What is an Ideology

What is in ideology?

By Rasul Bakhsh Rais

Published: May 27, 2013

Ideology gives a road map, a vision, direction and a well-defined destination for a society. Political parties, states and social groups espouse alternative ideologies, or they have in the past, in Pakistan as well as in other countries. Apart from labels and old ideological identities of parties, it is hard to see any ideological vision reflected in the manifestoes of the major parties that have won or lost. The only exceptions are the religious parties that have parroted an Islamic ideology for decades and have miserably failed to impress the general public of this country.
The question is, does ideology matter and if it does, where should one find the ideological script of a political party? In the post-communist world, there is only one ideological template that every nation-state, in every corner of the world has embraced — whether you agree with it or not. This is the ideology of free market economy — privatisation, deregulation and small government. Conventionally, it has been built on the foundations of democracy, individual freedoms and human rights. The democracy part of it is important in the global liberal agenda, but not a necessary condition for business, security and strategic engagements.

Living in a world of liberal ideological hegemony, every major world actor, state and party has conformed to the core ideas of market economy. A summary look at the manifestoes of the political parties of Pakistan would make it clear how faithfully they have accepted the free enterprise system.
There is no other way of understanding ideology except in its economic manifestation — who controls the economy and how its benefits are distributed in society. The way the economy is organised will also shape the social attitude, values of work and benefit and, eventually, the political outlook of the society resulting into representative government. On this count, every political party of Pakistan is on the same page — the only difference is the old labels that don’t matter.
Within this ideological framework, we may discern liberal or conservative inclinations. The reason I would refer to them as mere inclinations is that they don’t make any fundamental or even significant departure from the market economy. We may, however, discern differences among the mainstream political parties on social issues and distributive effects of economic growth. In this respect, I would like to place the ANP and the PPP in the liberal category by their political heritage, if not by the contemporary mindset of the leaders.
Sadly, according to Dr Grace Clark, Dean of Social Sciences at FC College, “the Pakistan liberals have given a bad name to liberalism”. Liberalism without positive content of integrity, honesty, honouring trust of the poor and service to the community is fake and pretentious. Pakistani power groups are not alone in faking liberalism for selfishness and licenced, systematic robbing of society.
The two parties that have won the popular mandate, the PML-N and the PTI, have a conservative market economic agenda and a conservative position on social issues. The PTI is more on the left of the centre than the PML-N. We have yet to see how it will go about balancing economic growth with distribution to the poor.
The real change in view is in the non-ideological orientation of the Pakistani voters. The rival ideologies of ethnic nationalism and Islamic state rank much lower in the political preferences of the voters than in the past. We see a positive trend in the pragmatic attitudes of the public that has begun to weigh performance, problem solving and real issues that concern them. The patronage politics, elite networks and ideological illusions may gradually lose their power and influence.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 28^th, 2013.

Diplomacy and force

Diplomacy and force

A.G Noorani

THE United States is just beginning to realise some age-old truths on the exercise of diplomacy and the use of force.
While diplomacy without the sanction of force is impotent, force used without a valid cause is destructive. It is the task of statesmanship to blend the two and promote a result that will endure because it entails no loss of face for either side.
None other than the then chairman, joint chiefs of staff Admiral Mike Mullen said on Jan 12, 2009: “The use of military means to achieve political ends is a thread of a rich discussion, one that reaches back through the ages. It was certainly so even in the winter of 1775, as Edmund Burke spoke on the floor of parliament at a time when England decided to send an army and
a navy to put down the American rebellion. …
“Had Burke’s contemporaries listened to him, perhaps things might be a bit different on this side of the ocean. But what about today?”
He would not have spoken thus unless he felt strongly about that basic flaw in US policy.
Edmund Burke’s speech in the House of Commons on March 22, 1775 is strikingly relevant today: “The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered. My next objection is its uncertainty. Terror is not always the effect of force; and an armament is not a victory. If you do not succeed, you are without resource; for, conciliation failing, force remains; but, force failing, no further hope of reconciliation is left. …
“A further objection to force is that you impair the object by your very endeavours to preserve it. …” This is not an unfair description of the results of the US-led wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Another hard-headed realist, the director general of MI5 Stella Remington, said in 2008 after retirement, that the response to 9/11 was “a huge overreaction”. It was, she explained, “another terrorist incident”.
Zbigniew Brzezinski also said it was not an act of war by Afghanistan. Britain’s former ambassador in Kabul Sherard Cowper-Coles recalls “the surprise and horror with which the Taliban and many Afghans greeted the news of the attacks on New York and Washington.
An Afghan patriot told him of the shuras (assemblies of elders) in Kandahar which debated American demands.
He was convinced that the tide in those discussions was moving in favour of expelling Osama bin Laden, on grounds both of expediency (survival of the Taliban government) and of justice (in that Bin Laden had abused the precepts of hospitality).
But turning that tide into a majority would have taken more time than Western governments thirsting for violent revenge were prepared to give. Hence a ruinous war.
This is borne out by the documents published by the National Security Archive in The Taliban File. Mullah Omar always sought negotiations,
even after 9/11. He was rebuffed. In 2013 the US has desperately sought his cooperation for a decent exit from Afghanistan.
It was the same story in Iraq with its non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Nor was Libya a success. The distinguished scholar, Vali Nasr, who recently left the State Department, told Michael Crowley of Time. “We forget that Libya didn’t turn out well”.
The tragedy is being repeated in Syria at a colossal loss to human lives and the destruction of property, including heritage structures in a great and historic land. Only last month the US ambassador to Syria, Robert S. Ford, publicly warned that “there needs to be a negotiated political settlement, because our sense is that regime supporters, fearing death, would fight to the death”.
He was testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 11. On the same day the director of intelligence gave his assessment. James R. Clapper, Jr, warned that even if President Bashar al-Assad fell, sectarian fighting would most likely engulf the country for a year or more. Radical forces too would join in the fray. Syria would be wrecked totally.
Common to all the four countries — Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria — was preference for force over conciliation. The reason is simple. In all the cases it is regime change which the US sought. “Qadhafi must go”, President Barack Obama arrogantly proclaimed.
Iran is a regional player whose cooperation is essential for a settlement in Afghanistan or Syria. Had its comprehensive proposals for a “grand bargain”, made in 2005, not been ignored, the dispute over its nuclear programme would have been solved. The Swiss ambassador who transmitted the proposals was insulted by secretary of state Condoleezza Rice for his pains.
The pattern is repeated in the Far East. Like Iran, North Korea justifiably demands lifting of US sanctions, sponsored by the US, as a pre-condition for starting a dialogue.
In this process the United Nations has suffered badly because it has been used cynically to promote American policies. International law has been flouted systematically as a leading international lawyer, Philippe Sands, Q.C. and professor of law at University College, London has documented in his work Lawless World: America and the Making and Breaking of Rules.
Recourse to or support of force as the prime instrument of policy entails sheer destruction; in the last decade and more, of four nation-states. The famous Polish journalist Ryszard Kapuscinski’s remarks 30 years ago sum up the devastation we have witnessed now.
“When thinking about the fall of any dictatorship, one should have no illusions that the whole system comes to an end like a bad dream. … A dictatorship … leaves behind itself an empty, sour field on which the tree of thought won’t grow quickly. It is not always the best people who emerge from hiding.”
The writer is an author and a lawyer.

The Best Advice for Overcoming the Fear of Public Speaking

The Best Advice for Overcoming the Fear of Public Speaking

By Herb Schaffner | April 27, 2011

As a former speechwriter, publisher, and frequent presenter, I understand what drives many people to buy books about public speaking: Fear. I know because I’ve shared it.

I remember times when I walked up on a podium and took my place at the lectern in front of an audience, and suddenly felt dry mouth, sweaty palms, shaking hands, pounding chest, even my voice ringing in my ears. I’d prepared a slick speech, but not my brain for the inevitable shock of taking the stage.

Anxiety about public speaking is most commonly rooted in our past negative memories and experiences, according to Randolph and Kathleen Verderber’s classic text, The Challenge of Effective Speaking. The authors–emeritus management professors and communications scholars–say that  typically people will relive those times in their past when they were criticized, admonished or deemed in some way as unworthy of the center stage.

My book shelf contains a couple of books on overcoming fear of public speaking, and they all recommend these strategies:

• Practice, practice, practice: You need to desensitize yourself to the panic and fear of failure you associate with public speaking, Practice not only to become more comfortable with your material, but to experience the gamut of emotions that come with speaking.  Rehearse in front of friends and family members who will give you constructive feedback. Steve Jobs reportedly has become a world-class presenter through over-practicing.  ”Few speakers rehearse more than Steve Jobs,” Carmine Gallo writes in his excellent book, The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs (McGraw-Hill 2010). ”His preparation time is legendary among those closest to him.” Gallo’s book recounts how Jobs begins preparing weeks in advance, and typically spends two full days rehearsing, asking for feedback, making adjustments, and tightening his flow.
• Memorize and make eye contact.  Familiarize yourself with the stage or space where you will speak, and commit key points to memory so you can make effective eye contact with your audience. By connecting with your audience when you speak, you will benefit from the feedback of their reactions and you will find your voice.   Experts also advise: don’t practice to the point that you are bored or exhausted with the material.
• Visualize a Positive Outcome: In Small Message, Big Impact, author Terri L. Sjodin recommends visualizing how you will feel when you’re done with the speech, “on the other side” in that “space of completion, invigoration, and accomplishment.”  By visualizing a job well-done, you replace negative self-talk and put the speech in its perspective–as one event among many.
• Connect with the Audience: In Harrison Monarth and Larina Kase’s The Confident Speaker, the authors suggest speakers visualize what they have in common with the audience and collect information about your audience–from their jobs to their likely questions. By doing so, you will replace the anxious self-talk in your own mind with a new externally-focused challenge: what are the people like I will be speaking to?  If you are speaking in front of an audience that is unfamiliar to you, get an attendee list, learn about a few of the people on the list, even call a person or two who will be in attendance. or ask your host about the group.  This process is about easing your preparatory anxiety by presenting your brain with a visual and cognitive challenge–put real people and real faces in those chairs, not executioners.
• Rewrite the Negative Script: Write down the negative or fearful thoughts you have about your abilities as a speaker, including criticism you’ve heard in the past.  Then note how you felt after previous presentations were over, and how you’ve addressed or changed certain behaviors so that you are thinking more positively.  I remember being told that I spent too much time leaning away from the audience during a presentation, and I’ve consciously visualized the satisfaction of correcting that in my next speech.
• Remind Yourself, You’re Communicating, Not Performing.  If you see your speech as a chance to communicate with a group of people about something important to you, rather than a performance, the experience will feel more familiar.  In fact, the audience is far more interested in the substance of what you are presenting, than how theatrical you are in your presentation. Remind yourself of that, jotting down what you consider to be the best aspects of your speeches–in content and style. Monarth and Kase call this creating “positive expectancy”: develop a few words “that exemplify the way you want to feel as you’re talking.”

The experts also agree on these basics, which bear repeating:

• Get enough sleep for a few days ahead
• Thoroughly check out the technology you’ll be using a day ahead
• Lightly exercise a few hours before the presentation

Never, ever drink alcohol before your appearance

Our narrative

By Sahar Bandial

Published: May 16, 2013

The question of the “national narrative” of Pakistan, representing our collective identities, values and aspirations as a people, warrants consideration, especially now as we set out to determine the direction of our nation. A national narrative is a nation’s story, an articulation of its ideology and ambitions that rationalises its existence and provides a sense of community, interconnectedness and shared identities that underpin the structures of nationhood. The “story” may be constructed and manoeuvred or evolve indigenously through shared experiences and a common history. It may, therefore, be propounded from above and accordingly enforced on the constituent parts of the nation or emerge from the grass roots and find affirmation across divides and hierarchies.
Yet, can such narratives exist in today’s polarised, heterogeneous and violent Pakistan? Or is a Pakistani national narrative essentially exclusionary, drowning out the voices of the marginalised and “have-nots” to propound a story that reinforces existing inequitable power structures, to which only the “haves” can relate? Ought there not to be a national narrative at all, but a plurality of narratives, all coexisting? No.
It is because of this plurality of narratives propounded in a vacuum left unattended by a unifying national story, that Pakistan is bereft with anti-state, anti-nationalist, extremist and terrorist forces, its integrity and ideology under attack. Plurality is not the issue, but rather the inability to accommodate such pluralism and re-articulate it in a cohesive, unifying national discourse, which does not silence discontent, critique and diversity.
Our historical narrative as an “Islamic” nation or homeland of Muslims, (however one may look at it) — created in response to the oppression suffered and foreseen by Muslims of united India — as a polity where all would be guaranteed equal rights and opportunities, regardless of religion, caste, class or gender, no longer serves, as effectively, to bind us as a collective. This is not a challenge to the two-nation theory, which some hold to be inherently flawed, an assertion that is anarchist and self-defeating. Instead, this is an acknowledgement that the political paradigm in Pakistan has changed.
We are a nation at war from within, the cohesiveness of our historical narrative faltering in the face of attacks on our ideology and integrity by terrorist, anti-state forces. These have expounded alternative narratives that challenge our nationhood and have inspired waves of violence across the sociopolitical milieu. We have lost lives, property and a sense of who we are. Does our state mandate a firebrand theological state, averse to religious tolerance or diversity? Do our provincial identities render the idea of a federalist Pakistan null? Who are we? What is our story?
These questions are real and especially pertinent in today’s context, as we move forward from a bloody election campaign, losing inspirational leaders and tireless political workers. This nation has stood resiliently against these attacks, against odds, and asserted its right to the democratic determination of its future.
There is a narrative already emerging from this tense and tight political struggle, clear, at least, in its broader vision of our nation state. It is a narrative that holds across the three major political contenders of these elections and has found support across their ranks and beyond. It is a narrative that condemns extremism, militancy and religiously- motivated violence. It is a narrative that espouses equality, tolerance, respect and protection of diversity. It is a narrative of resilience and courage. It envisages a nation that rejects fanaticism, both religious and sectarian, and propounds a tolerant, secure state. This narrative is neither constructed nor manoeuvred, nor thrust upon us through external forces. It is real and pervasive, and our collective response to years of strife and bloodshed. It is the reinvigorated narrative of Pakistan that must fill the vacuum and overcome the discourses opposed to our nationhood.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 17^th, 2013