If Nietzsche’s Zarathustra came down from his mountain into Pakistan today, he would find plenty of people telling the country how to save itself. Politicians would promise a fresh start. Officials would ask for patience. Religious leaders would call for virtue. Economic managers would explain that the worst was behind us. He might reasonably wonder why a country with so many answers keeps returning to the same problems. Then he would ask the question we tend to avoid: what are those who demand change prepared to change in themselves?

The point is not that Pakistan should import Nietzsche’s philosophy wholesale. It is that his suspicion of inherited certainties can help expose a more local habit: demanding national renewal while protecting the private arrangements that make renewal difficult. Many of the assumptions held by Pakistan’s decision makers, especially within the bureaucracy and among those who exercise official power, are derived from a colonial past designed more for control than for public service. That legacy remains deeply embedded in how authority is imagined and used, and it is a large part of why progress remains so slow.

Nietzsche is an unlikely guide to Pakistan’s troubles, and invoking him is not meant to belittle Pakistani or Muslim philosophers whose own traditions have long wrestled with questions of justice, moral discipline, social responsibility and public order. The comparison is useful only because different thinkers, using different languages and images, often arrive at a similar warning: societies cannot improve by slogans alone. Unless the norms that govern everyday conduct begin to change, whatever improvements Pakistan makes in its political, social or economic life are likely to remain fragile, leaving the country to drift until the pressure becomes unmanageable. Given present circumstances, implosion is not an abstract fear; it is a plausible outcome if deeper habits remain untouched.

We do this whenever we defend an arrangement because it has always existed, accept a bad decision because of who made it, or excuse conduct in an ally that we would condemn in an opponent. Over time, these small accommodations become the way the country works. Pakistan has serious shortages of money, skills and public services. Yet money alone cannot close the gap between what we say we believe and what we are willing to surrender. We demand merit, then seek help with an appointment. We complain about privilege, then defend the concession that benefits our own sector. We want accountability, provided it begins somewhere else. This does not make every Pakistani a hypocrite. It means we have built systems in which doing the right thing can carry a penalty, while knowing the right person brings a reward. Appeals to better behaviour will have limited value if the rewards remain unchanged.

Many of the assumptions held by Pakistan’s decision makers, especially within the bureaucracy and among those who exercise official power, are derived from a colonial past designed more for control than for public service.

Many of the assumptions held by Pakistan’s decision makers, especially within the bureaucracy and among those who exercise official power, are derived from a colonial past designed more for control than for public service.

Nietzsche’s famous declaration that “God is dead” was about the weakening of religious authority in Europe. It does not describe Pakistan, where religion remains central to public life. Our difficulty is different. We speak readily about moral obligations but are much less consistent about honouring them when money or influence is involved. Faith gives many people the courage to serve others and stand against injustice. The difficulty begins when religious language, like patriotic language, becomes a shield against scrutiny rather than a source of ethical obligation. A citizen who asks why a policy failed should receive an answer, not a demand to prove his loyalty first. Nietzsche describes the spirit passing through three forms: a........

© The Friday Times