I thoroughly enjoyed our class session today. I believe a vigorous debate of ideas is crucial to help us understand other people's perspectives as well as better understand our own. I wanted to highlight a few points that linger in my mind from our discussion today.
The concept of justice itself is a nebulous one. If the state and its institutions cannot act to promote justice, is it better to have no system of justice at all or some form of local justice? And if we allow for a local form of justice, can we then allow for vigilantism? Can vigilantism provide for the public good (think Batman) when the state cannot be trusted or relied upon to provide justice? These are some of the open questions that remain unresolved from our debate today. None of these questions have easy or clear-cut answers.
The role of women in society is a complex and contested one. On the one hand, there is an embedded patriarchy that exists in our country's institutions, culture, and practices. But on the other hand, women are able to get an education, work, and have mandated quotas in public institutions. In spite of this, women still are not given equal rights in our society, or the opportunity to earn equal pay for equal work. But should the private sector also include quotas for women at the workplace? What if these quotas cut into a company's bottom line? Shouldn't private company's be able to hire the best and brightest?
So how can we address gender issues in both our own country and abroad? As someone pointed out in class today, only 24 of the C.E.O.'s of Fortune 500 companies are women, which adds evidence to the argument that women remain underrepresented in positions of authority in the West and that women's rights issues are a global concern. But if the state starts mandating that private sector companies hire more women, then the state gains power by providing a check on domestic industry. This will necessarily increase the size and scope of the state, which may not actually be all that good of a thing as can be seen by looking at states with massive power - like the U.S. - today. But then what is the solution? As with many of the other questions raised in this class, I don't know if there are any simple answers. But what I do know is that private businesses and individuals should be encouraged to hire and provide equal pay to qualified women.
Finally, how do we feel about permanent state institutions like the civil service, the police, or the military? Do our feelings towards these institutions change over time? Take the military for example. On the one hand, it has provided protection and security for the state. It is run in an effective, efficient, and meritocratic manner. But on the other hand, having ceded so much power over to the military, governments that come to power are unable to put a civilian stamp on security or foreign policy issues. Furthermore, the role of the military appears to be increasing in different segments of society. For example, with the growth of military courts to try alleged terrorists, this further consolidates power in the military. While defense and security are critical for any society and state to function, how much power should we appropriate the military? Should power be shifted back more towards civilian governments? Or should the military remain paramount since civilian governments have been notoriously corrupt and self-serving? Again, these are open-questions to think about and consider.
Finally, I want to end by directing you guys to a couple posts that have had a vibrant discussion.
On politicians:
http://pol100spring2015lums.blogspot.com/2015/02/our-elite-politicians-and-state.html
Here is a post that I referenced in class today that led to Rashna's astute comment about how funds are allocated in the state's budget:
http://pol100spring2015lums.blogspot.com/2015/02/session-4-state-as-it-exists-in-pakistan.html
And here is my follow-up that provided additional evidence about Pakistan's budget:
http://pol100spring2015lums.blogspot.com/2015/02/pakistans-budget.html
The concept of justice itself is a nebulous one. If the state and its institutions cannot act to promote justice, is it better to have no system of justice at all or some form of local justice? And if we allow for a local form of justice, can we then allow for vigilantism? Can vigilantism provide for the public good (think Batman) when the state cannot be trusted or relied upon to provide justice? These are some of the open questions that remain unresolved from our debate today. None of these questions have easy or clear-cut answers.
The role of women in society is a complex and contested one. On the one hand, there is an embedded patriarchy that exists in our country's institutions, culture, and practices. But on the other hand, women are able to get an education, work, and have mandated quotas in public institutions. In spite of this, women still are not given equal rights in our society, or the opportunity to earn equal pay for equal work. But should the private sector also include quotas for women at the workplace? What if these quotas cut into a company's bottom line? Shouldn't private company's be able to hire the best and brightest?
So how can we address gender issues in both our own country and abroad? As someone pointed out in class today, only 24 of the C.E.O.'s of Fortune 500 companies are women, which adds evidence to the argument that women remain underrepresented in positions of authority in the West and that women's rights issues are a global concern. But if the state starts mandating that private sector companies hire more women, then the state gains power by providing a check on domestic industry. This will necessarily increase the size and scope of the state, which may not actually be all that good of a thing as can be seen by looking at states with massive power - like the U.S. - today. But then what is the solution? As with many of the other questions raised in this class, I don't know if there are any simple answers. But what I do know is that private businesses and individuals should be encouraged to hire and provide equal pay to qualified women.
Finally, how do we feel about permanent state institutions like the civil service, the police, or the military? Do our feelings towards these institutions change over time? Take the military for example. On the one hand, it has provided protection and security for the state. It is run in an effective, efficient, and meritocratic manner. But on the other hand, having ceded so much power over to the military, governments that come to power are unable to put a civilian stamp on security or foreign policy issues. Furthermore, the role of the military appears to be increasing in different segments of society. For example, with the growth of military courts to try alleged terrorists, this further consolidates power in the military. While defense and security are critical for any society and state to function, how much power should we appropriate the military? Should power be shifted back more towards civilian governments? Or should the military remain paramount since civilian governments have been notoriously corrupt and self-serving? Again, these are open-questions to think about and consider.
Finally, I want to end by directing you guys to a couple posts that have had a vibrant discussion.
On politicians:
http://pol100spring2015lums.blogspot.com/2015/02/our-elite-politicians-and-state.html
Here is a post that I referenced in class today that led to Rashna's astute comment about how funds are allocated in the state's budget:
http://pol100spring2015lums.blogspot.com/2015/02/session-4-state-as-it-exists-in-pakistan.html
And here is my follow-up that provided additional evidence about Pakistan's budget:
http://pol100spring2015lums.blogspot.com/2015/02/pakistans-budget.html
2 comments:
Defence and security are crucial for our nation at this point in time, however establishment of military court gives unnecessary powers to the executive.
Giving such powers to the military has resulted in the encroachment on the judiciary by the executive.
Moreover, I don't understand the fact that how would an army general, who has no professional legal knowledge or expertise provide greater justice as compared to a judge who has years of experience in this field?
To follow-up on your point (see Rashna, I learned to use the correct terminology this time!), see this informative article from earlier this year: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2015/01/army-courts-try-pakistan-terror-suspects-2015110173646526791.html
Post a Comment