THE power of an image is immense. It can induce in one a sense of guilt or superiority. Here are two comments from a photography website that might explain the potentially manipulative nature of the image; how images play with individuals and, in many cases, with societies too. “Why do I look good in the mirror but bad in photos?” asks the first comment. And the second reads like this: “could a photo[graph] of a mirror act like a mirror?”

Narcissism can be traced easily in the first quote, but the second one is trickier. All humans have varying tendencies towards narcissism but, sometimes, it reaches a level where the distinction between a photograph and a mirror is blurred. But a photograph cannot act like or become a mirror.

This is neither too complex nor too philosophical to understand, provided we are aware of this tendency, in the context of public debates in Pakistan. Reflections of such debates can be seen in all forms of media, from electronic to print to social. Debates on the ‘image’ of the women, rights of non-Muslims and ‘lesser’ Muslims, socio-religious values, etc reflect anger and frustration regarding the ‘bad’ image or photograph. The same is happening on larger scales, on political and regional fronts. The people blame cameras or mirrors for distorting their image.

A blunt social scientist would call this condition an ‘immense collective narcissistic disorder’. Although there is no dearth of terms in the social sciences to describe such a condition, a combination of ‘social disorder’ and ‘social phobia’ may aptly serve the purpose. The urban dictionary defines ‘social disorder’ as “a condition of society that causes other disorderly and immoral things to occur”, including phenomena such as “negative peer pressure, traumatic experiences, social prejudices, and propaganda”. ‘Social phobia’ is defined as “a strong fear of being judged by others and of being embarrassed”. The latter partakes of the individual while the former of individuals acting as a society at large.

Consumed by narcissism, both state and society abdicate their responsibilities.

Political scientists tend to call this ‘social decay’, a situation “where people are generalised into a generic group called ‘strangers’ and the only time strangers interact with each other is when one stranger offers another stranger a service or something that the other stranger needs or wants”. Doesn’t this definition hold a mirror up to our society? Religiosity versus secularism, right wing versus liberal, pro-democracy versus pro-establishment, and other such debates can all be seen in this context.

In psychological terms, such conditions may cause depressive disorders that can compromise one’s sanity. As far as other impacts are concerned, a recent article published in Dawn revealed that Pakistan ranked 113th in the Social Progress Index (SPI) for 2016 — behind India and Bangladesh, which ranked 98th and 101st, respectively.

The writer also mentioned that Pakistan has practically the worst ranking for tolerance and inclusion — coming in second last place, 132nd out of 133 countries. In 2014, Pakistan was one of the most unpopular countries in the world according to the Good Country Index, coming in 111th place out of 163 countries; far from perfect in methodology that index mapping has stopped in subsequent years.

Let’s also have a look at the internal strength of our state and society, which appear without bulwarks and unable to pull the country out of its listing as one of the most fragile states in the current global scenario. Pakistan is ranked as the 14th most fragile state in 2016. Its position marginally improved — mainly because of worsening conditions in Syria and Yemen — which pushed Pakistan from 12th to 14th position.

The Fund for Peace, the organisation which issues the ranking of fragile states, uses six indicators to determine the status of fragile states: demographic pressures, group grievances, refugees and internally displaced people, human flight and brain drain, uneven economic development, and poverty and economic decline. It can be claimed that Pakistan is making headway in some areas, which may provide some cause for optimism.

All these factors have a cause and effect relationship with one another and form a vicious cycle. Even if one or two indicators show some progress it wouldn’t make much difference; other factors could ruin these gains. For instance, ‘group grievances’ includes all forms of violence — including violence on religious, sectarian and other minorities.

Statistically, Pakistan’s internal security situation has improved in the last few years, with a comparative decrease in the number of violent incidents. But discrimination and extremism on a societal level show no signs of abating. Sometimes, a vicious cycle that becomes so hard to break needs concerted and consolidated efforts, both from the state and society.

The Fragile States Index shows that two factors are important for states to improve their image: first, internal stability, followed by good relationships with neighbouring states. Internal stability does not come through eliminating incidents of crime and terrorism alone but by curtailing their root causes. These root causes are not only entrenched in state policies but are also deeply embedded in Pakistani society’s behaviour. The common person is under the impression that their extremist views are not abnormal, and the state also does not recognise this problem; both have developed a milieu where narcissism is a primary value.

Second, the nature of relationships with neighbours determines the economic potential, and the political and strategic stability of the state. Apparently, it seems paradoxical that Pakistan does not enjoy good relations with its three immediate neighbours — with whom it shares common civilisations and histories, and religious, cultural and social values. With China, however, Pakistan has evolved common economic and strategic interests, despite diverse cultures.

This contrasting nature of relationships with neighbouring states is not only a political or strategic question, it also reveals the quest of a nation attempting to establish an independent identity within other nations that share common characteristics. In this struggle, it is borrowing cultural influences out of its regional domains. Pakistan cannot become ‘Al-Bakistan’, but in this quest for an ‘image’ both state and society are falling deeper into delusions — goodness knows what we will find there.

The writer is a security analyst.

Published in Dawn, July 3rd, 2016