The Pakistani Spectator

With your very important elections just around the corner, this is not a time for one of my dry, six-page ruminations on political theory. It is also clearly not a time for unsolicited, specific advice on your election choices from an American; you know best your own political choices. I thought I’d venture something short and ultimately optimistic, though.

I see that political conspiracy theories are as popular in Pakistan as they are in America, and possibly more so. Looking at the big picture, where any given major event has multiple, contradictory conspiracy-based theories floating around, as well as at least one plausible explanation that hasn’t got a conspiracy behind it, I hope you will agree that most of these theories must be simply wrong (since they don’t even agree with each other), however much they may appeal because they place guilt with whomever or whatever we most would like to blame for all ills. I have some tests that I like, when considering whether a conspiracy-based theory deserves attention:

1. Are the “facts” cited as evidence for the conspiracy truly surprising? Any given major event, an election, an assassination, or a disaster (such as 9/11), for example, will have millions of associated observations, bits of evidence left over afterwards, witness statements, facts about who owned what, who arranged what, who knew whom, coincidences about where people were and when they were there, et cetera. Among these millions of facts there are bound to be combinations of facts that are somewhat surprising and hard to explain, facts that, considered apart from all the rest of the picture, would raise suspicion against the mainstream explanation proposed for the event. Given the sheer number of facts, this is inevitable, even if the real explanation behind the event is completely innocent, or if it simply points to the culprit seen by the mainstream explanation (bin Laden, for example, as the obvious culprit behind 9/11). Surprising facts that deserve extra weight should rise beyond just the normal coincidences that we should expect when considering millions of facts bound to be floating around after such an event.
2. Are the “facts” cited even true? Among the statements that follow a major event there are bound to be thousands of mistakes, and thousands of lies. People will inevitably see opportunities to cause trouble or blame for whomever they would like to bring down, likely someone or some group in power.
3. Do the explanations make physical sense? A popular conspiracy theory in the US cites high temperature readings taken of a burning building days after the disaster as “proof” that pre-placed explosives were behind the disaster. From my old chemical engineering education, I understand the physics behind this particular problem; high-temperature heat, in cool surroundings, dissipates rapidly, in hours at the very most, so very high temperatures observed days after the event were undoubtedly a result of material that was burning at that time, not the result of any hypothetical explosives that were expended within moments of the event! Conspiracy theorists, however, do not need to submit a scholarly paper to an engineering journal, for review by qualified engineers, before they can state that “A” “proves” “B” – they just make the bald statement, and it looks like proof to the mainly non-technical readers.
4. Does the explanation make human sense? The question of physics behind events may require specialized knowledge, but we are all well-qualified to consider this question. Most conspiracy theories place blame on one or more rich and powerful individuals. Such individuals obviously have much to lose if they should lose their positions of wealth and power by taking part in a criminal conspiracy. Do their supposed actions make human sense? If the supposed action was spontaneous, like some rich fellow killing his wife in a fit of passionate anger, perhaps the explanation is plausible. If the supposed action was a conspiracy to hold power that came only as a result of earlier criminal behavior, the explanation might make human sense, if this was the only way to hold power and escape responsibility for the earlier crimes, but if the individual concerned is practical-minded (however evil), could he have found a simpler, lower-risk way to hold power? If, on the other hand, the powerful person concerned reached his position of power safely, will he risk everything for whatever abstract gains the successful conspiracy would supposedly bring? If he must conspire with others to achieve the supposedly-desired result, will they also risk everything they have to achieve the result? Can they trust each other to work together and to keep the secret? (I don’t know about Pakistan, but the US government has a terrible record of keeping big, embarrassing secrets, if more than about three people know the secret – somewhere in the group there is bound to be someone who decides he or she has more to gain by telling the secret than by keeping it, or who just slips!) The bottom line is this; a good explanation should resolve more mysteries than it creates, considering both physical mysteries and human mysteries, and this is rarely the case for popular conspiracy theories!

Here is a useful question to ask: “Who wrote this script?” If all the people who had to cooperate to bring about the conspiracy would look at the script of events that followed the conspiracy, and would be happy with the events that followed, and satisfied that those events were worth the risk, then the conspiracy theory may make sense. If the script is not “playing out” in a way that all the supposed conspirators will find pleasing, then either the theory makes no sense, or the conspirators were fools, who took a risk to achieve something against their interests.

There are many contradictory theories floating around about the tragic events that have preceded your coming election. I know nothing of the facts behind these events, so I will not venture to speculate which one of these theories, if any, is true. I would venture an opinion about how the “script” has “played out”; passions are inflamed for the coming elections. Violent chaos is one very regrettable possible outcome, and I fervently hope that Pakistan escapes that outcome, although there are forces, forces who do not currently hold power, who might find that outcome to be a pleasing opportunity. The powers that be, both inside your government, and in major outside government powers, surely do not wish this outcome, however. A relatively peaceful shift toward new and better government is another, more pleasing possibility. If these possibilities would both be seen as unpleasant risks by whomever you suspect of being behind the events of this election, then either your theory is wrong, or the conspirators utterly failed to understand how their own script would play out. Either way, I propose a thought: whoever may have tried to influence events with criminal acts, the script, now, is no longer under the control of any conspirators. The script, now, is in the control of the people of Pakistan, who have in this election a unique opportunity to peacefully demonstrate their inflamed will for better government, for freedom and for orderly rule of democratic law. Even if you believe that the election will not be honestly run, the act of voting in large numbers is itself a demonstration of your will, a demonstration that will inconvenience anyone attempting to rig the election. The script is yours, now, and please accept my fervent wishes for a peaceful outcome that you find favorable to your own choice and desires.