“Hey, you”, with a pointed finger. The tone cannot be captured in words and the demeanor not manifested in a dataset. It can only be felt by those who have visited a public hospital, a law enforcement office, or any other state institution. This is Pakistan and the experience quintessentially Pakistani. You might be a respectable entity outside but once you cross the doorstep, even the slightest decency is elusive. Sick or wronged, you are the one at fault. This is the land of countless despots and thousand cuts.
Earlier this year, the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) classified Pakistan as an authoritarian state. Though it is a demotion, Pakistan was never better. The ranking of the State’s procedural system may fluctuate, but the essence has never changed. More than a governing methodology, authoritarianism is an attitude – and so is democracy. “Go thou and first establish democracy in thy household”, declared Lycurgus. Attitudes trickle down and shape up a society. The thousand cuts we experience beyond the doorstep are a reflection of our governing system.
Authoritarian Attitude
Attitudes depend on belief, a “neutrally held probability distribution over possible characteristics of an object”, and belief, in turn, depends on identity. The process of “othering”, identifying someone as out-of-group, spontaneously happens at the doorstep. In a society divided along the lines of sects, ethnicity, and castes (irreligious) – ruled by a state where institutions exist in silos with their own economic and social bubble – and a culture infested by colonialism and feudalism – the process of “othering” is the default attitude. Authoritarianism is widespread but it does not strengthen the in-group bonds. A possible explanation could be the myriad of fractures in the society (mentioned above), or the absence of a single entity universally associated with authoritarianism.
The model is set at the top and reinforced at all levels. Albert Bandura’s Social Cognition Theory explains how people follow an established model in their behavior, especially when the model reaps monetary benefits and access to resources. Opportunism, hypocrisy, and insulting are fruitful – this is the established model. As Bandura explains, individuals begin to suffer from moral liberation – a process where they rationalize unethical behavior by either convincing themselves that moral standards do not apply to them or attributing their actions to higher authorities. Thus, a society where each is a despot depending on the degree and place of power they have.
Dynamic Authoritarianism
Researchers have provided different definitions but at its core, authoritarianism is the desire of conformity over autonomy and of punishing those who question the established values. But in Pakistan’s case, what are these values? Pakistan’s version of authoritarianism does not have an individual, a party, or even an ideology at its core. All of a sudden, the perennial enemy with whom “we will fight for a thousand years” becomes the most favored nation, Kashmir – “Pakistan’s jugular vein” – is almost resolved, and the terrorists who were brutally “sent to hell” are ceremoniously sent back home. The established values do not last more than three years, or six with only a handful of variations. This dynamicity only brings in more chaos to a system already inherently flawed.
To be the devil’s advocate, there are countries where authoritarianism – despite its ills – has been used to bring about some constructive changes. The “success stories” are marketed heavily by the State but its authoritarianism is as bogus as its electoral system. If there is an established value at its core, it is the naked struggle for power. Social dominance orientation, developed within the Social Dominance Theory of Sidanius and Pratto, reveals that when the motivational goal across society is power and dominance over others, individuals develop a range of traits including low honesty and humility, high narcissism, Machiavellian approach (more at Dirty Hands of the State – Invisiblites) and psychopathy.
Moral Imagination – Invisiblites
Conclusion
Democracy or authoritarianism are more than mere governing mechanisms, these are attitudes that trickle down to the lowest rung of the society. It is convenient to cite a few socio-economic indicators as the defense of authoritarianism or to theorize the benefits of associated “stability”, but authoritarianism bleeds its own with a thousand cuts, not the enemy.
[Shiraz Gulraiz is the Founding Editor of Invisiblites. He holds a Ph.D. from The University of Texas at Austin.]
Photo credits: Microsoft Copilot