiness, know the the content of your character. If it is the responsibility of any government to be responsible for your happiness, to be responsible for producing the results in your life, what is that if not totalitarian government?

Aside - Those in America today hear about losses on the stock market - why does it keep falling? The President says ``all is OK`` - the real fear is what the President may do to ensure all is OK, especially in view of mid-term elections - that is the real reason, stocks markets continue to fall. The President has announced a global war, war on this and war on that and oh yeah, war on Sad damn. The capital markets have voted with their feet, but the Dubya is a fanatic, he wants them al-kay da, Sad damn, and those explosive Palestines to stop, regime change and do more - he wants a booming economy and a global war - can you guess which he cain`t have?

re. Fuzair, Sadna,

Yes, on he face of it, weighted votes would seem patently unjust, especially toward the poor. Forgive me, but what I understood in my hasty reading of Fuzair`s post was that the legislators should have a say in the legislature commensurate with their education.

Shammi, one has to examine the intent of the law in determining its worth. While it seems to me that most Indians interpret it as a means by which Mushy hopes to crush viable legitmate civilian opposition, I think most Pakistanis see is as a possible opportunity to eliminate the usuals suspects of feudal power from the equation. Here is where I think the Pak landscape differs from the Indian, the latter having broken free from the tyranny of not just the landlords but the feudal and dynastic mentality. The sad truth is that the poor, landless serf votes not with his stomach but with the yolk of fear and hallowed tradition out of which he feels he cannot break. if anything the admittedly short history of popular elections in Paksitan bear out just this sombre reality.



On a sidenote, if a system of weighted votes for legislators be applied, one`s formal education level should be seen as but a raw factor. Availablity of opportunity must definitely be factored in as well. A poor hari having been forced to work the fields from age 6 should have the maximum no of votes should he demonstrate an understanding of the democratic process.

re. Fuzair, Sadna,

Yes, on he face of it, weighted votes would seem patently unjust, especially toward the poor. Forgive me, but what I understood in my hasty reading of Fuzair`s post was that the legislators should have a say in the legislature commensurate with their education.

Shammi, one has to examine the intent of the law in determining its worth. While it seems to me that most Indians interpret it as a means by which Mushy hopes to crush viable legitmate civilian opposition, I think most Pakistanis see is as a possible opportunity to eliminate the usuals suspects of feudal power from the equation. Here is where I think the Pak landscape differs from the Indian, the latter having broken free from the tyranny of not just the landlords but the feudal and dynastic mentality. The sad truth is that the poor, landless serf votes not with his stomach but with the yolk of fear and hallowed tradition out of which he feels he cannot break. if anything the admittedly short history of popular elections in Paksitan bear out just this sombre reality.



On a sidenote, if a system of weighted votes for legislators be applied, one`s formal education level should be seen as but a raw factor. Availablity of opportunity must definitely be factored in as well. A poor hari having been forced to work the fields from age 6 should have the maximum no of votes should he demonstrate an understanding of the democratic process.

Feroze

A sharp and well organized post, though largely erroneous. An erroneous premise. The 2% to whom you refer to as ``educated`` - just to clarify, are these persons who possess a BA degree? or those who merely have schooling? !15% - 2% is the general agreement about the percentage of BA holders in Pakistan and not the percentage of ``educated``

``Educational qualification of political candidates is meaningless, because the education system in Pakistan, which will produce the future leaders of Pakistan, is itself flawed``

start all over - New canvass, please! cadres, line up!

Perhaps the education system in utopia is not flawed, but here on earth, it the sure knowledge that here go human constructs, go flaws, for which reason we attempt to minimize the possibility of it occurence and its consequences. This is of course for ordinary men, not the ``perfected`` kind.

Taxation, without representation - in Pakistan?

Only in slogans can taxation ever be equated or connected with representation. The logic of taxation has never been the provision of representation, rather the logic of taxation is the provision of services and the cost of government.