Liberals vs. conservatives: What’s in a label?
Washington-based Niloufer Siddiqui examines the contours of Pakistan’s political identity.
I consider myself a liberal. In the United States, where I have lived and studied for the past eight years, such self-identification has been seamless, almost natural. I am, however, becoming increasingly uncertain as to where I would fall along the political spectrum in Pakistan.
Like many other things in Pakistan, distinctions such as the one between conservatives and liberals are much less clear-cut. When a military dictator such as General Pervez Musharraf can be considered a beacon of liberalism, and a party such as the MQM, despite its questionable moral actions, is heralded as liberal because of its secular nature, it becomes apparent that such categories are questionable.
That said, wherever the schism between liberal and conservative falls, blurred though it may be, it is has never been more divisive than it is today. Most intriguing is the difference of opinion held not between the extremes of society, but within the vast ‘middle’, which most policy-makers have in mind when devising long-term strategies. As Ayesha Siddiqa writes in Dawn, the intellectuals and intelligentsia of Pakistan have found themselves divided along these lines, between the right-leaning, ostensibly religious conservatives and the ‘secular’, left-wing liberals.
Much like the Lal Masjid operation in the summer of 2007, the military intervention in Swat has divided opinion in middle Pakistan. I would argue that the majority of people in the country have the same end-goal in mind, or, at the very least, they agree on the broader goal of preventing the spread of extremist and militant elements in the country. Poll after poll has demonstrated that the ‘average Pakistani’ – whoever that might be – does not support suicide bombings or extremist thought or action.
But liberals and conservatives disagree vehemently on the means by which a militant-free Pakistan should be achieved. While the ends may justify the means for many left-wing Pakistanis, who view the threat of Talibanisation as insistent and growing, more conservative elements see the threat as overblown and continue to let anti-Americanism determine their modus operandi.
There is little doubt that notions of liberalism have differed across continents and over time, and each society has witnessed indigenous debates surrounding its political identity. At the time that India’s constitution was being drafted, for instance, Constituent Assembly debates centred around the maintenance of individual liberty in the face of group demands for recognition and protection – a dichotomy that has proven itself inherently complex to this day, not only in India but elsewhere in the region.
In my experience in the US, choosing where you fit on the political spectrum today is usually a package deal: being opposed to the war in Iraq may have little to do with being pro-choice or being a proponent of gay marriage, but is often lumped together in this nebulous grouping. As Nicholas Kristoff’s fascinating piece in The New York Times suggests, differences between liberal and conservatives are deep-rooted – each group does not just think differently, it feels differently.
And these categories do not always translate well across boundaries. In Pakistan, liberals generally see the necessity of the US’s war against terror (though they may not always agree with the manner in which it is being conducted). Conservatives, on the other hand, view it as a neo-imperialist agenda. In the US, the situation is reversed, with American liberals fretting that battling terrorism is the ugly face of America’s foreign policy and conservatives championing the destruction of Al Qaeda at all costs.
In an opinion piece in The Washington Post, Mohammed Hanif accurately argued that despite Pakistani civil society’s ability to drive a military dictator from power and restore the judiciary, ‘when it comes to the Taliban, it seems incapable of speaking with one voice.’
Where does the faultline fall then? Is religion – and the state’s relationship with religion – truly the differentiating factor? Or is this inability to speak ‘with one voice’ the result of a set of assumptions based on contradictory facts? The now infamous image of the woman being flogged in Swat is a case in point: when one segment of Pakistani society alleges that the incident was fake and constructed, the debate is no longer one of morals but of facts. Similarly, the information gap in the events surrounding the Lal Masjid operation largely determined the manner in which one responded to it. Were there foreign fighters in the mosque, or was the government operation conducted against a group of innocent women and children? The list of debated and unanswered questions goes on and on.
As long as the government remains devoid of accountability and legitimacy, and the veracity of accounts and statistics continue to be questioned, a national debate on Pakistan’s identity will remain overshadowed by conspiracy theories.
22 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
June 12th, 2009 at 0:45
The Pakistani society’s duality is just hollowing Pakistan. The people I believe need to speak up and rise and confront this evil if we are not to become another Iraq. Nowadays it seems Pakistan is in the headlines daily. If there is none for a few days then this should bring shudders to people. Since something big might be about to take place.
We need to accept this tumour and eliminate all kinds of terrorist support.
Moreover has the civil society amassed to denunciate the Taliban.I follow the events closely and cant seem to point out when it happened? Cant we mirror the Indians response after the unfortunate Mumbai incidents since we are too fixated with India ;which is why I gave this example.
Moreover I feel we need to have tough laws enforced on Suicide bombings similar to the ones in Isreal. All suicide bombers families should be incarcerated which will serve as a deterrent for people not to carry them out.
Finally ,the woefully inadequate security is also responsible for a lot of the attacks taking place like policemen/ guards.
Although I have digressed from the topic I think I had to make a point.
Anyways we call ourselves, I believe, conservatives but mimic the liberals! Isnt this hypocricy?
The conservatives,fundos, talk about Islam and yet they cant help stealing from people, killing them etc. The liberals are engaged in serving their own interests.
June 11th, 2009 at 17:23
Aourengzeb was not a great leader. Is there any Muslim scholar worth his salt who would approve today what he did to his father and brothers ?
Our society can’t discuss this aberration of Islamic history in an open forum.
Here lies the confusion !
June 11th, 2009 at 10:51
To Mr.Aourengzeb Khan.
All the historians of Indian subcontinent agree that Shah Jhan was one the most intelligent, creative and tolerant Muslim ruler and great aesthete. His son who put his elder and younger brothers on the back of elephants and carried them through the Bazar of Chandni Chowk for tamasha and later brutally killed them. He incarcerated his father in the dudgeon in Agra fort and the poor Shah Jahan died in misery. It was Jahan Ara, the maverick sufi princess, who refused all the supplications of her younger brother to share the hukumat and remained with her father till he died.
How pathetic it was that the scholars of that period aided, abetted and approved those heinous acts.
June 10th, 2009 at 20:44
Re: Naqvi -
Islam I have known is anti-confusion. Perhaps what you call Islam is not even Islam. The Islamic scholars I have known are very honest. Perhaps the Islamic scholars you know are neither Islamic, nor scholars.
We can only speak from our personal experiences. So, no harm done.
June 10th, 2009 at 17:46
Well said Aziz Mirza
In fact this is not just a problem with people of your country, with rise in fundamentalism this is unfortunately becoming a problem with more and more people of other parts of world including India.
This region saw emergence of many different thoughts and ways of persuing religion. For so many centuries, people with their entirely different ways of following their religions were living together. Just like Muslims, there were Budhisht, Jains, Sikhs, Christians, Jews and such other religion prospering in this region. In the past,by God’s blessing, whenever there were any differences, a messenger of God would emerge and people again for centuries would be together. Examples of Kabir, GuruNanak, many Sufi Pirs and many others are in plenty. Ajmer Dargah has always been visited in equal numbers by non-muslims and so are other many examples. Never in past there was so much violence and never so many innocents were killed.
This place has a distinct identity and that is because of the values of tolerance and acceptance that we have lived through ages irrespective of whatever way we chose to pay respect to the almighty.
Being an Indian I have many good childhood friends who are muslims. I still remember playing with them around the mosque and them sometimes standing with me in a queue in a temple for Janamashtami sweets.
I am proud of the fact that historically our land had been the symbol for freedom of thoughts, liberty, tolerance and acceptance. This is the identity which can not be done away by separation of states. And, this is the identity which can lead to a path of salvation.
June 10th, 2009 at 17:29
I will go what Bertrend Russel has opined. With his classification of liberals and conservatives, i would think that most of Pakistanis are conservative, and remain so whether they live in Pakistan or outside in USA or Uganda.
June 10th, 2009 at 16:22
Confusion is the hall mark of Muslim society since time immemorial. There is an intellectual vacuum at every level. Pakistani society is no exception. It starts from the basic question: Is democracy compatible with Islam. The answer would vary from person to person, situation to situation and time to time. If you are in Islamic kingdoms and emirates, every religious scholar will advocate for Monarchy. “Loyalty of ruler is obligatory in Islam.” He will immediately quote Quran and ordinary Muslim like me simply gives in. When I arrive in countries where some kind of democracy prevails, the Molvi here stands for the merits of democracy. Here he would quote some controversial and debatable incidents of Islamic history in favor of democracy and Shoura. Again, in the name of Islam, I have to keep my mouth shut.
If I am in Saudi Arabia I will be convincing myself to the sanctity of shuttle-cock burqa and wondering what is happening inside the Harems of these Sheikhs with the plethora of first-in-first-out wives. If I am in Iran or Egypt I would be wiser to know that this kind of veil is sufficient for Islamic Jurisprudence. When I go to the West at least I breathe freedom of thought and expression;I can question about any practice. In the Islamic world I am afraid of my government, my Molvi, my society and my affiliations.
To tell you the fact – our religious scholars have never been honest, rational or open to reason or dialog. They had always been subservient to some nebulous ideologies as prisoners of history or paid plebeians of despotic rulers. There was never a period where intellectual, unbiased and dispassionate thinking was allowed. Take the case of Salman Rushedi and his “Satanic Verses.” Very few had read him. Everyone is willing to pass his comments. You ask any scholar in private whether Ayatullah Khomeni’s Fatwas was false. He would say no, on Fiqh ground. Ask if he would say it openly and he would cringe with unknown fears. He would burn the effigy of Saddam or Bush but he would never speak the truth. There is no such thing as Liberal or Conservative Islam of Prophet Mohd (P.B.U.H.). Islam is the most flexible religion based on Universal Constants of wisdom, truth and justice. And ordinary Muslim can understand without these so-called scholars. Quran itself says: We have make these verses easier to understand. Is there any one willing to learn? The whole problem or crisis is the creation of these scholars who would change the interpretations of Islam as the weather cock. The irony is that intellectual writers like Niloufer Siddiqui are afraid to call a spade a spade.
syednaimnaqvi@homail.com
naimnaqvi.tumblr.com
June 10th, 2009 at 15:43
There is no question of liberal and conservative in pakistan.we all know very well about,what islam says about life and its ways of spending.
June 10th, 2009 at 10:56
In Pakistan a true conservative is the one who believes in honor killing — a true liberal, who believes in the bottle.
June 10th, 2009 at 7:47
Pakistani politics is all together a different animal. Unlike elsewhere, Pakistani politicians or even parties, do not have any platforms – liberal or conservative. Perhaps they did some 30-40 years ago. But not since.
Thirty years ago, we had People’s Party, who were socialists at the top, and, in my opinion, opportunists in the the rank and file. So, they had a somewhat Socialistic, Maoist kind of program. Then there were Islamic parties, who had Islamic program, at least on the face. Besides that no one, not even Muslim League, had anything at all.
In recent times, we saw Muslim League, as a viable party only in the first Nawaz Shareef government, when they had some program for industrialization. That ended with the end of the government.
Now, there is not a single leader or a party, baring Imran Khan and Islamic political parties that has a program of any sort. They all bid for someone else’s calling. Not a single leader has any touch with the common Pakistani and his/her needs. They all race to push some other’s programs.
The reason? We as a nation have become clueless.
June 10th, 2009 at 7:26
Liberal, conservative, extremist. These are relatively new words for non-Americans. Liberal or conservative what..! Fiscal? Social?
Niloufer interestingly figured herself out as a liberal in just 8 years living in USA, but doesn’t tell us if she is a fiscal or social liberal. In America, this is how these lines are drawn. Having lived in USA for 25 years, I consider myself neither. I consider myself just a Muslim, who doesn’t fall in either of these categories. And I did not need to live in USA to discover this about myself.
A very conversative Christian American could be a Fiscal liberal, and conversely, an secular, or even an atheist, since all American are politically secular, could be a social as well as fiscal liberal. And in USA, liberals as well as cobservatives could be regarded extremists, depending on how strongly they felt about their positions.
So, what is Nilofour talking about?
In the newly evolving Desi mentality, if you are religious, you would be considered conservative, and usually extremist as well. Very often, phrases like “fire brand” would also be thrown along as well. And, if you are anti-religion, you would be called secular, moderate, and liberal. In this new Desi mentality, all these words will mean the same, and would be used interchangeably.
You would never hear a secular extremist, or a socialist extremist, or liberal/ultra-liberal extremist. Extremist is a word exclusively for the Islamists. Although we have dictators who ordered massacre of innocent only and only out of extreme left-wing hatred for Islamists. That was an extreme act of course, and even liberal extremists like Asma Jahangir called it so.
In my opinion, a Desi liberal is a Desi sadly trapped in Western skin, a Desi who in his mind is actually a westerner. And a conservative Desi is the one who is not all this.
June 10th, 2009 at 5:42
Pakistan HAS an identity crisis. Its not of conservatism vs liberalism. Its the ianbility to answer “What is the identity of Pakistan ?”. Is it a Islamic State, Military State, Secular State, Democratic State or a Terrorist State. What is our heritage. Are we Arab-oriented, South Asia DNAs or Central-Asia cultural genes. What are our traditions ? Derived from Hindu past, Mongol past, Persian past, Arab past or none. Serious questions.
We have confused it ourslves. Mohanjodaro – the cradle of Indus valley civilization -lies in Pakistan. How do we deny our connection with it ? Our forefathers (70% of us at least) were Hindus ? How do we deny this ? Urdu is 70% Hindi and 30% others ? Our Islam is our home grown version and evolved over centuries and in a different way than any other ? Do we practice it the same way as Persians or Arabs do it ? I do not think so. Are our heroes and role models are from Moghuls or from Arab lineage ? Was our founding father Jinnah secular or theocratic even though he established an Islamic state ?
Its time we took a bold decision, reclaimed our heritage, values, pride and genes. We can be proud of them since it is one of the richest depositories in the world. Islam is too deep and great a religion to be affected by any heritage ? As an old saying goes ” If you ever forget, where you came from, you would never know where you are headed to ?” Lets go back to our roots. e belong to the Indus Valley civilization and let us reclaim it and show case it to others as ours and our proud heritage.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:31
That was good Larry. Especially the Bertrand Russell quote.
June 10th, 2009 at 4:05
Well put! The American Civil War can be considered a case of military vs militants & its failures, realized a hundred years later, a more successful case of militants vs militants, commonly referred to as the ‘Cultural Revolution’.
Those opposed to being labelled as either liberal or conservative gladly prefer to be referred to as Anarchists, a word that has not yet been permitted in the ‘Pakistani’ lexicon.
June 10th, 2009 at 3:58
We can define liberal vs. conservative later on ones our society is free of these fanatics who will even kill if disagreed with.
Right now its not a battle of Liberal vs. Conservatives but that for the survival of our freedom to choose.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:00
Ms.Nilofer its sad to see that even though you are in USA but your thought process is plagued as you start your article with cursing Musharaff and MQM , i think you should have contrasted the entire Pakistani society with their mind frame as to whether they know what really a liberal or conservative means,an average Pakistani is even scared to voice his opinion or he is suppressed with religious taboos vs social taboos which keeps them away from reality perception , Pakistanis think that Pakistan is a heritage of Feudals when they fail Army takes over and does negotiations with Religious extreme.
Neither Musaraff nor MQM believed in this so called your blame game, they both have a vision, go check MQMs Karachi nazim has been named top mayors of the world by a liberal community outside Pakistan,its only MQM whose leaders boldly come out in public and denounce exremism and talibanisation,even PPP , PML-N and Chief justice pakistan dont say any thing against Talibans.
Musharaff was the torch bearer of liberalism in Pakistan as people saw boom of media , women empowerment,better pakistani image in the eyes of your so called international liberals during his tenure, his exit was a blow to Pakistan go back in feudal lords and rule of religious extreme as seen by Nizame adal signed by Zardari and supported by Chief justice Pakistan.
June 10th, 2009 at 0:11
Pakistan came into being in the name of Allah. In subcontinent we needed an independent state where we can exercise islamic law, and it was unanimously decided that the government system would be democratic. as for as liberalism is concerned it exists in islam as well as in Pakistani culture, you can not impose liberalism but it is people’s attitude.
June 9th, 2009 at 21:11
There needs to be a Jihad against bogus conspiracy theories. One of the reasons for such theories to thrive, in my opinion, is the child like egos of the vast numbers of Pakistanis where they never want to be proved wrong. Be it war, politics, art, music or even sports.
June 9th, 2009 at 21:00
I agree with Malik Rashid, its very well put by him.
June 9th, 2009 at 20:30
I feel that the reasons most Pakistanis are sympathetic to Taleban, though some may not approve certain barbaric activities of Taleban, include inability of political leadership to provide credible institutions to run affiars of state and Taleban’s potential to be used to gain ends of foriegn policy. Pakistan has to establish its own goals as a nation and comeout of india fixation mode.It is impossible to separate religion from state in Pakistan as very foundations of Pakistan were laid on fundamentals of Islam.Islamists proved no good and politicians are worst.
June 9th, 2009 at 19:53
I myself continually castigate people who insist on deploying simplistic, meaningless labels in political discussions — foremost of which are these selfsame “conservative” and “liberal”
N.S. cites Kristof’s NYT op-ed as “fascinating”, but I find that the latter’s telltale identifiers do not satisfy: I would not slap my Dad (may he rest in peace) under any circumstances; and, yes, I always feel a vague onset of gooseflesh when I wash up in a public WC. By these determiners, I am a “conservative”; however, I have a very low opinion of Reagan, GWB, and numerous other so-called “conservatives”. (Have they conserved the national treasury and the country’s fiscal future, the nation’s honour, the integrity of government? Is the murder of untold hundreds of thousands of Iraqis “pro-life”?)
True, I have no trouble harrumphing. I’ve done it often enough when listening to Clinton and Obama. With Dubya, harrumphing was insufficient, so I cursed him and his gangsters.
I think it was Bertrand Russell who opined that the main difference between a “conservative” and a “liberal” is not so much their views, but rather the manner in which their views are held: the “liberal”, he said, holds his views tenuously, open to the possibility that he might be proved wrong in light of new evidence; whereas, the “conservative” is oblivious to contrary new evidence. I myself believe that there are extremes of intellectual obstinacy (= dishonesty) under both labels.
H.L. Mencken sagely observed that there is a amplifying feedback effect — snowballing, if you will — involved with sloppy thinking and sloppy writing: sloppy thinking is mirrored in sloppy writing, and the more sloppy our writing the more sloppy will be the thinking of writers and readers both.
We would all do well NEVER to use simplistic labels, which are always intellectually and seminally vacuous. “Conservative” and “liberal” are surely the worst, the most meaningless, the most divisive, and most counterproductive of expository terms.
Simply ABSTAIN from such absurdities!
June 9th, 2009 at 19:40
There are 3 features in Pakistani politics that distinguish the right from left.
1)Military occupation of sovereignty.
2)US strategic interest.
3)Super-imposing of religion on the state.
Stead fast position on the above 3 issues could be found among the small section of politics that has been marginalised. The left was crushed and mutilated by subsequent military rulers and some of them were co-opted by the ISI. There is not a single mainstream party that could boast of democratic credentials as every one of them has colluded with the Military to find their share in power. The military managed their hold on the country through their alliance with the US. The military has been un-faithful, USA claims, hence they show inclination to support democracy.
A liberal must strive to uphold the civilian rule and struggle to purge government of the religion bias. The role of USA in Pakistani politics has been restricted to the support of military and their new found zeal for democracy in Pakistan could vary with changing geo-political interests. Abolition of feudalism and discrimination against women, provision of basic necessities and infrasstructure for the rural poor and education are some paramount issues.