5
WHEN Emperor Franz Josef was assured that Alfred Redl, an officer of the Austro-Hungarian army, was a true patriot, he asked in response, “But is he a patriot for me?” This anecdote was recounted over a decade ago by Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the British Labour party, when he was accused of disloyalty by then prime minister Tony Blair. He recalled the exchange to make the point that his loyalties lay with the Labour party and what it stood for, and not with Blair, the individual.
Emperor Josef’s words are now echoing in capitals the world over. Political loyalty is the obsession of authoritarians and the democratically inclined alike — but instead of calling for fealty on behalf of institutions, ideas or ideals, individuals are demanding loyalty for themselves.
The trend is exemplified — not surprisingly — by Donald Trump. Two months ago, he appointed a senior adviser to the State Department who has been investigating whether diplomats and American nationals employed at international institutions such as WHO are loyal to Trump and his political agenda. The adviser is reportedly trawling State Department staffers’ social media accounts to test their affinity for Trump’s agenda, and researching their track record to determine whether they signed off on policies during Barack Obama’s tenure. The witch hunt is driving senior bureaucrats out.
Politicians want those who support their positions unconditionally.
But the US is not the only place where demands for political loyalty are intensifying. In the UK, both the Tory and Labour leadership are recognising the limits of loyalty as they face revolts over how to manage the country’s withdrawal from the EU, the role of parliament in the process, and the strategy for managing a scenario in which an exit deal with the EU cannot be struck.
Closer to home, our political parties are convulsing under the pre-poll burden of betrayed loyalties as lotas defect willy-nilly and dynastic strands vie for intra-party supremacy. The need to entrench loyalties is provoking the kind of behaviour — for example, the recent furore around a temporary exemption from the Exit Control List for one of Imran Khan’s confidants — that, perversely, undermines the values that parties claim to represent.
The trend is clear. Political leaders are increasingly looking to be surrounded by people they trust and who will support their positions unconditionally. This suits our system of patronage politics, where power and resources are bestowed in exchange for loyalty.
But times are changing, and an obsession with political loyalty has no place in a democratic setup where the focus should be on policymaking and service delivery, where expertise and experience should matter more, and where the system itself offers solutions for how to negotiate differences in opinion.
The fact that an obsession with loyalty endures reflects the weaknesses of the political system. It underscores the lack of agreement about the higher principle that should inspire loyalty — the nation, its constitution, and its democratic manifestation. In this context, the emphasis on political loyalty is the result of an eroding interest in and capacity for debate and disagreement, compromise and constructive criticism. Everyone wants to be right, all the time, and wants political allies to have their back, in all circumstances. How can such a world work?
Of course, political leaders need trusted advisers. But they should not spend most of their time worrying about lapses in loyalty that result in defiance, contradictory public positions on an issue, information leaks or personal ambitions. Too much loyalty can be isolating; what, after all, is the dividing line between loyalty and sycophancy? When does the need to appear loyal become a form of censorship, fabrication of facts or information control?
Concerns about loyalty also breed paranoia. If a leader approaches her cabinet or party through the framework of loyalty, then all criticism, questioning or dissent ceases to be a mere difference of opinion and become instead attempts by opponents to undermine. Such paranoia shifts the focus from the system to the self, from service delivery to survival.
Governments work better if leaders have to earn loyalty through their actions, and, more importantly, by being able to advance a shared vision that inspires wide participation. Our political parties are gradually moving towards becoming more ideological, patronage dynamics aside. PTI: anti-corruption; PML-N: pro-democracy; MQM: pro-inclusivity; ANP: secular ethnonationalism; (the PPP offers an interesting conflation: loyalty to a dynasty that is linked to socialist ideals). But are they ready to allow the
loyalty they inspire to be directed to the ideas that they are associated with, and not the individuals who head them?
The transition from one form of political loyalty to the other will be another significant milestone in Pakistan’s slow, and ever-interrupted, democratic transition — and one we sadly cannot expect anytime soon.
The writer is a freelance journalist.
Twitter: @humayusuf
Published in Dawn, July 2nd, 2018
