WHAT is a core human value? It`s freedom, says Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, the economist who, in his book The Road to Freedom, pleads for an economic and political system based on equity, justice and well-being. The concept of freedom articulated by US president Franklin Roosevelt revolved around four pillars: 1) freedom of speech and expression; 2) freedom of belief or faith; 3) freedom from want; and 4) freedom from fear. `A person facing extremes of want and fear is not free,` says Stiglitz, echoing Oxford philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who said that `freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep`.

Economic and political freedoms have deep connections. Can a nation have one set of rights without the other? Unfortunately, we in Pakistan have lost the core value of freedom. Extremes of want and fear haunt us daily. The wolves (the elite corporate sector, real estate tycoons, feudal class) have gained `freedom` at the expense of the sheep (workers, the salaried class and the poverty-stricken masses). Financial debt traps and dependence on foreign loans have created an atmosphere of slavish adherence. The current environment is akin to a jungle in which only power matters, determining `who gets what and who does what`. We have been reduced to a nation of bootlickers.

`The death of human empathy is one of the earliest and most telling signs of a culture about to fall into barbarism,` said Hannah Arendt, the German-born American historian, philosopher, political theorist and social critic. The dearth of empathy is evident in our present ruling elite.

Subservient to the forces of tyranny, we are treading the path to serfdom. Will we ever get on the road to freedom that leads to the republican values of equity, justice, rule of law, and collective well-being? The elite`s hegemony must be broken. For that, we must ask what kind of economic, political and social system will contribute to the freedom of most citizens. As Cicero said some 2,000 years ago, `We are slaves of the law so that wemay be able to be free.` Thomas Jefferson, the US founding father who drafted the Declaration of Independence, said: `The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalised version of the first.

However, `modern society, governments and freedom need not be at odds,` says Stiglitz, provided the rulers abandon the authoritarian tendencies that breed despotism and persecution in the body politic. This is our key challenge today, as we ask how tolerant we should be of those who are intolerant and tyrannical. One option is extreme, leading to revolt and violence; we must nottread that path.The sanercourseisforstate institutions to admit their mistakes and undertake serious introspection in the largerinterest of the nation, and to rise above narrow self-interest for steering the ship of state out of turbulent waters. This involves changing mindsets.

The military establishment has ruled Pakistan directly or indirectly since the abrogation of our first constitution (1956). Four army chiefs ruled directly by either imposing martial law, suspending the constitution, or becoming either president or chief executive. Most other army chiefs have been de facto rulers under the façade of democratic dispensations. Four political leaders who tried to assert civilian supremacy met with an adverse fate. One was hanged in a murder case. Two other heads of political parties were sacked one after the other without completion of parliament`s tenure in the 1990s. The fourth one, brought to power by the establishment to replace two political dynasties, was shown the door through a vote of no-confidence.

The first went to the gallows, the second chose exile over incarceration, the third was assassinated, and the fourth, after surviving an assassination attempt, is in prison under frivolous charges.

A troika of power brokers has always called the shots by manipulating constitutional provisions. Initially, it was the president, prime minis-ter and army chief under Article 58(2)(b) of the 1973 Constitution. Later, the president lost his clout with the repeal of the draconian clause.

Then emerged the new troika of prime minister, army chief and chief justice. The shenanigans continue to this day, with the military establishment and deep state involved in political engineering. Political tussles end up in courts and judicial verdicts decide the fate of political leaders.

Such a messy state of affairs cannot be sustained for long. The military is a strong national institution. It comprises mostly disciplined and professional rank and file exuding patriotic fervour, with officers and their men willing to sacrifice their lives for the security and sovereignty of their homeland. They are waging a heroic battle against militants and violent extremists who want to unravel the state. We salute them for their courage and sacrifices. But when officers of the armed forces and intelligence agencies indulge in political engineering, they lose the public`s respect, and the compact between state and society comes under serious threat. This is where our state and society find themselves currently. The nation looks up to its protectors and defenders, and expects them to abide by their oath, rise above narrow self-interest, and assist in nation-building in these trying times.

The only way forward is to embark upon course correction for the sake of equity, justice and the collective well-being of citizens. Can our leaders ponder over George Washington`s words to Alexander Hamilton: `I hope I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain (what I consider the most enviable of all titles) the character of an honest man`? We, the people, demand nothing but honesty and fairness from those leading our armed forces, intelligence agencies, judiciary, bureaucracy and police services. Is it asking too much, or shall we echo the Virginian Patrick Henry`s cry, `Give me liberty, or give me death`? • The wnter is a former inspector general of police.