Dirty Hands of the State

Judges in Pakistan are filmed in their bedrooms – so is the accusation made by a bunch of high court judges. Though nothing has been formally proven and the adage dictates innocent until proven guilty, the bizarre fetish is hardly surprising and is only the tip of the iceberg. State manipulation and coercion is not unique to Pakistan, it is a global phenomenon. There was a time when kings were supreme but still subservient to the gods. Well, the gods have waned and now each of us is born in a state almighty. Laws are almost always inadequate and bending them is but a mere justification away. With unbridled and absolute power over its citizens, should there be a moral code for the state? Irrespective of whether filming a judge in their bedroom is legal or not, the question here is of morality.

Inspired by Sartre’s play, Dirty Hands, the term was formally introduced by Michael Walzer. But the classical problem has been around forever. Is political action, under all circumstances, overridden by moral obligations? Perhaps the most famous statement on this topic comes from Machiavelli, “The end justifies the means”. Utilitarians and consequentialists find solace in this, as the Communist leader Hoerderer in Sartre’s play proclaims, “Do you think you can govern innocently?” For most theorists, the answer is in negative albeit their denial being deftly nuanced. After all, this is not an easy question. It begins with a discussion on the ontology of morality and politics and ends up giving us more questions than answers. Maybe Machiavelli was right but what if there is no end?

Machiavelli was a classic realist; the Prince must learn how not to be good, he declared. In his revolt against “effeminate” Christian morals, he gave us a politics divorced from religion. But what fell in collateral damage was morality itself, any kind. The end of the powerful never needed a justification for the means. In a way Machiavelli at last did what he had despised with a fervor, standing as a meek courtier in the corridors of power. We live in his world, a world where the state is immoral, politics exploitive, and people disenfranchised.

Almost two thousand years before Machiavelli lived another great political theorist Kautilya (also known as Chanakya), the author of Arthashastra. Though a political realist, Kautilya placed morality at the center of his political thought. In Hinduism, the four goals of life are dharma (moral behavior), artha (wealth), kama (worldly pleasures), and moksha (salvation). Kautilya’s king must follow dharma and be good in practice, not just in appearance like Machiavelli’s prince. A king who flouts artha and dharma ruins the kingdom, declared Kautilya. Dharma is neither deontological nor morally relative. Arjuna killing his kin is dharma and so is Gandhi’s non-violent struggle. But more importantly, Kautilya’s politics is the harmonization of artha and dharma.

Gandhi, Nietzsche and the Pragmatism of Morality – Invisiblites

Machiavelli wrote for the prince and Kautilya for the king, but the modern-day state is different, at least in theory. It is a behemoth made of several institutions, the most important ones being those of force (police and military). Most of these, especially the ones of force, operate through a chain of command. The modern-day state, hence, is seldom more than a handful of very powerful persons. On top of the traditional power, a contemporary state is equipped with increasingly sophisticated and technologically advanced methods of surveillance, manipulation, and control. The end must not justify the means, especially the means at the disposal of a contemporary state. Else the clumsy justifications of a powerful few will continue to haunt us. 

Going back to the first principles, the question of morality is eternal; what do we ought to do? The answer cannot be “depends”, left to the whims of the powerful. Surely the question is not straightforward. Is morality comprehensive (i.e., always relevant) and/or dominant (i.e., always trumping other reasons)? Is there an inherent internal contradiction in morality? Is morality realistic or idealistic? And in the state’s case, what if the state is deemed to be immoral? If the state is above right and wrong, so are those trying to undo it. How are we to judge terrorism, succession, insurgency, etc., then? Obviously, such a world would be full of chaos and tragedy – maybe less than what it is now, maybe more! This article is not an argument for the state’s moral policing. There must be a state that is neither theocratic nor immoral. Perhaps somewhere some moral precepts exist for the state – simple, humane, and universal – along the lines of “thou shalt not kill” and “whoever saves a life, saved all of humanity”.

[Shiraz Gulraiz is the Founding Editor of Invisiblites. He holds a Ph.D. from The University of Texas at Austin.]

[Photo created using Openart.ai.]