By Dr Naazir Mahmood

In a recent episode of receiving calls from the public, PM Imran Khan made some unpleasant comments. His ideas about what causes rape, and how obscenity and vulgarity are responsible for sexual crimes, are unpredictable and groundless.

There has been much criticism and social media activity against the PM’s idea, but little has been said or written about his references to the French and Iranian revolutions. He told his listeners and viewers about how during the French and Iranian revolutions thousands of people were beheaded so that several Tabdeeli could take place.

That the PTI does have fascist tendencies is no longer a secret. Other PTI ministers, such as Faisal Vawda and Murad Saeed, also recently touched on the hanging of five to ten thousand people so that PTI can come to power without hindrance to bring about the changes promised. Hatred against parliamentary democracy and democratic practices in holding elections is also a curse for them. The PM has more than once expressed his dislike of holding elections every five years or so. He gave the example of China and Singapore where one leader could lead affairs for decades.

In a series of columns here, we will discuss the concepts of change and revolution in history and see how the worthy ideals of our prime minister border on a parody of reality. We will see how some of the promises of change and revolution – so romanticized by our Prime Minister – turn into a sport of blood and how human lives are sacrificed on the altar of lofty ideals that are seldom achieved. Those who promise change or revolution through bloody upheaval try to establish cruel regimes that eventually devour their own children.

It is not a good idea to limit political debate to academics. Ordinary people must be able to understand that political ideas and ideologies reshape and change their own lives as they live in communities, countries and the world itself. Politics basically has to be about change, otherwise it will only be a power struggle. The desire and the promise to change must be at the heart of every fruitful politics. As emphasized by Karl Marx in ‘Theses on Feuerbach’ (1845) that, “Philosophers only interpret the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it ”.

The desire and promise to change also raises some challenging questions. To what extent is change desired? Will change result in decline or growth? Will it initiate some damage or progress? Will the majority of people reject or welcome it? In many cases, people just turn their faces towards the change and want to go back to a previous time. Then there is the question of defining decline and growth, or deterioration and progress. It seems that Imran Khan’s promised notions of change are actually turning into decline and decay rather than growth and progress.

The idea of ​​such a change is quite conservative and is incompatible with the concept of modern progress. It is sad and unfortunate that the rulers of a country are peddling such reactionary views in the 21st century. A good political activist, leader, or anyone else for that matter must realize that human history is marked by advances in science, leading to the attainment of higher levels of civilization. That’s where any change should lead us. Throughout history, promises of change have led to reforms or revolutions. Reform is a process of gradual and gradual modification without changing the nature of society fundamentally.

The literal meaning of revolution is a turnaround; Politically, it refers to deep, dramatic upheavals that in many cases turn violent, and lead to broad societal transformations. But before discussing the concept of revolution, perhaps it is better if we talk about the ‘reaction’ which seems more related to our concept of changing rulers. In politics, the reaction is more to a negative attitude to change; this is an important feature of conservative thought, as reflected in many political parties and groups in Pakistan, as well as around the world.

Such conservative and reactionary thinking represents a desire to preserve, which leads to a refusal to change itself, while outwardly claiming to be at the forefront of change. Here we must distinguish between economic growth and social progress. Some conservative and reactionary leaders and even dictators have succeeded in showing economic growth but in political and social terms they represent destruction and decline. Civil leaders like Modi and Trump or dictators like General Pinochet and Zia fall into this category. But the changes we promised in Pakistan didn’t even represent any economic growth; it is severe economic, political and social deterioration.

This type of ‘reaction’ equates to a request for continuity with the past such as the desire to impose a certain dress code on women, blame them for the violence they victimize, promote an unnatural spirituality, glorify past heroes who are mostly warriors. than intellectuals, thinkers or writers. Indirectly, this attempts to eradicate changes in the name of custom or tradition. Reaction can also involve trying to reclaim the past rather than a modern, progressive future. Such leaders try to turn back time and lead a backward-looking country that ends up becoming more regressive.

Such a position supports the changes often inspired by the idea of ​​a ‘Golden Age’. The more he talks about change, the more he calls it a means of preserving obsolete customs. This philosophy of change is actually a philosophy of conservatism. It tries to present a moderate face to reactionary politics which means maintaining the status quo, the current state of affairs. This desire to resist or avoid change is rooted in human psychology because in Michael Oakeshott’s words most people ‘prefer the familiar to the unknown’.

As we have seen in Pakistan, the rulers have tried to sell a sense of certainty and security at the expense of gross injustice in society. If you suggest a new policy – say in defense or foreign affairs – it appears to threaten decision-makers, who hide behind custom, honor, nationalism, pride, religion or tradition. That’s how long-established practices and customs shape traditional societies where adat plays a more important role than modern law subject to tradition. Traditional and moral authority are tools of social control.

In traditional society, people accept something as true because it always is; in other words: intimacy breeds legitimacy. Imran Khan’s remarks about obscenity as the cause of rape have satisfied the natural sense of justice for many without considering that long-standing patterns of behavior must be disrupted for change. If you stick to habits and practices, your behavior will stay as it always is. No primacy of tradition can justify lawlessness in an era of universally accepted values ​​of fundamentals and human rights.

Continued

The author holds a PhD from the University of Birmingham, UK and works in Islamabad.

Email: [email protected]