Friday, December 20, 2019
Wednesday, September 23, 2015
Politcal disorder
HOW does one describe the present political power structure? Diarchy? Not really. Some call it a hybrid or more precisely a civil-military partnership. Neither of the two fully defines the existing power matrix, with the civilian authority fast losing its relevance to the swelling support, real or hyped, for the military.
It is more a political disorder — not civil-military cohabitation. The balance of power has long tilted towards the military, yet neither Sharif the prime minister nor Sharif the general is actually in the driving seat. Can this tenuous power calculus last long? It cannot. But it is hard to predict how and what kind of change is in the offing.
It seems extremely difficult for Nawaz Sharif to regain lost ground amidst governance failure and the breaking down of consensus among the major political parties to defend the democratic political process. It was this unity that had protected the system during the PTI-Qadri dharna last year.
But that episode had also exposed the vulnerability of a set-up devoid of any effective leadership and competence. The perception of civil-military leadership being on the same page was mere eyewash. Pictures of the prime minister in a huddle with the army chief every other day did not hide the growing strains over major issues.
The military’s deepening involvement in state affairs and public expectations could lead to a slippery path.
Meanwhile, the clout of the military has grown further in the aftermath of the Peshawar school massacre and the formation of apex committees to oversee the implementation on the National Action Plan. The prime minister appeared quite happy with the military taking over the entire responsibility of internal security as well, but this has political ramifications. The broadening of the Karachi operation further enhanced the military’s role. That also caused an end to the politics of ‘reconciliation’ between the PML-N and the PPP that had helped the last parliament complete its term and the unprecedented transfer of power from one elected government to another.
Ironically, the growing shadow of the military over the political landscape has further divided political forces instead of uniting them. That has once again elevated the military to the position of sole arbiter of power. The tightening of the noose around the PPP and the MQM is indicative of the shape of things to come.
The sudden activation of NAB and the FIA and the widening of the corruption investigation against political leaders are certainly not incidental. It could not have been possible without the active backing of the military. The action against the Sindh provincial government officials closely connected to the top PPP leaders seems only the first step.
It has already forced Zardari and some other party leaders to flee the country. The Rangers are calling the shots in Karachi and the role of the provincial government is marginalised. The PPP has accused the federal agencies of selective accountability.
But the situation could turn more volatile with reports of the Sindh government considering the curtailment of the Rangers’ powers, barring them from taking action against political leaders. That would certainly bring the confrontation between the PPP and the military to a head. It will, however, be most interesting to see the response of the federal government in that situation.
Surely, the military-backed accountability is not going to be restricted only to the two Sindh-based parties. Its extension to Punjab will, however, have strong political implications particularly if the investigation is extended to members of the PML-N government. In this situation, the warning by the prime minister against a “conspiracy” to destabilise his government is quite loaded. Power is slowly slipping out of his hands.
Unsurprisingly, the popularity graph of Gen Raheel Sharif has catapulted with the growing power vacuum and widening chasm among the major political parties. Such a high public p
It is more a political disorder — not civil-military cohabitation. The balance of power has long tilted towards the military, yet neither Sharif the prime minister nor Sharif the general is actually in the driving seat. Can this tenuous power calculus last long? It cannot. But it is hard to predict how and what kind of change is in the offing.
It seems extremely difficult for Nawaz Sharif to regain lost ground amidst governance failure and the breaking down of consensus among the major political parties to defend the democratic political process. It was this unity that had protected the system during the PTI-Qadri dharna last year.
But that episode had also exposed the vulnerability of a set-up devoid of any effective leadership and competence. The perception of civil-military leadership being on the same page was mere eyewash. Pictures of the prime minister in a huddle with the army chief every other day did not hide the growing strains over major issues.
The military’s deepening involvement in state affairs and public expectations could lead to a slippery path.
Meanwhile, the clout of the military has grown further in the aftermath of the Peshawar school massacre and the formation of apex committees to oversee the implementation on the National Action Plan. The prime minister appeared quite happy with the military taking over the entire responsibility of internal security as well, but this has political ramifications. The broadening of the Karachi operation further enhanced the military’s role. That also caused an end to the politics of ‘reconciliation’ between the PML-N and the PPP that had helped the last parliament complete its term and the unprecedented transfer of power from one elected government to another.
Ironically, the growing shadow of the military over the political landscape has further divided political forces instead of uniting them. That has once again elevated the military to the position of sole arbiter of power. The tightening of the noose around the PPP and the MQM is indicative of the shape of things to come.
The sudden activation of NAB and the FIA and the widening of the corruption investigation against political leaders are certainly not incidental. It could not have been possible without the active backing of the military. The action against the Sindh provincial government officials closely connected to the top PPP leaders seems only the first step.
It has already forced Zardari and some other party leaders to flee the country. The Rangers are calling the shots in Karachi and the role of the provincial government is marginalised. The PPP has accused the federal agencies of selective accountability.
But the situation could turn more volatile with reports of the Sindh government considering the curtailment of the Rangers’ powers, barring them from taking action against political leaders. That would certainly bring the confrontation between the PPP and the military to a head. It will, however, be most interesting to see the response of the federal government in that situation.
Surely, the military-backed accountability is not going to be restricted only to the two Sindh-based parties. Its extension to Punjab will, however, have strong political implications particularly if the investigation is extended to members of the PML-N government. In this situation, the warning by the prime minister against a “conspiracy” to destabilise his government is quite loaded. Power is slowly slipping out of his hands.
Unsurprisingly, the popularity graph of Gen Raheel Sharif has catapulted with the growing power vacuum and widening chasm among the major political parties. Such a high public p
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Monday, June 2, 2014
Sunday, May 25, 2014
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Friday, February 14, 2014
Saturday, February 1, 2014
Five uncomfortable truths
Five uncomfortable truths
|
||
|
The writer has taught international relations
and public policy at Boston University and the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy and was the vice chancellor of LUMS.
As Pakistan continues to stumble down the path of its experiment with democracy, let us acknowledge that, unsure and erratic as our steps may be, we have, in fact, been stumbling in the right direction.
A remarkably uneventful transition of power. An emerging but uneasy tussle for balance between institutions. Treasury and opposition benches at each other’s throats but mostly resolved to keep the fights within the political arena. An unbridled, outspoken, and often unruly media bent on keeping everyone on their toes. An involved and demanding but unsatisfied and impatient electorate
Within each one of these dynamics could be an implosion waiting to happen. Put together, however, they may also be early signs of a polity struggling to learn the unfamiliar routines, peculiar idioms and exotic rhythms of a new language: democracy.
It is, of course, too early to say which it would be. But the surest sign of a tilt towards the later possibility is when society begins to recognise that democracy – even in the best of times – is a messy affair. These, however, are not the best of times. One should expect, therefore, a messier mess.
By the same token, the surest threat to democracy is to impose upon it expectations that are unrealistic, burdens that are unfair, demands that are inappropriate. For the naïve this can become a recipe for heartbreak. For the cunning it is a tactic to invite autocracy. Here, then, are five uncomfortable truths about democracy which we would all do well to remember as we resist the temptations offered by those who offer enticing non-democratic short-cuts to prosperity.
Democracy can be noisy. Pakistan’s national conversation – and not just the one we see on our television screens – is both loud and shrill. Such decibel levels should not be wished on friends, but they are only to be expected in a democracy as young, a society as fractured, and a sentiment as inflamed as our own. Next time you are incensed by the noise unleashed by democracy, think about the pain of the silence inflicted by its alternatives.
More than all else, democracy is about voice. Many voices. More than 180 million voices by some estimates. Maybe closer to 200 million. In either case, no one should be surprised that the conversation is noisy. If it were anything but, it would not be honest.
That politicians, journalists, and citizens are all still new to the amplification that technology now affords them does add to what can seem like ear-splitting raucous. But the discordant shrill that makes so many so uncomfortable comes not from the multitude of voices. It comes from the deep divisions in society. Those divisions, in turn, have not been a product of democracy. They are a reality constructed by a lack of it.
Democracy can be cruel. We love democracy – those of us who do – because we believe it will give us a voice. It will reflect our views, our aspirations, our ideals, our preferences. The uncomfortable truth about democracy is that it does all that for those whose views are represented by the majority. Of course, we all believe that we ourselves speak for the majority.
In reality, it cannot be so for everyone. The uninitiated and those who have been bred in autocracy ascribe failure to a democracy that does not reflect their views, their aspirations, their ideals, their preferences.
It is a cruel realisation that others may not think as we do, believe as we do. Indeed, the greatest test of one’s democratic mettle comes when one’s views are not shared by the majority. The arrogant response is to seek a right to a voice greater than that of others: because we are educated, rich, empowered, etc. The democratic response is to convince others of that which you believe in.
Democracy can be inefficient. Democracy defines good governance as representation. Autocracy defines it as efficiency. Nothing confounds the autocrat more than the inefficiency of democracy. Nor is any excuse used more often in the imposition of autocratic regimes than the promise of efficiency.
The uncomfortable truth about democracy is that it is not a good system to choose the smartest person. It nearly never does. Nor is it meant to. One should be very wary of those who seek from democracy, or seek to impose upon it, simple yardsticks of efficiency. Scratch them at the surface and you shall find autocratic spirits lurking underneath.
Those who seek good governance in democracy are, therefore, ill advised to simply borrow metrics from the managerial worlds of business. Countries, after all, are not businesses. And citizens are neither employees nor customers. Indeed, there is much that can be learnt from the world of business – particularly about service delivery – but never at the cost of the essential lesson that in a democracy efficiency flows from the fairness of process, and not the other way round.
Democracy can be funny. In a standard deck of 54 cards, there are two jokers. One should expect a few in every parliament too. Indeed, you find them being elected in every democratic system; big and small; old and new. They are elected because they, too, are a reflection of you. (And, of course, me).
One does not wish to trivialise the point, but the uncomfortable fact is that democracy will throw up funny results – in terms of people as well as policy. Results that many will find unappealing. The unfunny realisation is that a democracy reflects that which already exists in society. To find fault in that which democracy throws up is essentially to find fault in ourselves.
It is far more easy to deflect blame in an autocracy than it is in a democracy because democracy demands responsibility. As George Bernard Shaw famously remarked, “democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” A good democracy also ensures that we will be governed no worse.
Democracy can never be complete. There never was a perfect democracy, and there never will be. This one fact, uncomfortable while it is, gives comfort that democracy forever seeks to better itself. It is not simply, as Winston Churchill suggested, better than all alternatives. It is also that there is an imbedded logic of self-betterment within the democratic polity.
Baked into the yeast of the democratic cycle is the essential tension between those in power who seek to retain it by ‘doing good’ and those who seek to assume power by convincing an electorate that they can ‘do better.’ True, it is not quite as simple as that. Nothing ever is. But at the level of basic principles, democracy is a system that – in its purest form - seeks constant self-improvement. A ‘learning system’, if you will.
One is not starry-eyed enough to assume that Pakistan is quite there. Or anywhere near there. (Indeed, no one ever might be). But it is rather interesting to see the seedlings of this logic sprout in Pakistan. A careful look at Pakistan’s political landscape suggests that all the major political parties of Pakistan are, in fact, in power somewhere in Pakistan today. Even as they spend much effort in tearing down each other, they are clearly aware that they will be judged by the voters also on what they do in places where they have power.
The resulting interplay – as evidenced in their statements, their ads, their policies – suggests that they are already planning, even campaigning, for the next election. That may be one more indication that stumbling as we are, we are stumbling in the right direction.
As Pakistan continues to stumble down the path of its experiment with democracy, let us acknowledge that, unsure and erratic as our steps may be, we have, in fact, been stumbling in the right direction.
A remarkably uneventful transition of power. An emerging but uneasy tussle for balance between institutions. Treasury and opposition benches at each other’s throats but mostly resolved to keep the fights within the political arena. An unbridled, outspoken, and often unruly media bent on keeping everyone on their toes. An involved and demanding but unsatisfied and impatient electorate
Within each one of these dynamics could be an implosion waiting to happen. Put together, however, they may also be early signs of a polity struggling to learn the unfamiliar routines, peculiar idioms and exotic rhythms of a new language: democracy.
It is, of course, too early to say which it would be. But the surest sign of a tilt towards the later possibility is when society begins to recognise that democracy – even in the best of times – is a messy affair. These, however, are not the best of times. One should expect, therefore, a messier mess.
By the same token, the surest threat to democracy is to impose upon it expectations that are unrealistic, burdens that are unfair, demands that are inappropriate. For the naïve this can become a recipe for heartbreak. For the cunning it is a tactic to invite autocracy. Here, then, are five uncomfortable truths about democracy which we would all do well to remember as we resist the temptations offered by those who offer enticing non-democratic short-cuts to prosperity.
Democracy can be noisy. Pakistan’s national conversation – and not just the one we see on our television screens – is both loud and shrill. Such decibel levels should not be wished on friends, but they are only to be expected in a democracy as young, a society as fractured, and a sentiment as inflamed as our own. Next time you are incensed by the noise unleashed by democracy, think about the pain of the silence inflicted by its alternatives.
More than all else, democracy is about voice. Many voices. More than 180 million voices by some estimates. Maybe closer to 200 million. In either case, no one should be surprised that the conversation is noisy. If it were anything but, it would not be honest.
That politicians, journalists, and citizens are all still new to the amplification that technology now affords them does add to what can seem like ear-splitting raucous. But the discordant shrill that makes so many so uncomfortable comes not from the multitude of voices. It comes from the deep divisions in society. Those divisions, in turn, have not been a product of democracy. They are a reality constructed by a lack of it.
Democracy can be cruel. We love democracy – those of us who do – because we believe it will give us a voice. It will reflect our views, our aspirations, our ideals, our preferences. The uncomfortable truth about democracy is that it does all that for those whose views are represented by the majority. Of course, we all believe that we ourselves speak for the majority.
In reality, it cannot be so for everyone. The uninitiated and those who have been bred in autocracy ascribe failure to a democracy that does not reflect their views, their aspirations, their ideals, their preferences.
It is a cruel realisation that others may not think as we do, believe as we do. Indeed, the greatest test of one’s democratic mettle comes when one’s views are not shared by the majority. The arrogant response is to seek a right to a voice greater than that of others: because we are educated, rich, empowered, etc. The democratic response is to convince others of that which you believe in.
Democracy can be inefficient. Democracy defines good governance as representation. Autocracy defines it as efficiency. Nothing confounds the autocrat more than the inefficiency of democracy. Nor is any excuse used more often in the imposition of autocratic regimes than the promise of efficiency.
The uncomfortable truth about democracy is that it is not a good system to choose the smartest person. It nearly never does. Nor is it meant to. One should be very wary of those who seek from democracy, or seek to impose upon it, simple yardsticks of efficiency. Scratch them at the surface and you shall find autocratic spirits lurking underneath.
Those who seek good governance in democracy are, therefore, ill advised to simply borrow metrics from the managerial worlds of business. Countries, after all, are not businesses. And citizens are neither employees nor customers. Indeed, there is much that can be learnt from the world of business – particularly about service delivery – but never at the cost of the essential lesson that in a democracy efficiency flows from the fairness of process, and not the other way round.
Democracy can be funny. In a standard deck of 54 cards, there are two jokers. One should expect a few in every parliament too. Indeed, you find them being elected in every democratic system; big and small; old and new. They are elected because they, too, are a reflection of you. (And, of course, me).
One does not wish to trivialise the point, but the uncomfortable fact is that democracy will throw up funny results – in terms of people as well as policy. Results that many will find unappealing. The unfunny realisation is that a democracy reflects that which already exists in society. To find fault in that which democracy throws up is essentially to find fault in ourselves.
It is far more easy to deflect blame in an autocracy than it is in a democracy because democracy demands responsibility. As George Bernard Shaw famously remarked, “democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.” A good democracy also ensures that we will be governed no worse.
Democracy can never be complete. There never was a perfect democracy, and there never will be. This one fact, uncomfortable while it is, gives comfort that democracy forever seeks to better itself. It is not simply, as Winston Churchill suggested, better than all alternatives. It is also that there is an imbedded logic of self-betterment within the democratic polity.
Baked into the yeast of the democratic cycle is the essential tension between those in power who seek to retain it by ‘doing good’ and those who seek to assume power by convincing an electorate that they can ‘do better.’ True, it is not quite as simple as that. Nothing ever is. But at the level of basic principles, democracy is a system that – in its purest form - seeks constant self-improvement. A ‘learning system’, if you will.
One is not starry-eyed enough to assume that Pakistan is quite there. Or anywhere near there. (Indeed, no one ever might be). But it is rather interesting to see the seedlings of this logic sprout in Pakistan. A careful look at Pakistan’s political landscape suggests that all the major political parties of Pakistan are, in fact, in power somewhere in Pakistan today. Even as they spend much effort in tearing down each other, they are clearly aware that they will be judged by the voters also on what they do in places where they have power.
The resulting interplay – as evidenced in their statements, their ads, their policies – suggests that they are already planning, even campaigning, for the next election. That may be one more indication that stumbling as we are, we are stumbling in the right direction.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Era of Global Competition
In an Era of
Global Competition, What Exactly Are We Testing For?
Katrina
Schwartz
Renato
Ganoza/Flickr
In
this era of global competition, test scores are used as the primary benchmark
to call out which countries will produce “successful” students. Knowing that
American students are competing against a global pool of the best and brightest
has led education leaders to focus more on how they score on international
tests compared to students from other countries.
But
high test scores don’t provide a complete picture of students’ success,
according to Yong
Zhao, world-renown author, scholar, and professor of education at
University of Oregon.
“Countries
that score highly, have students with lower confidence,” Zhao said in his
keynote address to educators gathered online for the 2013 Leadership
Summit.
That
seems counter-intuitive, and Zhao isn’t claiming a causal connection — he
questions whether focusing on test scores might inadvertently lower confidence.
Zhao has analyzed data from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) and discovered a negative correlation between high math scores and
confidence.
“Countries that score highly, have students with lower
confidence.”
Similarly,
in his analysis of the Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA), a test that analyzes how countries score in reading, math and science,
Zhao found a negative correlation between attitude and attainment. In other
words, the countries with lower scores had students who reported higher
interest in the subjects. Zhao analyzed media stories from high scoring
countries like Korea and Japan, where students don’t show enough confidence or
enthusiasm for subjects in which they excel.
He
found the same results when he looked at students’ belief in their
entrepreneurial capacity, their ability to start businesses or be
self-starters. “Everybody is trying to perfect this system and make a good bet
about the knowledge and skills that our children might need,” he said. “All of
this says that the measures we use to measure education outcomes, to view them
as the best education systems in terms of test scores, do not result in the
same kinds of things we might value otherwise — entrepreneurial capabilities,
confidence, enjoyment.”
TESTING FOR THE WRONG QUALITIES
Zhao’s
findings have led him to question the value of the tests altogether. If the
stated goal is to get kids ready for careers, and careers demand confidence,
creativity, and an entrepreneurial attitude, then why focus on test scores that
seem to produce the opposite effect?
“A
lot of times teachers have been asked to improve our schools, to make our
schools more effective, but the question I’m raising is, effective at what?”
Zhao said. “Some reading programs could improve your students’ reading scores,
but cause your students to hate education.” He’s concerned that national
initiatives like the Common Core State Standards could have unintended
consequences.
In
Zhao’s view, most education systems start out by defining the outcomes. They
make a bet about which skills will be important and promise that if students
master those skills, they will succeed. Zhao sees this as a flawed approach
because it forces everyone into a homogenous group, a bit like making sausage
out of all different kinds of meat. Defining outcomes allows systems to measure
results, but it stamps out individuality.
“The new education needs to start with the child. Not with
the prescribed content.”
Countries
that score well on international exams, like Korea, have clearly defined outcomes, narrow
curricula, and dictatorial systems with clear ranking and sorting systems.
Students know exactly how they stack up in that system.
“Everybody
is reminded everyday that they have to master the skills,” Zhao said. “But in
the process you have people who are either kicked out of the system or put down
into a different school and they will lose confidence.” By valuing what’s
prescribed and assessed, the system creates a uniform group with little
confidence in the individual’s unique contributions.
Zhao
pointed to the tremendous amount of local control in the U.S. educational
system as both its savior and a contributing factor to its lower test scores.
It allows for different types of schools and for students to demonstrate that
they can be good at different things. There are arts schools, engineering
schools and schools focused on bi-lingual education. That kind of choice allows
students the chance to find what they are good at. The U.S. system also gives
learners many second chances to keep learning and find their strengths.
[RELATED READING: Some Ask: What's the Value of Common Core State Standards?]
“The
new education needs to start with the child. Not with the prescribed content,”
Zhao said. “We start with individual differences; we start with their cultural
strengths.” Beginning with the individual and building upwards from there
allows each person to become uniquely great at something. And when students are
passionate about anything, they can then be creative and entrepreneurial. For
Zhao, the new model has to be about creating a new middle class based on
creativity.
To
do that, he suggests giving students more autonomy over their learning and
emphasizing the importance of making authentic products that solve problems. He
also emphasizes a global learning community that can collaborate to fill the
gaps that each country, school or teacher experiences.
ZHAO’S INITIATIVES
Zhao
is actively trying to create the learning experiences he has written and
lectured about. He’s started an online education community called ObaWorld,
which costs $1 per student per year and is a closed, private site. It’s a
cloud-based learning platform, like Moodle, and includes similar features like the
ability to make and evaluate portfolios. But Zhao is most excited that he’s
recruiting students and teachers from all over the world to participate. So a
teacher can create a tool or course and put it on ObaWorld to help an educator
on the other side of the country.
His
other big push is to create more entrepreneurial school leaders through the Global Education Leadership Master’s program,
which is based online and accredited through University of Oregon. Students
will have to create a product that will improve education and will be
encouraged to think about schools as entrepreneurial global enterprises.
Monday, December 23, 2013
Democracy and democratization
Democracy and democratization, Chapter 1, Sample Exam Q1
“A system is more democratic if people can vote more
often on issues which concern them. That is why democracy should make
frequent use of referendums.” Discuss.
The statement “A system is more democratic if people can vote
more often on issues that concern them. That is why democracy should
make frequent use of referendums” is clearly based on a
participatory conception of democracy. Democracy has however been
conceived in alternate ways- as a system of competition, or of balances-
and proponents of such approaches would not accept the link between the
frequency people are able to vote on issues and a system’s democratic
credentials. Critisisms they may level at such a claim include the fact
that arguably the general public does not possess the necessary
capabilities and/or motivation to make informed political decisions, and
that frequent referendums tip democratic balances too far in favour of
majoritarian rule. In fact, even taking a participatory approach to
democracy, it is not clear that referendums are necessarily the most
satisfactory means of maximizing participation. Voting is only one form
of political participation, and the use of refendums may also be
critisised for their tendancy to produce conservative, status-quo-biased
decisions, and for the power they grant to the “agenda-setter”.
There are, broadly speaking, three alternate ways in which
democracy has been conceived. The first- democracy as participation-
holds that democracy is a system which allows citizens to partipate in
the act of government. The second- democracy as competition- views
democracy as a system which allows free competition for the right to
govern. And the third- democracy as balance- sees democracy as a system
designed to balance the potentially conflicting criterion of citizen
participation, a strong capable government, and the protection of
fundamental rights for all individuals. To argue that a system is “more
democratic” the more often people are able to vote on issues is clearly
to take a participatory approach to democracy. The claim would however
appear incompatible with alternative conceptions of democracy.
For “democracy as competition” proponents, of whom Schumpeter is
perhaps the most notable, democracy is a system which allows political
leaders and parties to compete freely for the right to govern, granted
on the basis of popular vote in periodic elections. The key difference
between such an approach and a participatory perspective is that whilst
the latter endorses the participation of citizens in the actual
governing process of their polity, the former limits participation to
choosing who should govern. This approach is based on the view
that, in fact, the average citizen lacks the capabilities and/or
motivation to actively participate in the governing process. Therefore,
what is preferable is that the process of governing is left to
political elites, with electoral compettion allowing citizens to
discipline them- the ruling elite must thus strive to govern in the
“public interest” or risk not being re-elected. For Schumpeter and
others then, a system is “more democratic” the freer that electoral
competition is (i.e. the less constaints are placed on political groups
assembling and presenting themselves as valid alternatives to the
present ruling elite), not the more often referendums are held. Letting
the people govern would be fine if they were capable of, and motivated
to, make informed decisions, but, Schumpeter argued, this is not the
case. As the weight of any one citizen’s vote is very little in a modern
democracy, individuals see very little point in going to the necessary
lengths to gain the skills and knowledge required to make informed
decisions on what are often extremely complex political issues. Instead,
it is argued, those skilled in making those decisions should be granted
the freedom to do so, whilst the electorate is able to discipline them
through periodic elections.
The conception of democracy as balance is best epitomised in the
design of the US political system, which has changed little since its
creation over 200 years ago. The design is one of a complex system of
checks and balances, based on the belief that it is necessary to strike a
balance between the rights of citizens to participate in the political
process, the need for a strong and capable ruling elite, and the
existence of fundamental rights which must be safeguarded from any
potential erosion. The system is therefore one which limits power, so
that neither the majority, political elites, or guardians of
constitutional rights are able to exercise absolute authority. In
contrast to such a system, one which made frequent use of referendums
(assumed here to be questions posing a dichotomy of choices to the demos
and operating on a simple majoritarian formula) would seem to tip the
balance in favour of majoritarian rule, weakening the democratic role of
both elite competition and constitutionally guarded rights. This would
be viewed as undesirable for proponents of “democracy as balance” for
two potential reasons. Firstly, there would be an echo of the
Schumpeterian argument on the need for qualified elites, rather than the
unqualified, unmotivated majority, to be able to exercise power. And
secondly, there is the potential threat to fundamental rights and
institutions posed by unrestrained majority rule- if a majority deemed
these rights/institutions no longer desirable, they may be able to vote
to remove them. Whilst this may appear democratic to the majority, for
the minority it would represent a “tyranny of the majority”. This is a
particular danger when the demos is divided into relatively cemented
cross-issue majority/minority blocks, notably in multi-ethnic societies
in which ethnicity is a salient issue. If democracy is perceived as
balance then, rather than being “more democratic”, frequent referendums
may in fact represent a threat to democracy.
Even if a participatory approach to democracy is adopted, it is not
obvious that referendums represent the best means of maximizing
participation. As Dahl has noted, the ideal of democracy originated in
Ancient Greece as a system which allowed citizens to directly
participate in the govering of the polity- with citizens attending
assemblies in order to debate and make decisions, and also serving time
in public office. Whilst that was possible in the relatively small
city-states of Ancient Greece, in the vast society of the modern state
such direct participation would appear an impossibility. Referendums
would seem to be a convenient means of maximizing participation in
modern democracies. On the plus side, this frequent participation may
help foster a sense of civic community, democratic legitimacy, and to
stimulate interest in the political process so that votes are placed on a
more informed basis. On the negative side, observation of referendum
results has shown that they tend to produce conservative decisions,
favouring the status-quo over change, and in any referendum, the
agenda-setter, in determing what question is (or isn’t) asked and how it
is framed, wields a great degree of power. More fundamentally, voting
is only one element of political participation, and there may in fact be
other ways of extending participation which are preferable to the use
of referendums. For example the extention of decentralised forms of
government could allow more direct, multi-dimensional participation, and
thus might be considered “more democratic” than merely allowing people
to vote frequently in state referendums.
In summary then, even accepting that democracy means participation,
the assumption that referendums are the appropriate means of maximizing
participation is problematic. Couple this with the incompatibility of
frequent referndums with the two alternative approaches to democracy-
democracy as competition or as balance- and it suggests that claims that
a system is “more democratic” if it allows people to vote in frequent
referendums should be treated with suspicion.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
3 Strategies to Promote Independent Thinking
3 Strategies to Promote Independent Thinking in Classrooms
November 22, 2013
In his study of people who find satisfaction with their lives, Harvard psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi defines as autotelic those who are happiest when they are absorbed in complex activities. By focusing on tasks and outcomes that stretch their skills, these young people are more likely to grow into contented adults. The most significant factor for autotelic development is what Csikszentmihalyi terms attentional capacity. Consequently, if his research into self-motivated learning is correct, then the classroom should become an incubator for growing students' attentional capacity. Instruction should be organized in intriguing yet challenging ways to foster attention.
Teachers can utilize three strategies to cultivate improved focus: sequencing instruction, recovery from mistakes, and setting goals.
1. Sequencing Instruction
Finding intriguing ways to sequence information is one method for promoting students' sense of discovery. One science teacher organizes his physical science class into circus labs. This requires that his students, instead of all doing the same activity in the same period, will instead be working on independent investigations to teach one aspect of the lesson. To understand the concept of "heat," they rotate among 14 different explorations over the two-week unit. Each lab forces students to collaborate as they uncover scientific properties. After all the labs are complete, they have a fuller picture of heat's physical properties. Students have reported these activities as intriguing, compelling and shared -- all of which promoted long-term concentration to make the learning more effective.2. Recovery from Mistakes
Learning from past errors also provides capacity for continued student learning. Here are two unique approaches demonstrating this method.A math teacher begins each class with a simple question: "Who made the biggest mistake last night?" Then he waits for volunteers to share errors from their homework. After correcting one volunteer's problem, he challenges the other students: "That wasn't a big enough mistake. Surely somebody else made a bigger one than that!" With his generous encouragement for learning from failure, he ratchets up his students' curiosity for process solutions. Revisiting and revising will concentrate the mind if done without judgment.
Another example of recovery from mistake making is through teaching students how to improve their writing by having them revise papers they've already written. Students who experiment with new sentence patterns and advanced grammatical structures, not from a textbook but from their own previous essays, are learning from application. For improved expression, this is far more motivating and worthwhile than going back to a less personal source.
3. Setting Goals
Teachers also have success by incorporating purposeful goals in classroom instruction. If students can be motivated into exploration and discovery in any subject, they will set certain goals for themselves in the classroom. The teacher, by encouraging such goal setting, cultivates their focus even further. For example, in an American studies course, one teacher centers students on the Big Question of the week. The first week begins with a very compelling question. "Who is an American?" she writes in large letters on the board. Through aligning the central intention early in the period and opening doors for understanding, she provides a scaffold for ongoing dialogue. As another example, a biology teacher poses the question: "What is living?" Again, the psychic energy in the class is amplified. This central question alone funnels the course readings, class discussion and research into a purposeful focus.By testing and analyzing unique ideas, the classroom can grow students' attentional capacity and show them the value of and methods for thinking independently. Only through strategy and design can the classroom become a laboratory of focus and attention. This is what we must do if we want schools to fulfill their purpose: developing young minds that have been assured new ideas are exciting and worth pursuing.
How do you encourage independent thinking in your classroom?
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Nationalism uplift for green Pakistan
Nationalism uplift for green
Pakistan
Author: By Dr Muhammad Nawaz
December 18, 2013 on 11:21 PM
Exploiting sensitive ethno-linguistic issues should be discouraged
Whether my country is right or wrong, nationalism is basically associated and defined with a firm and unshakable national pride, with enduring love of country, of their nation, unbound feelings of patriotism and finally unquestionable loyalty. Wikipedia and internet presents multifold definitions of nationalism such as “devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation, a belief that nation will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively that emphasizing national rather than international goals, aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination, a sentiment based on common cultural characteristics that binds a group of population and often produces a policy of national independence or separatism, a loyalty or patriotism to one's country that leads to fanatical devotion to the interest of national community, the desire for national advancement or independence and the doctrine or policy of asserting the true interests of a particular nation based on cultural values over the interests of other nations”. While accepting the fact that all these norms or characteristics are true in spirit for strengthening and unifying the diversified community bond, it nevertheless provides realistic fundamental ingredient to the growth and development of any just nation or society.
Earlier in the recent past, nationalism has been considered as an important instrument to unify various multi-ethnic and multi-cultural groups in the European continent that led to an overall but gradual society development of our time. For example, in the 19th centuries, a unified wave of romantic nationalism swept the continent of Europe transforming the various countries of the continent. With a spirit of common national identity, here some new countries, such as Germany and Italy were formed by merging smaller states. Others, such as Romania, Greece, Poland and Bulgaria, followed the same path and were formed by winning their independence. Furthermore, a French revolution paved the way for the modern nation-state and also had a fair contribution in the emergence of nationalism. Here, political transformation across Europe was led by radical intellectual Bonaparte Napoleon, where revolutionary armies carried out the popular slogan of liberty, equality and brotherhood along with the idea of liberalism and self-determination. A process of national awakening emerged out of an intellectual debate to the enlightenment that emphasized national identity and developed a romantic view of cultural self-expression through nationhood at gross root level.
More recently, a German leader G.W. Friedrich Hegel introduced a modern idea of a nation state where he argued that a sense of nationality should be considered hard cement that held diversified societies together in the age when dynastic and religious allegiance is in decline.
Over a period of time and through various movements (e.g., 1804 Serbian movement, 1815 Congress of Vienna, 1821-29 National independence declaration by Greek and the revolution against the Ottoman empire, 1846 uprising in greater Poland, 1830 Belgian revolution, 1859-1861 Italy unification, 1866-1871 German unification, 1867 Irish nationalist uprising movement and 1908 Bulgaria independence), the growth and development of nationalism was expanded and continued in Europe and even widely spread in other parts of the world in various stages. As a result of this, a true spirit of national harmony and prosperity established their roots to strengthen the society at national level. Finally, we see a strong and prosperous unified Europe today, embedded with industrial growth and with functional social welfare system in place for the people and by the people.
Reflecting the dominance of religious and political elite in Pakistan, a concept of unified nationalism is gradually being shattered. Note that the fundamental concept of the two nation theory on which Pakistan was founded was largely based on Muslim nationalism that resulted in its status as Islamic republic. Internal differentiating conflicts induced by various racial, sectarian, ethnic or linguistic groups are further shrinking nationalism space in the country. It is worth to mention that these ethno-linguistic factors have been a far more prevalent cause of strife in specific areas of Pakistan, besides religious activism. Rather than unified national integrated politics based on various real issues, our politicians are further using negative tactics to exploit these conflicting virtues to get more political gain from different segments of the society. Worsening country’s economy due to many other reasons, a greater polarization between rich and poor is noticed now a days. Regrettable to say that national language “Urdu” is still not widely spoken and understood in all state provinces since independence. Note that Pakistan is also missing a unified education system at School level, acceptable to all faction of society that results in a diversified mindset in the country. While hardly visible and untouched issue in the public domain, Pakistani national flag has been buried under umbrella flags of various political and religious parties inside the country.
Fundamental factors such as communitarianism (i.e. a philosophical approach that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community), cultural identity, unified religious belief, respect of national flag, integrated identity and national politics, belief on the meaning of state emergence and existence, equality of justice, system of national accountability, objective of Pakistan resolution, struggle for self-confidence and national independence are the key parameters that lay the foundation for establishing true nationalism in the country. All these objective parameters are following the route of collective national demise in Pakistan now. A lack of communitarianism and decline of communal bonds along with respect for traditional cultural and religious values are being eroded in our society by various means.
A classic example of demise of our nationalism is associated with the gradual growing influence of arch rival India in Pakistan – through media (i.e. Indian movies on TV channels and on Cinemas, TV commercials, fashion shows etc.), promoting Indian goods in Pakistani market, projecting Indian national heroes on Pakistani channels and paying frequent visits by artists pose major threat not only to the spirit of our national pride but also raises concern for our young generation who try to often adopt Indian popular slang and dialect learned through Bollywood movies. Contrary to largely Indian absence in Pakistani musical concerts in Europe and in America, Indian based musical concerts are generally fully packed with Pakistani audience, presents another shameful example of declining faith on our nationalism belief. On the other side, presenting liberal Turkish plays at prime time slot on Pakistani TV channels proving to be a cultural Titanic for Pakistani TV media business.
A huge foreign investment in the Pakistani media as exposed recently in the private TV media for exploiting and projecting cultural image of respective countries presents another source of concern for deteriorating nationalism spirit. Moral and political support given to Kashmiri brothers, issues of Sir Creek, Siachen, Indus Water Treaty and Kashmir conflict where the whole nation has been united so far and also linked with prime resource building capacity, are considered now forgotten chapters.
The situation is even more disturbing among Pakistani families living abroad where the children are now questioning about our national identity and possession of Islamic belief and ideology. Knowing the fact that Indian goods and Indian influence is growing worldwide and Pakistan definitely cannot be left out of this emerging development, a fair amount of our ignorant population is ready to respond positively that should be discouraged with full strength and with utmost belief. More interestingly, exponential growth trend is frequently witnessed among youth male and female discussing about Indian popular songs and movies and think of Indian actors and actresses as their legitimate heroes. Importing and celebrating alien days (e.g., mother day, father day, and valentine day etc.,) with full panorama in our national domain presents another source of frustration for demolishing our religious values where respect to father and mother is boundless by default and for everyday. It is really painful to see that vast majority of Pakistani society take these critical issues as pointless and simply ignored.
Admitting the fact that business and developing good relation with neighbors are critical for economical and national survivability, various national contentious issues described earlier should not be neglected at any cost besides sustaining nationalism belief in the society.
Note that the nationalism is not born by itself but is artificially made and then polished by intellectuals, nationalists and religious think-tanks. Religious and sectarian intolerance is not born by itself but is artificially induced in the society. Other racial and ethnic factors described earlier are also human made and fabricated for political gain. Now, the question comes into mind what should we do to protect our cultural, religious and national values as earlier voiced by Ch. Rahmat Ali’s pamphlet entitle “Now or Never, Are we to live together or perish forever?”.
The role of our governments has so far been extremely deplorable in all fronts that allowed unlimited penetration of Bollywood and other alien culture into our society. Firstly, this Bollywood embedded Pakistani mindset needs to be thoroughly washed out in real sense by promoting religious and cultural values, supporting our industrial products, exploiting young talent and ensuring that our countrymen are the best in all walks of life. Legal mechanism should be in place as earliest possible to make sure that the right (and filtered) content is shown on the screen. A countrywide well-disciplined national campaign with the support of intellectual think-tanks, academics, businessmen, artists, analysts and students should be launched to promote nationalism agenda in the country. Simultaneously, a culture of awareness should be introduced among school children so as to realize them that how important is the nationalism uplift for growth, development and sustainability of any nation/country. Pro-western NGOs that provide recipes for secular mindset in the country should strongly be condemned and let them not allow exploiting their classified agenda that violates nationalism spirit. While Pakistan is a victim of globalization, supremacy of national interests over personal interest should be upheld at all cost to justify utmost love for the nation. Above all, it’s our responsibility to confine wish list and pattern of living within religious and cultural bounds. While Pakistani pocket is already filled with true national heroes, a pro-government strategic driving force is needed to actualize the potential of this nation. Simultaneously, politician and religious scholars should be discouraged and banned from exploiting sensitive ethno-linguistic issues. Finally and for green Pakistan, let us unite, push and commemorate the nationalism uplift in the country as originally defined and set by Allama Iqbal and Quaid e Azam for people at their best.
The writer is a senior scientist/researcher at ABB Corporate Research. He can be reached at: muhammad.nawaz@se.abb.com
Whether my country is right or wrong, nationalism is basically associated and defined with a firm and unshakable national pride, with enduring love of country, of their nation, unbound feelings of patriotism and finally unquestionable loyalty. Wikipedia and internet presents multifold definitions of nationalism such as “devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation, a belief that nation will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively that emphasizing national rather than international goals, aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination, a sentiment based on common cultural characteristics that binds a group of population and often produces a policy of national independence or separatism, a loyalty or patriotism to one's country that leads to fanatical devotion to the interest of national community, the desire for national advancement or independence and the doctrine or policy of asserting the true interests of a particular nation based on cultural values over the interests of other nations”. While accepting the fact that all these norms or characteristics are true in spirit for strengthening and unifying the diversified community bond, it nevertheless provides realistic fundamental ingredient to the growth and development of any just nation or society.
Earlier in the recent past, nationalism has been considered as an important instrument to unify various multi-ethnic and multi-cultural groups in the European continent that led to an overall but gradual society development of our time. For example, in the 19th centuries, a unified wave of romantic nationalism swept the continent of Europe transforming the various countries of the continent. With a spirit of common national identity, here some new countries, such as Germany and Italy were formed by merging smaller states. Others, such as Romania, Greece, Poland and Bulgaria, followed the same path and were formed by winning their independence. Furthermore, a French revolution paved the way for the modern nation-state and also had a fair contribution in the emergence of nationalism. Here, political transformation across Europe was led by radical intellectual Bonaparte Napoleon, where revolutionary armies carried out the popular slogan of liberty, equality and brotherhood along with the idea of liberalism and self-determination. A process of national awakening emerged out of an intellectual debate to the enlightenment that emphasized national identity and developed a romantic view of cultural self-expression through nationhood at gross root level.
More recently, a German leader G.W. Friedrich Hegel introduced a modern idea of a nation state where he argued that a sense of nationality should be considered hard cement that held diversified societies together in the age when dynastic and religious allegiance is in decline.
Over a period of time and through various movements (e.g., 1804 Serbian movement, 1815 Congress of Vienna, 1821-29 National independence declaration by Greek and the revolution against the Ottoman empire, 1846 uprising in greater Poland, 1830 Belgian revolution, 1859-1861 Italy unification, 1866-1871 German unification, 1867 Irish nationalist uprising movement and 1908 Bulgaria independence), the growth and development of nationalism was expanded and continued in Europe and even widely spread in other parts of the world in various stages. As a result of this, a true spirit of national harmony and prosperity established their roots to strengthen the society at national level. Finally, we see a strong and prosperous unified Europe today, embedded with industrial growth and with functional social welfare system in place for the people and by the people.
Reflecting the dominance of religious and political elite in Pakistan, a concept of unified nationalism is gradually being shattered. Note that the fundamental concept of the two nation theory on which Pakistan was founded was largely based on Muslim nationalism that resulted in its status as Islamic republic. Internal differentiating conflicts induced by various racial, sectarian, ethnic or linguistic groups are further shrinking nationalism space in the country. It is worth to mention that these ethno-linguistic factors have been a far more prevalent cause of strife in specific areas of Pakistan, besides religious activism. Rather than unified national integrated politics based on various real issues, our politicians are further using negative tactics to exploit these conflicting virtues to get more political gain from different segments of the society. Worsening country’s economy due to many other reasons, a greater polarization between rich and poor is noticed now a days. Regrettable to say that national language “Urdu” is still not widely spoken and understood in all state provinces since independence. Note that Pakistan is also missing a unified education system at School level, acceptable to all faction of society that results in a diversified mindset in the country. While hardly visible and untouched issue in the public domain, Pakistani national flag has been buried under umbrella flags of various political and religious parties inside the country.
Fundamental factors such as communitarianism (i.e. a philosophical approach that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community), cultural identity, unified religious belief, respect of national flag, integrated identity and national politics, belief on the meaning of state emergence and existence, equality of justice, system of national accountability, objective of Pakistan resolution, struggle for self-confidence and national independence are the key parameters that lay the foundation for establishing true nationalism in the country. All these objective parameters are following the route of collective national demise in Pakistan now. A lack of communitarianism and decline of communal bonds along with respect for traditional cultural and religious values are being eroded in our society by various means.
A classic example of demise of our nationalism is associated with the gradual growing influence of arch rival India in Pakistan – through media (i.e. Indian movies on TV channels and on Cinemas, TV commercials, fashion shows etc.), promoting Indian goods in Pakistani market, projecting Indian national heroes on Pakistani channels and paying frequent visits by artists pose major threat not only to the spirit of our national pride but also raises concern for our young generation who try to often adopt Indian popular slang and dialect learned through Bollywood movies. Contrary to largely Indian absence in Pakistani musical concerts in Europe and in America, Indian based musical concerts are generally fully packed with Pakistani audience, presents another shameful example of declining faith on our nationalism belief. On the other side, presenting liberal Turkish plays at prime time slot on Pakistani TV channels proving to be a cultural Titanic for Pakistani TV media business.
A huge foreign investment in the Pakistani media as exposed recently in the private TV media for exploiting and projecting cultural image of respective countries presents another source of concern for deteriorating nationalism spirit. Moral and political support given to Kashmiri brothers, issues of Sir Creek, Siachen, Indus Water Treaty and Kashmir conflict where the whole nation has been united so far and also linked with prime resource building capacity, are considered now forgotten chapters.
The situation is even more disturbing among Pakistani families living abroad where the children are now questioning about our national identity and possession of Islamic belief and ideology. Knowing the fact that Indian goods and Indian influence is growing worldwide and Pakistan definitely cannot be left out of this emerging development, a fair amount of our ignorant population is ready to respond positively that should be discouraged with full strength and with utmost belief. More interestingly, exponential growth trend is frequently witnessed among youth male and female discussing about Indian popular songs and movies and think of Indian actors and actresses as their legitimate heroes. Importing and celebrating alien days (e.g., mother day, father day, and valentine day etc.,) with full panorama in our national domain presents another source of frustration for demolishing our religious values where respect to father and mother is boundless by default and for everyday. It is really painful to see that vast majority of Pakistani society take these critical issues as pointless and simply ignored.
Admitting the fact that business and developing good relation with neighbors are critical for economical and national survivability, various national contentious issues described earlier should not be neglected at any cost besides sustaining nationalism belief in the society.
Note that the nationalism is not born by itself but is artificially made and then polished by intellectuals, nationalists and religious think-tanks. Religious and sectarian intolerance is not born by itself but is artificially induced in the society. Other racial and ethnic factors described earlier are also human made and fabricated for political gain. Now, the question comes into mind what should we do to protect our cultural, religious and national values as earlier voiced by Ch. Rahmat Ali’s pamphlet entitle “Now or Never, Are we to live together or perish forever?”.
The role of our governments has so far been extremely deplorable in all fronts that allowed unlimited penetration of Bollywood and other alien culture into our society. Firstly, this Bollywood embedded Pakistani mindset needs to be thoroughly washed out in real sense by promoting religious and cultural values, supporting our industrial products, exploiting young talent and ensuring that our countrymen are the best in all walks of life. Legal mechanism should be in place as earliest possible to make sure that the right (and filtered) content is shown on the screen. A countrywide well-disciplined national campaign with the support of intellectual think-tanks, academics, businessmen, artists, analysts and students should be launched to promote nationalism agenda in the country. Simultaneously, a culture of awareness should be introduced among school children so as to realize them that how important is the nationalism uplift for growth, development and sustainability of any nation/country. Pro-western NGOs that provide recipes for secular mindset in the country should strongly be condemned and let them not allow exploiting their classified agenda that violates nationalism spirit. While Pakistan is a victim of globalization, supremacy of national interests over personal interest should be upheld at all cost to justify utmost love for the nation. Above all, it’s our responsibility to confine wish list and pattern of living within religious and cultural bounds. While Pakistani pocket is already filled with true national heroes, a pro-government strategic driving force is needed to actualize the potential of this nation. Simultaneously, politician and religious scholars should be discouraged and banned from exploiting sensitive ethno-linguistic issues. Finally and for green Pakistan, let us unite, push and commemorate the nationalism uplift in the country as originally defined and set by Allama Iqbal and Quaid e Azam for people at their best.
The writer is a senior scientist/researcher at ABB Corporate Research. He can be reached at: muhammad.nawaz@se.abb.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)