An interpersonal relationship is a strong, deep, or close association or acquaintance between two or more people that may range in duration from brief to enduring. The context can vary from kinship to friendship, marriage, association, work, neighbourhood and a common place of worship.

Interpersonal relationships vary in their degree of intimacy and self-disclosure as well as in their duration, in their reciprocity and in their power distribution, to name only a few dimensions. Relationships may be regulated by law, custom, or mutual agreement, and form the basis of social groups and of society as a whole. Such association may be based on inference, love, solidarity, support, regular business interactions, or some other type of social connection or commitment.

Eric Fromm once said, “Authority is not a quality one person has, in the sense that he has property or physical qualities. Authority refers to an interpersonal relation in which one person looks upon another as somebody superior to him. Interpersonal relationships thrive through equitable and reciprocal compromise they form in the context of social, cultural and other influences.” Here I want to underscore “reciprocal compromise” in terms of the socio-political setting of Pakistan.

When it comes to pinpointing the major irritant in the smooth functioning of democracy, the interpersonal relationship contingent on reciprocal compromise between various individuals or groups of individuals holds the key. Reciprocal compromise is usually defined in various disciplines of social sciences as “a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims and principles, etc, by reciprocal modification of demands”.

A superficial reading of the definition cannot capture its complexity. Therefore, it appears quite benign. However, if read closely, “a settlement of differences by mutual concessions” affords so much flexibility or space for manipulation that adherence to the principles, ideological conviction or belief in good and evil are reduced to mere semantics. Reciprocal compromise validates the politics of patronage that Pakistani polity is finding it difficult to transcend from. Besides, with businessmen entering the realm of politics, even human has been up for trade.

Politics of principles predicated on any ideology hardly holds any value. That engenders a state of anarchy where the interest of the individual gets precedence over the well-being of the collective.

In such a scenario, political loyalties are bought and sold. As a consequence, power politics has been relegated to the status of merchandise. The monetisation of politics has bred opportunism. But for the last forty years, the “reciprocal compromise” variable has played out with impunity. Its impact is resonating even in the corridors of state institutions.

But when relationship based on reciprocal compromise are employed to advance vested interests at the expense of state institutions and the destiny of the people at large, it is an anathema that causes the ship of the state to sink. Personal favours and monetary benefits outweigh principles, law and the regulatory framework that is meant to give hope to the poor and the dispossessed.

In politics, electoral or otherwise, one cannot accept reciprocal compromise. When compromises of such sorts creep into the institutions representing the state - like the civil service or judiciary, which are meant to rein in the over-exuberance of the political elite that comes into power through the electoral process - the polity is eroded from within. The state institutions lose their impartiality and start serving the interests of the powerful/wealthy families and individuals. It is in such circumstances that mafias are formed and state officials become their active members. Thus, when the line of demarcation between the government and the state becomes blurred beyond recognition, the reconnaissance and monitoring process that the state apparatus is supposed to discharge in an impartial manner, strictly in accordance with law, is undermined.

Talking in simpler terms and strictly in the context of Pakistan, the peril gets compounded when people in state institutions are drawn into the net of reciprocal compromise. The legitimacy of those institutions then becomes questionable and people stop showing due deference to these institutions.

Several African states have met the fate. Unfortunately, one can name quite a few people in high places now and recently that fit the description.

Reciprocal compromise binds baradari networks that are woven into a social force and then transformed into political capital. These networks have been of pivotal importance in steering the ship of Pakistani politics for several decades. The 1985 party-less elections were a watershed in this regard. The exercise increased the biradari’s importance substantially. It came to a pass because the political idealism/ideology had been suppressed. In such a web of relations, the will of the individual is not considered worthwhile. Politics of principles predicated on an ideology hardly holds any value. This engenders a state of anarchy where the interest of the individual gets precedence over the well-being of the collective. Corruption and pilferage don’t stir any concern or cause consternation among the majority, including the intelligentsia. Such a state is symptomatic of depravity and decline not only of the state and its subsidiary institutions but the societal relations as well.

A society is formed through a complicated process in which customs and conventions predicated on the mutuality of relationship and the common experience gain through the process of history. Therefore, social formation and its subsequent evolution cannot be reduced to just the money factor. Ideas beyond material interests hold more significance.

What is really appalling in the case of Pakistan is that a realisation of the adverse effects that extreme materiality casts on the society exists but that realisation has not resulted in collective action. The discrepancy between locution and practice constitutes the fundamental problem plaguing us.

The writer is Professor in the faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore