It is not just signs and symbols of the state that we have to negotiate with in our daily social life. There are a number of non-official signs/symbols that have assumed the status of virtual authority, imperceptibly impacting our conduct in public and private spheres. Since the state in its dealings with the public exhibits its predatory nature, all those who are likely to share some measure of power with the state authorities (bureaucracy both civil and military) have evolved their own symbolism that points to their seemingly umbilical links with power structure, setting them apart from the people who are thought to be subjects rather than citizens.
Look at our politician whether in power or out of power. He invariably wears laundered ‘shalwaar qameez’ (long and loose shirt and baggy trousers of Turkish/Kurdish origins) with a slick waistcoat whenever he appears in public life. Waistcoat is a trademark of our politician. The politician with his shalwar qameez creates a semblance of connectedness with the people and with his waistcoat he distinguishes himself from them. The former apparently establishes his credentials as a commoner and the latter stamps him as someone especially who can represent the commoners.
The former and the latter both are deceptive in the sense that they actually reveal what they intend to hide. What the symbolism is designed to hide is an unpalatable political fact that our politician with all his trappings is neither a commoner nor a representative of the commoners.
The symbolism sends two different signals to both the establishment that wields power without any check and the people who are powerless. It seemingly assures the public that politician is from the people and their equal but at the same time it attempts to persuade them that he is more than equal. Hence the right to represent them. To the establishment it sends a message loud and clear that being accepted by the people as their representative, he cannot be denied a share in power.
Once the politician manipulates his entry into the corridors of power, the veneer comes off and he is no longer seen by the people as their representative for what he represents. He is a sort of political leader who can manage to rouse and pacify the rabble as and when required by the exigencies of power struggle. Precisely for this quality of his he is accepted as a representative by the establishment which knows fully well that he being not genuine voice of the people can be manipulated with ease.
Content with a few crumbs, the gentleman in waistcoat becomes a handy tool for the establishment in its devious dealings with the people he is supposed to represent.
In an extremely insecure society that we are, almost all consciously and unconsciously rely on the display and use of power which seem to provide a modicum of security needed in day today life. It appears to be a universal malady which has come to be employed as a weapon of defence and aggression. Power as a social sign has been honed into an art that stinks of inner rottenness of social norms born of a value system gone horribly wrong. Strangely those who seem to be more secure like members of parliament, use this weapon more blatantly, betraying a pathological sense of insecurity.
Vehicles carrying plates in addition to registration number plates with MNA and MPA written in bold are frequently seen on the roads. Silent message to all in popular lingo is ‘touch me not’ as if sign of public representation gives the politician authority to make as well as break the law.
The story does not end here. The virus, it seems, is uncontrollable. It has spread to other sections of society which have not been traditionally an essential part of pyramid of power like journalists and lawyers. They too, though not all, love to flaunt the power of the signs and symbols that emanate from their professions. They go displaying the signs of their organisations and chambers, secure in their belief that they will act as an effective safeguard against any mischief in social life.
Even the language is used as a sign of power. Seemingly a well-groomed gentleman or a lady when stopped by traffic warden or confronted by a commoner in an argument would invariably switch to English, a sign of upper-class status, creating a ring of security around himself/ herself that is now a hallmark of the touch me nots.
The use of signs and symbols in its implications is a complex phenomenon. It plays the role of a silent dictator. It, without so much verbal expression, invisibly coerces the people psychologically to accept what is not acceptable and not to reject what is rejectable. What is not acceptable is the right of a person to appropriate means however innocuous they may appear that through implied threat of coercion or intimidation create a space physical or mental where he is placed above law and is indifferent to the civilised societal norms. The internalisation of fetishism of authority however symbolic it may appear, born of historically conditioned mass psyche, makes the unacceptable acceptable for the people. And what is rejectable and is not rejected is self-denial, the genuflecting to the gods who scare the ordinary mortals with the signs and symbols of being invincible and hence not to be questioned or argued with. So signs and symbols are much more than lines and shapes. They are in fact complex symbolic rings of power structure, religious and secular, designed on the one hand to convey to the people the force of authority and on the other hand to conceal the reality of insidious use of it in pursuit of personal power. —
soofi01@hotmail.com