The question of morality in politics

Morality is as complex a phenomenon of human character.

In Pakistan, in particular, its dilemma is to find a balance between a person’s belief system and his/her environment. Our views about others are also shaped by our version of morality, which is largely built upon our belief system. But by upholding such principles of morality, political leaders usually run the danger of supporting a kind of exclusive politics.

Take the recent debate, triggered by Ayesha Gulalai’s accusations against Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf Chairman Imran Khan. It has raised many questions about the class-based and gender-oriented political culture in Pakistan. 

The stern criticism of Gulalai and her ‘claims’ made it clear that the sociology of feudalism still shapes the behaviour of political leaders. Such practices are common in all South Asian nations, but in Pakistan, morality is used to either legitimize oneself or discredit opponents. The moral domain of politics in Pakistan is narrow. Here leaders must be careful while nurturing their political narratives.

At the moment, there are two competing narratives on morality in Pakistan. One is structured around corruption, which is being used by the PTI against its rivals, and the other around a person’s individual character, which is being used against the PTI.

Those who espouse financial transparency as a key moral value in political ethics consider that state functions and politics have nothing to do with the personal life of a leader. Others, however, seemingly believe that a political leader should follow the established moral values of society; therefore sexuality is a key characteristic.

Now, morality is not a new factor in politics, but its contours keep varying with time and environment. Both conservative and liberal politicians, as well as those somewhere in the middle, try to adjust themselves in moral domains of their times.

The socio-economic status of individuals and means of production of a society largely influence the moral behaviors and people want to see these reflecting in their leaders. 

In an agro-industrial transition, people prefer a leadership, which offers something new and forward-looking and appear ready to adapt to emerging socio-cultural realities. They may compromise on the socio-moral character of a leader if they are convinced that he would deliver.

The personal character, nonetheless, holds utmost value for the people who believe in tradition. For the right-wingers and the centralists, social and religious values are important. They can tolerate a leadership, which might abuse power, and even not keep his/her financial issues transparent, but they would want to see their leader standing on high moral grounds.

With growing urbanization, an uptick in literacy rates, and the changing means of production, the services sector has become an important source of tax collection. This has increased the demand for a socially forward-looking leadership, which is transparent on personal financial issues. An added boost to this demand comes from the diaspora communities, as they themselves are part of the services sectors in their respective countries.

In Pakistan’s context, these trends overlap because there is not a single mainstream party, which represents a specific class or follows a specific moral order. However, the top leaders of the parties are seen in social-ideological and/or financial moral contexts. The fact is further vindicated when we see that political parties in Pakistan revolve around the individual and personal character of their leaders.

So far, the personal character of political leadership has more attraction in Pakistan. However, powerful institutions and a major segment of media tend to exploit the financial-transparency morality. Indeed, they have achieved major success recently after former prime minister Nawaz Sharif was disqualified on similar grounds. 

But it is not the right time yet for them to successfully challenge the social-moral model of the politics. Though the balance of power is tilted towards them at the moment, they can’t escape the socio-religious realities of a transitional society.

Rana is a security and political analyst and the director of the Islamabad-based Pak Institute for Peace Studies