By Motsim gurmani
The challenges being faced by humanity in twenty first century have reached to a level where it has become imperative to question the legitimacy of representation. Since the rise in popularity of idea of representative democracy during past 150 years the possible efficiency of it is not only ignored but glorified and without justification. The latest version of representative democracy is actually manifested in dominance, of representatives over represented. Although the criticism of this political signification is not a new arena in political discourse as it dates back to ancient eastern and western political thought drawing attraction to morally oppose all forms of dominance including the menace of representation.
Look, for instance, at the socioeconomic and political indicators of Pakistan . The view is quite abysmal. In a democracy the people from all backgrounds are supposed to be represented and not mere given the “right” to vote once in four or five years. Their representation, theoretically, means to signify their socioeconomic needs and political aspirations. Recent past and and contemporary realities tell us that these poor folks were either underrepresented or not represented at all .
However the post-culturalists do not bother to differentiate between signification and interpretation. The inclusion of burden “for speaking for others “ in democratic politics has not served the purpose so far in Pakistan and rest of the world.
In order to comprehend the degree of distortion just take the example of IMF, almost every leading Economist widely agrees on the coercive and anti poor conditionalities of IMF but the rulers of Pakistan find it as the only viable solution to offer . Does it make an ideal case for “representation” as the poor are not only being subjected to exploitation but this exploitation is presented as the only saviour at the moment.
And having killed a hundreds of thousand of people civilians and armed forces’ officials and keeping the policy of appeasement towards local offenders of the constitution and terrorist sympathisers at the same time is an abhorrent practice that refutes the idea of representation of those who want peace.
The decision of putting twenty two million children out of schools and not initiating the radical structural reforms is barely a symbol of representation of general public and their educational plights .
A country with the largest youth population does not have any comprehensive policy for their youth. No one represents them .
Persecution of women in form of domestic abuse, economic and educational constraints and political isolation with a bit of impotent legislation against their suppression expresses the truer face of representation.
Last but not least the ordinary workers and underemployed masses not only constitute the major portion of population but , ironically, have little to no say in financial policies of the country .
It is obvious that if these representatives cannot “stand for” the public in all times then the very notion of “speak for” becomes illegitimate.
Pauline Rosenau theorises that ,” representation can be understood in six forms ; delegation, replication, resemblance, repetition and duplication”. Although it is unclear that whether these six forms are types or aspects of representation.
Finally, this crisis of representation as being witnessed in modern world was initiated by economic and political upheavals of past. But this delusional obsession with Neoplatonically arranged political idea needs retrospection.
Offcourse the representatives who desanctified this idea of coexistence are unlikely to fight and eradicate it’s crises. The answer to “how shall humanity get rid of this hostile practice “ was given by Jean Francois as “ don’t you see that solution is still knowing, knowing better.”
