Populism is doomed to fail. It may seem a bright idea to some, in the short run. But sooner or later, it will, due to its very design, backfire. One can analyse the phenomenon endlessly. And certainly, it points to the deep-rooted and pressing issues of the moments of history it thrives in. But ultimately, the reason it fails and will continue to do so is because, as one writer puts it, “the political science of providing simple answers to complex questions.”
The saga of the Iran nuclear deal is just one illustration of this principle in action (for those who would choose to ignore ones closer to home). In recent days, there appears to be some headway in salvaging what remains of it after four years of Donald Trump’s unbridled egotistical hubris. While we are told the signs now seem ‘promising’, one cannot help but consider the opportunities lost. Time that could have led to a significant roll-back of Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and allowed for the nation of more than 80 million to gradually re-join the global mainstream has instead resulted in the opposite. Reports suggest Iran has already breached many of the deal’s restrictions on its nuclear activities in response to the US withdrawal and re-imposition of sanctions under Trump.
All this for what? Nothing more than pure and utter pettiness. A collective expression of spite because it could have been seen as part of his predecessor’s lasting legacy. That is the shape populism always takes. Logic flies out the window as we egg on a disenfranchised mass to listen to only emotion. Unreasonable emotion. And so it leads us back to where we started, in the best of cases. In the worst, to a new hell of our own making. There is a cautionary moral to all tales of populism for those who rule, perhaps best summed up by a popular comic book hero: “With great power comes great responsibility.” Most of us would ponder on and stress the underlying ethics of this statement. But we should also pay heed to the warning. Like fire, if you toy with power, it will always burn you in turn.
Landless peasants
There are many laws on the statute books in Pakistan and Sindh to protect labour and socio-economic rights of landless peasants, but unfortunately their presence is nullified by non-enforcement. The result is that they are the chief factor of production though, they are often unable to make ends meet. They work hard yet are not assured of getting enough food. On the other hand, in Sindh, 80% of all arable lands are owned by nearly 5% families. What basically accounts for non-implementation of laws relating to agricultural labourers is the widespread illiteracy in Sindh, which has decreased over the years from 62.2% from 63%. The female literacy rate is far lower than the overall percentage.
At a recent event, the Hari Welfare Association (Sindh) disclosed that peasants have the right to have a significant say in deciding policies with regard to agriculture, fishing, land, water and other inputs but the irony is that they are excluded from the process in Sindh and other provinces. Peasants and small landholders are unaware of the procedure to obtain agricultural inputs like seeds, fertiliser and working capital on easy terms from state organisations. This facilitates big farmers to appropriate these facilities for their own benefit. The harsh conditions force landless peasants from Thar and other regions to move to other districts during harvest and sowing seasons to work away from home. This movement proves an additional burden on their inadequate income.
The lack of economic opportunities in rural areas is fuelling rural-urban migration. The lack of income-generating prospects in rural areas is so acute that poor villagers prefer to work and live in cities and towns, where they get at least their minimum needs fulfilled. This situation has stemmed from successive governments’ failure to increase employment opportunities in rural areas. In an agricultural country, cattle farming can well be encouraged and dairy industries can be set up in areas close to villages. This can provide a large number of people with work.
The bail order mystery
Problems with the judiciary took the fore over the weekend when a member of the two-judge bench that ‘granted’ Shehbaz Sharif bail said he never approved of the judgment. The story started midweek when Lahore High Court Justice Sarfraz Dogar issued a short order “unanimously” granting bail to the PML-N president. But a few days later, we learned that the other judge on the NAB appellate bench, Justice Asjad Javed Ghural, refused to sign the order and questioned the unanimity of the order, saying that his opinion was ignored.
Under the circumstances as described by Justice Ghural, the case should have been considered a split decision with no short order issued. The case has now been referred to a referee judge chosen by the LHC chief justice. The as-yet-unnamed referee judge will go through detailed judgments written by both justices and chose one, which will be the ‘winner’.
In the meantime, the Justice Dogar-Justice Ghural bench has been dissolved by the LHC chief justice and replaced by one comprising Justice Alia Neelam and Justice Farooq Haider. Justice Dogar has been moved to the LHC Multan bench and Justice Ghural to the Bahawalpur bench. The bench will inherit several high-profile cases, including one against PML-N leader Khawaja Asif. But what went wrong in the first place?
Let us set aside the opinions of the judges for a moment. Whether or not Shehbaz deserves bail is now a sideshow in what is being seen as an embarrassing moment for the judiciary. Judges disagree all the time. That is a standard feature of multi-member benches. What is odd is that either one judge completely ignored another and issued a legally questionable ruling, or one judge changed his opinion after the fact. Neither of these scenarios is acceptable.
At present, it is a he said-he said situation, since what happened behind the scenes is not publically known. But if ever there was a case that should be heard by the highest legal authorities, it is this one. Incidents such as this one erode faith in the judiciary. It is up to the top judges to set things right by determining what happened and how, and doling out punishments as appropriate. Sweeping it under the rug will only worsen the erosion.
