Political Culture in Pakistan ’ s Domestic and Foreign Policies

Several factors are cited as shaping public policy in Pakistan. Elite interests, institutional structures, and public opinion are among those usually indentified. But to fully capture the enduring patterns in domestic and foreign policies also requires examination of the underlining influences of olitical culture. Only by reference to Pakistan’s popular political culture and the country’s various political subcultures can we understand the predisposing forces contributing to policy outcomes and a frequent resistance to change. The paper will poist the importance of clashing subcultures for explaining obstacles to a consensus on national identity, the uncertain acceptance of democratic institutions, and the difficulties in implementing social and economic reforms. It will also argue that political culture is necessary to appreciate attitude toward national leadership, the tolerance of corruption, and the country’s ready acceptance of conspiracy theories. The frequent difficulty in reformulating strategic foreign policy choices is also shown to be traceable in part to base values in political society. The paper will conclude by suggesting missed opportunities by Pakistan’s leaders to modify the political culture in the national interest. A country’s domestic and foreign policies are normally explained in terms of the pursuit of national and elite interests, the determinations of individual leaders, the constraints of institutional and situational factors, and even the influences of popular opinion. Yet these explanations are incomplete if we also fail to recognize a country’s deep-seated political values and 2 Pakistan Vision Vol. 8, No. 1 predispositions, usually identified as its political culture (or cultures). Political culture orients individuals and groups toward more specific attitudes and behaviors. Without the recognition of the role of political culture we cannot understand a country’s more enduring policies or appreciate the possibilities for change. Political culture as depicted in this paper should be distinguished from the concept of national character. The latter, an older concept, was essentially a collection of stereotypical impressions of a people immutable to change. Political culture, by contrast, while distinguishable from attitudes and opinions that are often mutable with persuasion and a changing political climate, can evolve slowly. Only national traumas in the form of watershed national events seem capable of transforming elements of political culture more rapidly. There is no direct way to catalogue the principal elements of a political culture. It is often possible to look behind opinion surveys for evidence of cognitions, evaluations, and feelings to find underlying orientations to the political world. We have also have a window to the substance of a political culture from its political and social institutions. The way different elites and non-elites relate provides reliable insights into their political culture. Indeed, the relationship between the governors and the governed and what expectations they have of one another, as well as how the rulers and citizens view their own roles can be highly revealing. Democratic political systems would seem to require supportive or complementary culture. Cultural explanations tend to identify traits in society, its values and norms, which either ease or impede the acceptance and implementation of liberal policies. Important empirical studies have singled out certain individual qualities that underlie mass support for democracy. Inglehart identifies these as a tolerance of out-groups, interpersonal trust, emphasis on civil rights and political participation, and a sense of subjective wellbeing. As a precondition for a liberal polity, political culture collectively embodies those values or norms that contribute to a pluralist Political Culture in Pakistan’s Domestic and Foreign Policies 3 system, fairness in application of the laws, holding leaders responsible, and participation in matters affecting one’s fate. A case is often made that an open society also underpins the acceptance of free enterprise, contributes to a work ethic and integration into a world economy. If so, elements of a political culture that contribute to a liberal state may be essential to the full flowering of economic development. Political culture does not of course offer a wholly adequate explanation. Certain structural conditions such as those in the legal and institutional environment may better explain the opportunities and obstacles to policy reforms. Individual leadership qualities and predilections may offer more parsimonious accounts for behavior. Political culture, with all its value as an analytic tool, should never be seen as an ultimate precondition for understanding change or stasis. There are more than a few examples of where a country appears to have transcended its past and its deposited values. Conversely, a country may appear to have predisposing democratic values and still be unable to realize democratic institutions. In a reversal of causality, political regimes can strive to create a supportive culture. Not infrequently, elites will also allege that a political culture is too immature to carry democratic reforms. This paper examines Pakistan’s popular political culture and five of its subcultures. It should enable us to better understand the absence of a consensus on national identity, ambivalence over democratic institutions, difficulties in achieving the rule of law, and obstacles to building support for social and economic reforms. Political culture can help us appreciate popular evaluations of national leadership and a penchant toward conspiracy theories. Normative predispositions among decision makers are also useful in explaining the emergence and persistence of strategic policy choices toward regional neighbors and more distant states. The discussion will conclude by suggesting missed opportunities by Pakistan’s leaders to modify the political culture in ways that could contribute to the national interest. 4 Pakistan Vision Vol. 8, No. 1 Pakistan’s political culture is not exceptional. Although those predispositions toward the political world that stand out are in some contrast to more homogeneous and secular Western political cultures, they bare resemblance to other later developing countries. Predictably, Islamic norms stand closest to other Islamic states. Even then, however, Pakistan’s political values have been fashioned in ways that are reflective of its own historical narrative. The means by which Pakistan’s base political values have been transmitted and inculcated through processes of socialization also give the culture distinctive aspects. As in other political cultures, socialization to Pakistan’s popular culture and its several subcultures is usually subtle. Much of it occurs through the family and begins early in life. State schooling consciously seeks to create common national values, and religious education and indoctrination through madressas and mosques also leaves a strong imprint on the young. The electronic media creates or reinforces orientations for large numbers of people. Military service offers anther powerful means to transmit value through programmed socialization. We must also distinguish between socialization in urban and rural areas and the variance that exists in both. It is fair to ask whether someone not native to Pakistan can make an informed assessment of its political culture. Even decades of acquaintance with the country and its political scene cannot substitute for an understanding that comes with personal maturation within the society. Still, there can be some advantages in being an outsider for formulating perceptive, unbiased observations. No example better exemplifies this than the observations of the French nobleman Alexis de Tocqueville who, a little more than a half-century after American independence, traveled to the United States and wrote a still treasured commentary about its political system and society. From this we can take some comfort in knowing that it is possible to have insights, free of condescension, that can contribute to a better understanding of another people’s political