I wrote this after Dr.
Shakil Auj’s murder but forgot to post it:
My wife is a student at
Karachi University. What follows is a synopsis of our discussion after teachers
there went on strike due to Dr. Shakil Auj's murder (May Allah SWT grant him a
place in the highest level of Paradise). We were wondering when strikes are
morally okay (as in this case, the students suffered for no sin of their's) and
when they are effective (Was the desired end achieved?). I shall discuss the
latter only.
A few words about what
follows: a) For the sake of simplicity, I shall refer to those on strike as
strikers (in this case, the teachers) and those the strike is against as the
strikees (in this case, the government/KU administration) and b) My discussion
seeks to prove the following 2 statements:
1. A strike is
only effective when the service/product that is being removed by the strikers
has value
2. The strikers
can only be defeated when the strikees remove a service/product that the strikers
find of greater value than their own removed service/product.
Confused? Let's look at
an example.
From 1974-75, British
coal miners' union (National Union of Mineworkers) went on strike. The service
being pulled in this case was coal, an essential requirement for the British
populace, given oil's rising price after the 1973 crisis. Mines were shut down
and coal production came to a virtual standstill. The British government
instituted a 3 day work week with smaller working hours for the general public
to reduce coal consumption to contest the strike. They failed and the
government toppled.
From the above example,
we see that the strikes are essentially a test of stamina and the ability to
outlive the strikee. Both parties, the striker and strikee have reserves. The
strikers have reserves of salaries which they get via subscriptions from their
members so that they can pay the strikers when they are on strike. The
government has reserves of coal. So in the end, the side that wins is the one
whose reserves last longer. In 1974, the workers won. In 1984, the government
did. The object of value was coal, something the population could not do
without, leading to the government losing elections. But let's say the workers'
reserves finished. Why couldn't the strike continue? Because no matter what
principles one stands for, they all go down the drain when you're looking at
starvation or a change in lifestyle, especially for those who depend on you.
And those workers weren't exactly of the 1%. In 1984, the same NUM lost because
the strikes outlasted the strikers, and the service removed was their salaries,
something the strikers needed more than the government needed coal.
Often, our countrymen
plunge headlong into strikes without properly calculating the practical
consequences of their efforts. Let's look at political protests. When
protesting, what product/service of value are they pulling? I can think of 2:
the physical problems such as traffic caused by the protest and media coverage
making the government look bad in the eyes of the international community. Both
of these 2 types of value-pulling have not worked in the past because it
doesn't really affect our government. It has very little bearing on the outcome
of the next elections and 'the man' has no qualms about blocking roads for VIP
movement anyway. Also, media coverage is too intangible an object of value.
Will the media have the far-reaching effects strikers intend it to or does it
just look good on paper?
Some political parties
understood this and created what I term to be secondary services/products of
value, i.e. when you have nothing of value, you create it. An example of
secondary value is violence. Arming a political party to spread fear and using
it as leverage creates value. People listen to them because they fear for their
lives.
Now let's look at what
value a student at a university has for the administration. What leverage can
they garner when fighting for their rights? Unless said student is exceptional,
none. Unless they can get the university grants through some brilliant ideas of
theirs, the only object of value they have would be their fees. This works if
the university is new and they need all the money they can get. But KU's fees
are a joke and since it's an old established, economically feasible university,
they won't ever be lacking for applicants. The only value that remains is that
these students are future recruiters. They will go on to become leaders in
their fields, putting their alma maters in a good light. However, this is too
abstract and dicey a product of value. Besides, by the time these students go
on to do great things, administrations would likely have changed by then,
leaving the current administration no incentive to keep their students.
Understanding this, many students form parties/unions or join political parties
in school. This also explains campus violence.
Next I'll talk about
civil disobedience movements. Keeping the above paradigm in mind, I believe
civil disobedience will not work in today's world. Gandhi lived in a different
world from ours. His India was a rural India, i.e. relatively self sufficient.
Aside from modes of transportation and irrigation systems, what did the British
do for India that would make the locals dependent on Britain? On the other
hand, Britain needed fertile India's resources. Gandhi understood this and knew
civil disobedience would hurt Her Majesty's coffers more than India's. The
British government did not have a product/service of value that they could pull
to hurt the largely independent Indian man without jeopardizing their own
operation in India.
Fast forward to today.
Urbanization dominates the country. We are miles deep in debt to the world.
Globalization means we require Western products/services. Another intangible
yet significant product of value is Western culture. Remember, there is only one
Jessica Alba but many countries from where you can import cotton. Suddenly, the
dynamics have changed. Taking to the streets to protest foreign interference in
our country won't help much because frankly, my dear, we need 'em more than
they need us.
I think that if we keep
these few principles in mind, we as a nation can become wiser to when it's
practical to go on strike and when it's just an ill-thought emotional response
to injustice. Don't always strike while the iron is hot, or you may end up
striking out.
