Politics is more a matter of arts than science for the saying goes that politics is the art of making possible'. It is dynamic and often non-linear. Making possible needs power. So, is it violent power or a non-violent one? As it is said that war is a manifestation of the most violent form of politics, so non-violent form is another type of war which rests on logic, arguments, communication, relations, persuasion, intellectual gymnastics, agreement, and so on in order to avoid violent conflicts. Civilized politics is the norm of the day for it is craved by every citizen across all nations today. Although, it is the art of making it possible, practically, it is the quest for power with the consent of people or without such consent.
With the end of executive power of the monarchs in the past, the way of peaceful transfer of power through elections has finally evolved over time in the democratic polity particularly with the multiparty system. Before the advent of democratic politics, human history is replete with violent bloody wars leaving behind loss of life and colossal destruction of properties across all the continents.
Absolute monarchy devoid of democratically empowered people and peaceful electoral means of transfer of power had been so vulnerable to conspiracy and hostile forces that monarchs were incapable of defending them, let alone the life and properties of their subjects. Defeat in the Battle of Plassey fought between Nawab Sirajuddaula and the East India Company in 1757 is a vivid example of treacherous drama witnessed by the unaware peasantry standing nearby.
After about 200 years of rule by the British occupation force, they left India partitioned into India and Pakistan with the memory of domination, exploitation, coercion, suppression, and oppression by the alien ruler. After the independence, while India began its journey on the path of democracy with its own constitution-the prime law of the state, Pakistan failed to do so with serious consequences for its people.
There was martial law clamped by Pakistan's military ruler in 1958. Deficient democracy and implicit military rule since then created toxic politics fertilizing the political ground to strongly demand democratic rights by the deprived majority Bengalis of the eastern wing of Pakistan. The absence of real democracy, appropriate institutions, and a constitution of Pakistan were the seeds of the ultimate break up of Pakistan in 1971 and the birth of a new nation-state Bangladesh.
Pakistan could not get rid of toxic politics.
The military regime again overthrew the civil government headed by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto installed in power after the war in 1971. Bhutto was hanged by the military rulers and before taking him on the gallows, he wrote a book 'If I am assassinated' during his short stay in confinement. In his book, he wrote, 'India is more heterogeneous than Pakistan, but she is kept a piece by the noise and chaos of democracy'. Alas, it was a very late realization by him.
Indian sub-continent could have enjoyed political bliss, had the states in the sub-continent committed them in real democracy envisioned as participatory mosaic democracy which even India is assumed to be lacking. Enforcement of democratic rights by the institutions of the state under the prime law-the constitution-can go a long way for the real empowerment of people in the state, thus stopping the development of political toxicity.
Even in some democratic polities, the danger of political toxicity cannot be anticipated by the voters of any state. The symptoms start to manifest only afterward. When the constitution is not suspended or abrogated and institutions of the state under it function properly the potential danger of a populist leader who hoodwinks the voters can be contained by the proper functioning of the institutions of the state during the tenure of rule by the populist leaders.
The contemporary world has still now witnessed such rule in some states including the USA. When the constitutionally empowered people through their entitlements (rights) are not constrained to exercise their will, the danger of overwhelming political toxicity can be the short phenomenon to be constitutionally removed by the people of the state.
Humanity has seen the past historical eras where the principle of 'might is right' dominated the rule of monarchs. Gone are those days. It is told that the ontological and historical vocation of humanity is its liberation and present day's human rights and many other constitutional rights are for human liberation and empowerment of people.
It is hoped that in the future the principle of 'might is right' will be totally reversed by the principle of 'right is might'. The state institutions, executive, judiciary, and legislature, armed by derivative institutions like the army, police, and other coercive hands of the state will protect and ensure the enforcement of people's constitutional rights. In such a conditioned situation, the political toxicity will be minimized, if not totally erased, for stability, peace, and sustainable development.
The writer is a columnist and vice-chairman of CDIP.
Latest News