What does being a liberal mean?

[Hell hound]

Good write-up OP. I'd definitely call myself a liberal. You're right to point out as I often do that liberalism is not a homogeneous ideology or set of ideologies, it varies from person to person and cause to cause.

I wish my countrymen would stop assuming that liberals are out to destroy tradition, corrupt our values, and most importantly, that they'd be coerced into accepting liberal things in their personal lives that they don't find agreeable.

thanks mate
thats what i keep telling everyone around me but the moment they hear the world liberal they shut their ear canal down and issue fatwae kuffar and fahashi in less than 15 min of our discussion.

As for the idea that the political turmoil and rise of populism in the West, anyone who believes that this the result of failed liberal policies on a societal level is misreading the situation. What has actually failed is neoliberalism and the kind of 'capitalism' that it claims to support, the rise in populism coincides perfectly not with liberalisation of society and of civil rights, but with the financial crisis of 07-08, with the economic turmoil that followed and the Eurozone crisis.

these are not the misreading but the attempts by our conservative people to find some dirt on the liberal system to show our moderate population how superior their conservative ways are.

 

[TankMan]

What has actually failed is neoliberalism and the kind of 'capitalism' that it claims to support, the rise in populism coincides perfectly not with liberalisation of society and of civil rights, but with the financial crisis of 07-08, with the economic turmoil that followed and the Eurozone crisis.

This trend is neither new nor the result of liberalism. Neoliberalism, as Noam Chomsky put it, is neither new nor liberal. Similar trends have been seen in the past, in the 1930s for instance, yet the cause wasn't liberalism or leftism then, it was no doubt where the anger was partly placed though.

This is absolutely true. Neoliberal economics have failed, and lets be honest, Establishment Democrats in America are definitely not liberal nor left wing. Obama bombed more countries than Bush, and Clinton was a warmonger as well. Liberals by definition are supposed to be anti-war.

I wish my countrymen would stop assuming that liberals are out to destroy tradition, corrupt our values, and most importantly, that they'd be coerced into accepting liberal things in their personal lives that they don't find agreeable.

In Pakistani context though, we have a lot of 'psuedo-Liberals'. They're not actually liberal, just pro West. Mostly affluent, elite, modern and often western-educated youth who fail to see the flaws in the Western system (reading some Chomsky would do them good). They then proceed to advocate for the implementation of a Western system in Pakistan, and go around criticising Pakistani culture etc from a Western lens. As much as we need introspection, there is a big difference between honest introspection and what psuedo-liberals often say.

Those are the people who discredit liberalism in the eyes of common Pakistanis. So when you hear liberal in Pakistani context, you assume pro-West burger kid, which I agree is unfair.

that they'd be coerced into accepting liberal things in their personal lives that they don't find agreeable.

Unfortunately their fears are not completely unreasonable. What I am referring to is the Swiss case in which Muslim students were reprimanded for not shaking hands with female teachers.

Surely this goes against Liberalism itself, as by not shaking hands with someone, you aren't infringing on their freedom or anything. At most, you are insulting them (not even that if you politely refuse and explain your reasons), which shouldn't be punishable by law.

Similarly, the whole girls' swimming lessons thing. A court ruling ordering girls to swim with boys? Ridiculous. Liberalism gone too far? Probably not, but it will certainly be perceived as such by conservative people.

And some deeply conservative people even on this forum go to such countries, the liberal principles of which they seem to dislike if applied to Pakistan.

Perhaps I am one of them - while I am not 'deeply conservative', I am religious. Living in the UK for the past two years, I can say that there are some cases where I believe the 'Liberal principles' go too far that I dislike even when it is applied here. e.g LGBT being normalised through schools.

 

[Jungibaaz]

This is absolutely true. Neoliberal economics have failed, and lets be honest, Establishment Democrats in America are definitely not liberal nor left wing. Obama bombed
more countries than Bush, and Clinton was a warmonger as well. Liberals by definition are supposed to be anti-war.

In Pakistani context though, we have a lot of 'psuedo-Liberals'. They're not actually liberal, just pro West. Mostly affluent, elite, modern and often western-educated youth who fail to see the flaws in the Western system (reading some Chomsky would do them good). They then proceed to advocate for the implementation of a Western system in Pakistan, and go around criticising Pakistani culture etc from a Western lens. As much as we need introspection, there is a big difference between honest introspection and what psuedo-liberals often say.

Those are the people who discredit liberalism in the eyes of common Pakistanis. So when you hear liberal in Pakistani context, you assume pro-West burger kid, which I agree is unfair.

Unfortunately their fears are not completely unreasonable. What I am referring to is the Swiss case in which Muslim students were reprimanded for not shaking hands with female teachers.

Surely this goes against Liberalism itself, as by not shaking hands with someone, you aren't infringing on their freedom or anything. At most, you are insulting them (not even that if you politely refuse and explain your reasons), which shouldn't be punishable by law.

Similarly, the whole girls' swimming lessons thing. A court ruling ordering girls to swim with boys? Ridiculous. Liberalism gone too far? Probably not, but it will certainly be perceived as such by conservative people.

Perhaps I am one of them - while I am not 'deeply conservative', I am religious. Living in the UK for the past two years, I can say that there are some cases where I believe the 'Liberal principles' go too far that I dislike even when it is applied here. e.g LGBT being normalised through schools.

I agree in a large part to your comments here. The failure of neoliberalism can't and shouldn't be attributed to liberal social policy, pluralism, secularism, multiculturalism. Ironically, those of our Pakistani friends that use this argument would be matching the rhetoric of western racists and nationalists, who use the exact same arguments. Far right movements across Europe and the US are busy right now blaming immigrants, muslims, other Europeans and any foreigners in general for the political and economic failures. So we agree on this point.

I also agree with your point that Pakistan has pseudo-liberals, kids who are liberal for the sake of being trendy, and that also liberalism in some cases can be used, like any ideology can, to undermine the very value it ascribes to itself. I would say this phenomenon is no different to extremists who attempt to speak in the name of Islam and Muslims, who use un-Islamic actions as a way of promoting Islam. Same goes for those who use illiberal actions to enforce liberalism. That includes for instance the Swiss example you give, and calls to ban the veil in France. And also, I have to admit that though I have no hate for, or any issue with LGBT people and what they do in their own lives, given my background, even I have innate reservations about as you said teaching it so openly in schools.

In the case of Pakistan, I have some disagreement, I truly believe that more liberalism as part of normal political discourse would be beneficial. If nothing else, I would argue that freedom of speech and expression (as far as it can be applied in Pakistan) is absolutely essential. If we don't have that freedom and discourse, to the answer the question of where Pakistanis ought to stand, can never even be discussed without stifling the debate.

One cannot doubt where the balance of power lies right now, the threat of coercion by liberals is far off and a fanciful notion in a country where blasphemers are still killed without due process of law or trail. Let's face it, Pakistan faces hardly any serious threat from pesky pro-West liberals right now, apart from any liberals verging on anti-state activity who I have no sympathy for. Whereas people who've abused religious conservatism and Islam in their un-Islamic practices have killed tens of thousands of our countrymen.

What Pakistan needs is a lot more than just a rerun of the usual liberal vs conservative bickering at a national level.
Pakistan's problems are characteristic of deep-seated issues with national identity. This is a fact that no Pakistani is comfortable with, indeed even I find it unsettling. Yet, we in Pakistan have not properly gone about building a national identity, or where we did following the partition, the foundations of that identity were shaken by the separation of East Pakistan. And we have not attempted to fill that void with development, education and then a national debate and self-discovery. What we have filled that void with is, and I regret to say this, we've filled it with the idea of a military state, a martial people, a vaguely Islamic state with an Islamic bomb. I'm sorry, but that is a flimsy form of national identity. And we'll continue to suffer from political turmoil, religious unrest, provincialism and other broad societal ills until we develop a proper sense of who we are. In my opinion, the most disastrous thing we could do now, is go back to a military dictatorship with some feigned loyalism to the Islamic republic, that would put us back to square one again.

I think an optimist can hope that with some form of accountability of our ruling class through an albeit flawed democracy, prolonged political stability, more development and education, and most importantly with free and open discourse, we can perhaps over time arrive at some stable image and being of Pakistan that will also settle the issue of rifts in society.

 

[TankMan]

I would say this phenomenon is no different to extremists who attempt to speak in the name of Islam and Muslims, who use un-Islamic actions as a way of promoting Islam. Same goes for those who use illiberal actions to enforce liberalism. That includes for instance the Swiss example you give, and calls to ban the veil in France.

Agreed 100%, you have said it better than I could.

In the case of Pakistan, I have some disagreement, I truly believe that more liberalism as part of normal political discourse would be beneficial. If nothing else, I would argue that freedom of speech and expression (as far as it can be applied in Pakistan) is absolutely essential. If we don't have that freedom and discourse, to the answer the question of where Pakistanis ought to stand, can never even be discussed without stifling the debate.

One cannot doubt where the balance of power lies right now, the threat of coercion by liberals is far off and a fanciful notion in a country where blasphemers are still killed without due process of law or trail. Let's face it, Pakistan faces hardly any serious threat from pesky pro-West liberals right now, apart from any liberals verging on anti-state activity who I have no sympathy for. Whereas people who've abused religious conservatism and Islam in their un-Islamic practices have killed tens of thousands of our countrymen.

I don't actually disagree with you here, we definitely need a better counter-narrative and stronger political opposition to extremists. We also need to have more open discussions on religion, especially in the form of more accessible Ijtihad and actual civil debates on Islamic matters. Currently, questioning any scholar, even on small points, leads to enmity with his followers (if not worse). This should not happen - Islam itself encourages open discussion and freedom of expression.

I just think we need to be careful to make sure we are not out of touch with the ground realities of Pakistan when we advocate for more Liberal politics, so as to avoid alienating common Pakistanis who are conservative and do not share our views.

I say this mainly because I do not like the idea of Pakistan being divided between an English-speaking elite class with Liberal views (which we already have to an extent) and a conservative, reactionary, deprived class. (ditto, sadly) I can see this inequality getting worse and worse, and when coupled with polarisation of political views, it can be disastrous.

A good way of introducing Liberal views to Pakistan, in my opinion, is by proving that Islam is much more open and flexible than molvis claim it is. That, if done carefully and gradually, can be extremely beneficial in that it will disarm the extremist narrative (which is based on Islam being extremely rigid) while at the same time introducing more liberal political discourse. Politics and Religion are undeniably intertwined in Pakistan and I don't believe trying to erect an imaginary wall between the two will change anything.

Of course, all this could end up being nothing but optimism on my part, leading to my violent demise. But I'd say its worth a try.

What Pakistan needs is a lot more than just a rerun of the usual liberal vs conservative bickering at a national level.
Pakistan's problems are characteristic of deep-seated issues with national identity. This is a fact that no Pakistani is comfortable with, indeed even I find it unsettling. Yet, we in Pakistan have not properly gone about building a national identity, or where we did following the partition, the foundations of that identity were shaken by the separation of East Pakistan. And we have not attempted to fill that void with development, education and then a national debate and self-discovery. What we have filled that void with is, and I regret to say this, we've filled it with the idea of a military state, a martial people, a vaguely Islamic state with an Islamic bomb. I'm sorry, but that is a flimsy form of national identity. And we'll continue to suffer from political turmoil, religious unrest, provincialism and other broad societal ills until we develop a proper sense of who we are. In my opinion, the most disastrous thing we could do now, is go back to a military dictatorship with some feigned loyalism to the Islamic republic, that would put us back to square one again.

Mostly agreed,

What really gets me is that we could have had a much stronger national identity. We had a foundation. We had the framework of Iman, Ittehad, Nazm, great thinkers like Iqbal, and a leader like Jinnah. All we had to do was try to follow those ideals. Now those powerful concepts have been reduced to mere hollow words.

Of course, setbacks are expected in the development of a nation. But we have been not only stagnant, but actually going backwards, for too long now.

Honestly, I do not share the same belief in Democracy as you, even though I would like to. Democracy is extremely easy to manipulate, especially with the level of illiteracy in Pakistan, and is extremely fragile. Even without foreign powers attempting to influence our politics, internal corruption is eviscerating the country.

If you look at history, almost every developed nation today was developed under a much more authoritarian system.
Britain only began electoral reforms in the 1830s, and became a proper Parliamentary system after the Parliament Act of 1911, and at this stage it was had been an industrialised superpower for two centuries. Germany industrialised when it was under the rule of the Kaiser and was a formidable power before it was defeated in WW1, and only then did democracy emerge. France had small periods of Democracy after the Revolution, followed by the rule of Napoleon and more Monarchy - it only became a Democracy in 1848, at which point it was a fully industrialised nation. China and Russia developed under 'Communism'. Even in smaller countries and the 'Asian tigers', countries like Singapore, which developed into economic powerhouse in under the rather authoritarian rule of Lee Kuan Yew.
It seems most countries developed first and became democratic later. The only exception to this to my knowledge is the USA, and their democracy is more of a two-party duopoly.

Now, please do not interpret this as me being in favour of dictatorship. I do not think anything good can come out of a military dictatorship either, and the last few we had have gotten us nowhere - even though there was growth under Ayub Khan, there was also devastating loss, and we still haven't recovered from Zia's misguided foreign and domestic policies.

Certainly our best course is to strengthen our institutions. What I'm saying is that we should tailor our system to our national needs. What we have now is too weak, too susceptible to corruption and bickering. Simply look at the discussions in our Parliament - while the country is knee-deep in problems, the politicians would rather waste time with personal taunts and hollow party-based rhetoric. Half the parliamentarians don't attend sessions. The prime minister spends more time and resources on taunting Imran Khan than he does on foreign policy.
They don't seem to take themselves seriously, never mind the system.

That's why the Army is much more respected within Pakistan - it is an institution that takes itself seriously.

----

A stronger anti-corruption system is needed, preferably under the judicial branch. Separation of powers needs to be enforced properly. Much stricter laws governing businesses and tax are needed. Most of the population doesn't pay taxes, especially those with power and influence. No wonder we don't have much of a budget.

All the funds being siphoned into offshore accounts need to be recovered or at least regulated. People need to start respecting the legal system, and that can only happen if the system is fair and enforces its authority. Law and order is essential even if we have to compromise on some freedoms to achieve it (slippery slope, I know).

The problem is - how? And when it comes to this I can not claim to know better than anyone else.

Apologies for the excessively long post.

May Allah guide us.

 

[Jungibaaz]

Well said, I agree on pretty much everything, I don't feel like I can add anything more to your comments above.
Although, I will just say, I am optimistic for Pakistan's sake. And my confidence even in its flawed democracy isn't because I'm unaware of its obvious imperfections, but I'm considering it's at least partial accountability to the people of Pakistan. And with that power in their hands lies the only hope for us, after all, what is a country except that which its people make it?

 

[niaz]

The problem stems from the fact that most people do not know nor care to know what liberalism is and what secularism is and what the difference between the two is.

The term ‘Liberals’ was first applied to the Whigs in the 19th century. UK Parliament was debating as to whether James, Duke of York should be excluded from the succession to the British throne because he was a Papist (Roman Catholic). The faction that wanted to exclude James was nicknamed a Whig (Horse thieve in the Scottish Gaelic). The faction that supported the birth right of Duke despite him being Roman Catholic was called Tory (A Papist Outlaw)

The Liberal Party was formed when the Whigs and the reformist section of the Tories (followers of Sir Robert Peel) and some radicals who championed the anti-monarchist ideas of the French &US revolution combined under William Gladstone. The Tories on the other hand wanted to maintain the status quo and therefore called Conservatives.

In my mind a “liberal” is not necessarily secular; he can be a Christian, a Hindu, Sikh and a practicing Muslim. Only that a liberal will be a reformist, believe in accommodation & persuasion rather than coercion and against discrimination on account of ethnicity, sect /religion and linguistic origin. To be a true liberal is not easy, in fact most ‘Liberals” are only part liberals as evident from the fact that the so called Liberal Party originated because they were against having a Catholic King.

Secularism /Secularist primarily imply segregation of the State & Religion. A secular is only neutral on religion; that there will be no discrimination on the basis of religion but a secular State can be as bad as an Islamic theocratic state when it comes to coercion. A prime example was Turkey under Ata Turk where even wearing of the Turkish cap (Fez) was banned and also the writing or broadcasting programs in the Kurdish language.

 

[Hamza913]

Being liberal is being irrational but with good intentions.