MANIFESTO ON LEGITIMACY
Updated: Aug 28
Can our Current Constitution and Leaders Solve our Challenges?
Prologue
King David (R.A.) “…No man knows his own heart. I certainly do not know mine. Only God knows.“Shall I defend my little realm in the name of God? Shall I throw spears, or plot and divide… Kill men’s spirits, if not their bodies to protect my empire?I did not lift a finger to be made king, nor shall I do to preserve the kingdom... God put me here. It is not my responsibility to take or keep Authority.
It May be God’s Will for such things (Absalom’s rebellion) to take place? If He Chooses, God can Protect & Keep the Kingdom. Afterall, it is His Kingdom
Perhaps in God’s Eyes, I’m not Worthyto Rule. Perhaps He’s through with me. Perhaps it is His Will for Absalom to rule. I honestly don’t know.”
- The Old Testament, Book of Samuel (Shammil, R.A)King David (R.A) – Prophet, Anointed King & Conqueror of Jerusalem – questioning his own LEGITIMACY as a King, upon facing rebellion from Absalom.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS: MANIFESTO ON LEGITIMACY
Great achievement requires committed cooperation and sacrifice of followers. This can only be obtained when leaders are seen as LEGITIMATE or WORTHY of our following. Leadership requires legitimacy because followers must (a) believe in a vision which is unrealized, and (b) achieving this vision requires sacrifice, pain & hardship, and so requires a great leap of faith.
Before 18th century enlightenment, leadership was determined by violence or assassinations
Liberal democracy changed that by enshrining voting in the Constitution - a peaceful rules-based mechanism to determine the most “LEGITIMATE LEADERS to LEAD”
For liberal democracy to succeed, the constitutional method of electing rulers must result in the most capable leaders emerging to lead citizens to prosperity and security
Therefore, the Constitution is NOT Just a Piece of Paper
For any nation, its Constitution is the best collective attempt to organize itself as a civilized society, to fulfill prosperity and security needs of its citizens. This is achieved through election of leaders seen as legitimate to lead.
Any Constitution’s test is that it provides a framework for determining and selecting legitimate leaders and “rules-of-the-game” that enable growth, harmony and security of citizens. If this test of legitimacy fails, so does Constitution’s reason to exist as-is
Across many democracies, big money, privileged access of elites, tribalism or nepotism has enabled dominant groups to manipulate elections, using Constitution to claim legitimacy
Dynastic families or interest groups capture power and perpetuate their rule causing citizens suffering due to rulers’ gross mis-management Citizens’ discontent results in rejection of election results, fighting for shrinking resources with power concentrated with those who deploy most violence
In Pakistan, we are verging on the early stages of this transition back to leadership being settled through violence and force (aka law of the jungle), as in pre-enlightenment societies
For this very reason, Pakistan’s 1973 Constitution has become irrelevant to Pakistani lives. It has not delivered on promise of prosperity let alone basic security and welfare for our citizens
Constitution is not respected or accepted as a mechanism for electing legitimate leaders:
1999 Coup was widely celebrated and welcomed 2022 vote of no confidence, though constitutionally correct, led to massive protests 2 martial laws & 5 ‘soft’ military interventions is failure of 1973 Constitution to provide; checks-and-balances to enable internal change within the limits of the Constitution, & foster political players who create consensus for better functioning of the economy
1973 Constitution has been amended 23 times, once every 2 years– manipulated to serve party leaders rather than the people – versus 27 times for US Constitution since 1789
Defection Clause 63-A is such an example of usurpation of power. An undemocratic move by Parliament (via 14th and 18th Amendments), it consolidates power in hands of half a dozen party heads who now control Parliament through threat of disqualification
1973 Constitution has LOST LEGITIMACY because it empowers an Executive that does not adhere to its spirit or principles, and values it less than their own personal interest, e.g. fight over elections in KP or Punjab demonstrating politicians undermining their avowed Constitution.
Constitution should be a source of inspiration for people to act in their noblest self. Yet, people neither believe nor defend the 1973 Constitution, because:
Our constitutionally elected leaders desire for self-interest is greater than desire for upholding the Constitution
World in a digital age- our people no longer just aspire for Roti, Kapra or Makan of 1970s
Our citizens are economically aspirational and do not accept inherited right to rule
We desire opportunity to advance, which our leaders or the Constitution have failed give
An economic default and lack of social-cohesion are but symptoms of failure. The root cause of these outcomes lies in failure of our leadership and effectively in our Constitution. Our Constitutional system is broken. Incremental change was tried and failed 23 times, last time with 18th Amendment in 2010, and the only solution left is completely revamping the system.A failing or failed system due to failed leadership is leading to chaos and violence (of pre-enlightenment society), and so we must look at alternative sources of Legitimate Leaders
There are UNIVERSAL or TIME-TESTED RULES of achieving legitimateleadership that can navigate such disruptive times. This Paper gives examples from Quantum Physics, Spirituality, Intellect & Code of Kings on two universal qualities, the lack of which, lead to ILLEGITIMATE Leaders:
llegitimacy of INCOMPETENCE >> LOSING or Failing to Provide Growth for Citizens
Illegitimacy of SELFISHNESS >> Putting Personal Interest Ahead of Your Citizens
A Constitution is NOT IMMUTABLE or SACROSANT if it does not serve its citizens. It should promote leaders who (a) value the rules of the system more than their individual interests, and (b) are capable and self-sacrificing to achieve prosperity for citizens, rather than power or wealth for themselves. Only then can a constitutional system be relevant to the daily lives of citizens and a source of their inspired action– rather than apathy. If not, the Constitution must be updated or wholesale changed willingly through democratic representatives. If not, the system runs the RISK OF BEING CHANGED BY FORCE VIA REVOLUTIONS, COUPS OR SOCIETAL BREAKDOWN leading to potential chaos and breakdown of the state.
I – THE CONSTITUTION AS A SET OF RULES GIVING LEGITIMACY TO LEADERS
LEADERS and LEGITIMACY
Throughout human history, great feats required loyalty and followership of the masses to their leaders. Leaders command formal and informal authority over their followers to guide and direct them towards common goals. Without strong bond of trust and belief between follower-and-leader, there can be no sustainable common effort or struggle.
The root of the word “Lead” means “to march at the head of and show the way”. Therefore, leading requires belief in the leader to show the path to the destination. “Followership” is critical to leadership and the level of belief in a leader is driven by his legitimacy to lead. A leader considered LEGITIMATE will attract more followers, and they will be more loyal and steadfast.
Why Legitimacy is Important to Lead
A leader can lead through coercion or force! However, leading through coercion can work in small groups (such as the mafia or corporates), but is not sustainable for achieving large scale change over extended periods of time. Great achievements require committed COOPERATION, BELIEF and SACRIFICE of the followers and that can only be voluntarily obtained when leaders are seen as LEGITIMATE or WORTHY. Hence, leadership requires followers to:
Believe in the leader’s vision, which is unseen and unrealized. What is tangible or can be seen is far more powerful and real then what is unseen and so leadership requires followers to take a leap of faith in believing the vision of the leader
Achieving the vision, requires great sacrifice, pain and hardship. The followers of Moses (R.A) wandered in desert for 40 years, in the hope of reaching the Promise Land
Machiavelli too, after spinning many strategies of conspiring to gain and retain power for “The Prince” finally concluded that best Prince is not the one who hides in a castle, but rather brings down walls of his castle, lives among the people and is respected, rather than feared. Machiavelli was referring to those leaders who are LEGITIMATE in the eyes of their subjects.
The Fight for Legitimacy
Who has LEGITIMACY is key to gaining POWER. ”Vote Ko Izzat Do” “Selected Prime Minister” or “Imported Hakumat Namanzoor” are rally cries to assert your own legitimacy or question legitimacy of your opponents. Similarly “Roti Kapra Aur Makaan” was a slogan to gain legitimacy by fulfilling needs of the people. The fight for legitimacy is pervasively embedded in all aspects of our politics, but also in organizations and households – the most legitimate leader becomes the President, the Prime Minister, CEO, Don or the Patriarch.
Liberal Democracies resolved the dilemma of who has LEGITIMACY to LEAD - which was previously settled by wars - through a peaceful leadership-deciding mechanism of voting, called elections, and a set of rules that citizens agree to abide by, as enshrined in the Constitution.
Having vote or acting in line with the Constitution is seen to give legitimacy to a leader.
However, the liberal democracy is born out of 18th century enlightenment principles and cannot be seen as universal, or time tested since it has existed for only 200 years. In the end, a constitution is framed within context and norms of that period, applying collective human wisdom to organize as a civilized society and resolve the question of who is WORTHY to LEAD. It can be amended from time to time and even replaced anew in some societies.
The 1973 Constitution Losing its Legitimacy and Relevance
Pakistan’s 1973 Constitution represented the will of the people as exercised by the parliament. It is the governing framework and rules-of-game meant to bind those in power (the executive and its various departments). It defines roles, responsibilities, segregation of duties through laws and rules of business. Behind the legalese, it’s objective is to set limits on absolute power, protection of rights of the people and a mechanism of selecting most legitimate leaders who fulfill the prosperity, social cohesion and security needs of the citizens. Thus, the ultimate test of relevance and power of the Constitution is its ability to deliver good performance for citizens.
In last fifty years, the 1973 Constitution has failed in this key test and is no longer respected or accepted as a mechanism for electing legitimate Leaders:
The 1999 coup was widely celebrated and welcomed by the masses
2022 vote of no confidence, though constitutionally correct, led to massive protests or rejection by the masses, as evidenced in national surveys on popularity of various political leaders as well as multitude of elections across the country
Since 1973, we had two martial laws, five “soft interventions” (1990, 1993, 1996, 2012 and 2017). This demonstrates that 1973 Constitution has created a winner-takes-all system that rewards dominance and has failed to provide an agreeable framework for;
checks-and-balances to enable internal change to happen within the limits of the constitution so that extra constitutional measures are not used, or
elect political leaders who create consensus for better functioning of society & economy
The 1973 Constitution has been amended twenty-three times or once every two years only – often manipulated to serve party leaders ambitions rather than to peoples’ benefit – versus twenty-seven times for US constitution since 1789, and the last time was 1992
The Defection Clause 63-A is such an example of usurpation of power. It is fundamentally an undemocratic move by the Parliament (in 14th 17th and finally the 18th Amendment) because it consolidated power in the hands of half a dozen party heads. It creates constitution sanctioned dictatorships within political parties, and makes the parliament undemocratic because the respective party heads control the parliament through the disqualification threat on the legislatures
The 18th Amendment is meant to devolve resources and authority to the districts. However, full decentralization has been thwarted by the same public representatives who designed and voted for the 18th, instead retaining disproportionate power, authority and resources at the provincial level. The parliament and the executive, custodians of the constitution, acted to undermine or prevent it’s full implementation
Therefore, 1973 Constitution has LOST LEGITIMACY because the Executive it empowers does not adhere to the constitution’s spirit or principles, and the same are willing to sacrifice the constitution for their personal interest. The current constitutional fight over elections in KP or Punjab demonstrate politicians undermining their avowed constitution.
In a digital age, we are no more satisfied with Roti, Kapra or Makan. We aspire to be economically and socially upward mobile and do not accept inherited right to rule. Because our leaders and constitution failed to provide us with the opportunity to advance, people neither believe nor defend the 1973 constitution.
18th Amendment was the last effort in 2010 to re-design and re-set constitutional arrangements and that too did not work. Therefore, our system needs fundamental re-vamping and re-building.
A failing or failed system will lead to chaos and violence (of pre-enlightenment society). Are there HIGHER UNIVERSAL RULES THAN THE CONSTITUTION that provide a legitimacy to lead?
Philosophers, thinkers and warriors have debated or fought to define or to claim legitimacy. From Confucius, Alexander the Great, Marcus Aurelius’, Plato, Immanuel Kant to Allama Iqbal - each engaged in discourse, on those timeless qualities that make for a leader legitimate.
II – THE UNIVERSAL & TIME-TESTED SOURCES OF LEGITIMACY
Universality of the Laws of the Universe
The Universe provides natural and sustaining laws that can be applied to organizing societies. Our Universe is in balance at huge scale and is evolving constantly. There is perfection in its infinitesimally complex construct. Therefore, laws of the Universe are applicable everywhere and provide a framework by which humans can organize ourselves and achieve evolution or progress. There are two qualities of the Universe that are emulated in successful societies:
Expansion or Growth >> Universe is perpetually expanding and growing, with all its components being in outward growth trajectory
Giving is Receiving >> Everything in the Universe exists to give itself away and to serve the other. Death of stars results in red giants, which explode into nebulae and throw out helium and hydrogen, which then creates the birth of a new star
In short, Growth and Giving are embedded in the construct of the Universe.
The Lives of Prophets
PROPHETS (R.A.) established their legitimacy to convert the pagans. For example, Moses (R.A.) faced rebellion of Korah (Qarun) and his 252 followers challenged Moses (R.A) authority over the tribe of Israel, even after the miracle of the parting of the Nile.
Such is human nature – that all leaders must establish their legitimacy for their followers or their “believers”. In the case of Moses (R.A.), the tribe of Israel had to believe in his prophethood to undertake a deadly 40-year journey through the Sinai desert to reach the Promise land. Of many, there are two specific acts through which Prophets attained legitimacy from their believers:
WINNING against the opponent or having power to overcome the obstacle of the times:
Moses (R.A.) beat Pharoah’s Magicians >> Moses assa or stick created miracle that defeated the magic of the Pharoah’s magician. Miracle making was a higher form of knowledge and highly respected and valued in those times
Jesus (R.A.) Beat or Cure Leprosy >> Could heal leprosy, the most widely spread and potent disease of those times.
Sacrifice for the Followers or in pursuit of the Cause:
Moses (R.A.) >> Quit luxury of the pharaoh’s palace and roamed deserts for many years
Jesus (R.A.) >> Faced the agony of crucifixion as a savior
The Lives of Prophets
Philosophers have philosophized on the Ideal Leader who commands authority over his people. They emphasized upon performance of the leaders or the best trained to lead the state:
Plato >> Aristocracy of talent, or rule of the best - Leaders needed to be wise and trained in how to perform best for the state, just a skillful ship captain is trained to steer a ship
Allama Iqbal >> “Shaheen” or Eagle as the ideal symbol of lofty flight and aspirations to rise above the ordinary and the mundane
PHILOSOPHERS emphasized selflessness and putting common good ahead of personal interest
Plato >> Plato despised rulers who were motivated by self-interest but not the common good, and asserted that democracy is likely to create a winner-takes-all system and bring to power such leaders – i.e. tyrants and demagogues. On the other hand, legitimate rulers are not interested in power for themselves and hence best to serve the masses
Allama Iqbal >> “Na Koi Banda Raha, Na Koi Banda Nawaz“ is embodiment of Servant Leadership where king or servant stand together in the same row, with no special privileges
The Skin in the Game of Kings
All states are ruled by kings, presidents or ruling elites. Historically, the prestige and power of ruling King is tied to winning in war or diplomacy, which brought bounty for his subjects and increased the kings power. Losing meant slavery or wiping out of his dynasty. There is no greater proof of sacrifice or skin in the game for your nation, then rulers charging on horse-back with their armies, risking an enemy’s spear piercing through their chest. Alignment of performance and sacrifice kept rulers striving for the best and maintain their legitimacy.
KINGS ruled empires by winning wars and earning booty for their troops
Hannibal >> Hannibal’s army was a formidable fighting force of mercenaries from different nationalities, welded together in their quest for capturing Rome’s immense booty. Every time Hannibal’s Carthaginian army won against Rome, he gained more legitimacy and more tribes joined him
Elizabeth I >> Defeated the Spanish Armada and made Britain into an empire
KINGS & QUEENS paid a personal cost, often sacrificing themselves for the empire
Hannibal >> Gave his life in his quest for Carthage’s victory and capturing Rome
Elizabeth I >> Never married or had children and kept the image of the “Virgin Queen” as a symbol of her devotion to England
The Skin in the Game of Kings
Across these FOUR REALMS – the Universe (Quantum Physics), Prophets (Spirituality), Philosophers (Intellect) and Kings (Physical Action), two qualities define and determine the higher and universal rule determining the LEGITIMACY of LEADERS:
3) Legitimacy Gained By WINNING, PERFORMING or providing GROWTH to your citizens
4) Legitimacy from SACRIFICING for or Putting Needs of your Citizens Ahead of Yourself
Conversely, ILLEGITIMATE Leaders are (a) INCOMPETENT, and Bring Defeat to the Nation, and (b) SELFISH, Self-Serving or Egotistical
III – CAN UNIVERSAL RULES OF LEGITIMACY SUPERSEDE THE CONSTITUTION
Legitimacy derived from performance and self-sacrifice is based on time-tested NATURAL and UNIVERSAL LAWS, which are a higher form of legitimacy than that created by group effort.
>> The Constitution owes its existence or relevance to improving the well-being of citizens
>> Power and relevance of the constitution depends upon the performance of the leaders who gain power through the constitution’s framework of selecting leaders
When Power & Relevance of the Constitution is Lost
>> If Constitution empowers those into becoming leaders who (a) desire personal gain more and are willing to undermine the constitution to achieve it, or (b) incompetent and selfish, then this will cause harm to the nation and bring it defeat or dis-honour. Both, the legitimacy of the leaders and the relevance or utility of the Constitution comes into question.
>> The 1973 Constitution has become a winner-takes-all system, that strengthens those in power rather than defend the rights of ordinary citizens or advance their wellbeing. This has left citizens un-willing to defend the Constitution. If our constitutional leaders do not abide by the Constitution’s principles and instead undermine it, then the Constitution loses it’s reason to exist
>> Our leaders and the Constitution, in its current form, have lost relevance and legitimacy in the minds of Pakistan’s citizens. Our system needs a re-vamp and re-building
This does not mean that the Constitution is Just a Piece of Paper. It is our best collective wisdom to organize ourselves into a civilized and rules-based society. However, constitution is NOT IMMUTABLE or SACROSANCT if it does not serve the people. It can be changed willingly by democratic representatives based on the universal principles of legitimacy to meet the citizen’s aspirations. Only then, the Constitution will regain legitimacy and be a source of inspired action – not apathy. If not, then it RUNS THE RISK OF BEING CHANGED BY FORCE THROUGH REVOLUTIONS, COUPS OR SOCIETAL BREAKDOWN.
Note: Although there can be many examples from Islam, though they have not been used to avoid risk of misinterpretation or in order to make an independent case.
*****************************************************
Comments