Carl Sagan might have called it a pseudo-science but in the Islamic Republic it is quite a popular discipline. Had it been limited to the rationalisation of mere superstitions I would have swallowed it as yet another bitter and bizarre peculiarity of my nationhood. But not quite, sir. Not only do you bump into the pseudo-scientists every other day in almost every family function, but they also seem to have acquired the knack of rubbishing the most well researched sectors of social sciences. Take political science, economics and international relations for instance. Not a day passes without some Plato inundating me with crude generalisations. If the Soviet Union fell, the US is just about to crumble down too. If socialism failed, it is the hour of reckoning for capitalism as well. If the Soviet Union had to pull out of Afghanistan defeated, the US is just about to meet the same fate.

Well, as they say, if wishes were horses beggars would ride. I wish historic causation were so simple and easy to understand. But it is not. The dynamics that brought the Soviet Union down are neither visible today in the US nor can any similarities be found between the two cases. Even if we were to employ the historiographer’s imaginative license here, the nearest we come across is Paul Kennedy’s hypothesis called the imperial overstretch. But if we accept that thesis on face value and even if the cause of the Soviet Union’s decline and fall was its mistake of overstretching its imperial prowess beyond the durable capacity, is the US committing the same mistake today?

Those who think it is are in for a rude awakening. There indeed are no ground rules for a state or even an empire’s decline and fall. But nations usually fall when they fail at collective renewal. The defining character of the American nationhood is its inclusive spirit. On the contrary, if you want to know why the USSR fell apart, you must watch a curious new movie made about the Russian Refuseniks in the final days of the Soviet Union called ‘Perestroika’.

When during the recent US presidential elections, I endorsed President Obama in my columns and TV appearances (even though I knew it made no difference whatsoever despite my being the only Pakistan journalist openly doing so), I was desperately trying to see some hope in the American political system. And I was not disappointed. After eight years of prolonged mismanagement and bad governance under the Bush regime, the US voters rose to the occasion and did away with the racial straitjackets. This to me was the triumph of the American political system to renew itself. My views have not changed ever since.

The same capacity is visible in the US presence in Afghanistan. People tend to forget that while the neo-conservatives showing cowboy bravado went to Iraq alone and erred in doing so, they entered Afghanistan with the full backing of the UN. Hence, while the US might have decided to pull out of Iraq at a given juncture, nature and extent of the pullout notwithstanding, deserting Afghanistan is an altogether different ball game. It is possible that the growing American difficulties may hurt for a short while but given the fluid situation on the ground, the countries of the region, no matter how hostile towards Washington, would prefer a US-led effort in the war-torn country rather than letting it slip back to absolute and perhaps irredeemable anarchy. When such a situation arises the NATO and non-NATO allies alike will find it politically conducive to renew their pledges for the country.

I know why so many people view a possible US failure in Afghanistan so wistfully. Not only is it consistent with our couch potato machismo but also with our perverted religious-political worldview. Many who have hardly ever understood the message of Islam and misinterpret it in political terms want a global religious movement led by the Taliban and al Qaeda to originate from Afghanistan and spread across the world. This silent and often disguised ambition is in so many hearts that they care two hoots about the plight of the Afghan citizens, who are being killed by both the terrorists and occupying forces simultaneously.

In response to those who think that the US exit from Afghanistan is the ultimate answer, I have this to submit. For decades when the US was not in the picture for long, Afghanistan endured brutal proxy wars played by its neighbours. It is badly battle scarred and during these proxy wars none of the self-appointed patrons of this landlocked country committed themselves to rebuilding the decimated infrastructure. The current occupation not only promises to bring the country back to the 21st century by eliminating the medieval forces but also shows the desire to rebuild its lost infrastructure. While there is no gainsaying that the foreign forces in the country need to show much more sensitivity towards the local culture and the precious lives of the citizens, abandoning the country at this juncture would only entail an unmitigated disaster for the region. If anything, the countries of the region need to commit themselves more to the peace building and reconstruction efforts there.

The above-mentioned worldview also reveals its ignorance in predicting the end of capitalism. Again there is no similarity between the fates of socialism and capitalism. While socialism envisages an unnaturally monolithic society, capitalism has peels like an onion. If in the closed socialist system impurities are introduced in a distant corner, the entire system is rendered inefficient and corrupt in no time. Whereas in capitalism, just like an onion, if one peel rots you can always remove it and go on eating the rest. Today what you find failing in the global financial system is just a newer, experimental generation of capitalism. It always has the potential to revert back to a more durable previous version. That is precisely why there is no Karl Marx in capitalism. Even Adam Smith should only be considered an interpreter of capitalism and not its inventor. Unlike a communist system, which abhors experimentation and values regimentation, capitalism is again an inclusive system. Had communism not declared capitalism its archenemy, I am sure capitalism would have found ways to imbibe its strengths in the growing efficacy of welfare states or social investment states.

Then capitalism is so close to the human nature. No matter how much we pretend otherwise, we mortals are the children of anarchy. Our life owes a lot to the death of plants and animals alike, from which we extract our nourishment. I know it sounds Malthusian to suggest that we have limited resources and unlimited population growth scope, but folks this is unfortunately true. In this natural mess that which Adam Smith once called the enlightened self-interest appears thus far to be our sole ticket to survival. Of course this gloomy situation can change if we shrug the doubts cast by the likes of Huntington and Toynbee, realise that we are one civilisation — the human civilisation, and instead of bickering among ourselves start colonising space. That would at the very least reduce the anarchy on our little blue and green planet.

The main problem with us, the citizens of Muslim societies, is that we think that Islam is under threat from the US or the West. While interpretations of Islam might be under threat owing to their own faults, let me remind you that the cultural strength of Islam too was its spirit of inclusion, not exclusion. Muslim societies that imbibed foreign intellectual influences burgeoned with thriving cultures. Hence, Islam is not under threat. The ideal way to recapture that past glory lies in soul-searching and learning from the examples of others rather than anticipating fall of a country that promises so much hope. Remember, while all nation states may one day decline and fuse to form a global republic, as things stand today, the US and capitalism are here to stay.

This column first appeared in Daily Times dated Dec 17th, 2009. Click here to visit the original)

Print This Post Print This Post