It says much about the dynamics of power in this country that 60 years after the country’s creation, the so-called ’steel frame’ of the British Raj continues to be the predominant actor in politics. There is no question that of the two permanent institutions of the state, namely the military and the civil bureaucracy, the former has established itself as the senior partner, although it was the bureaucracy that was initially ascendant following partition. The reasons for the remarkable resilience of what Hamza Alavi very aptly termed the military-bureaucratic oligarchy are many, most relating to the national security imperative that has obsessed Pakistanis since 1947.

While on the one hand the oligarchic system of power has remained largely unchanged, social change has reconfigured Pakistani society so much that it hardly resembles what it was 60 years ago. It is perhaps stating the obvious that with modernization of society has come a realignment of social forces, including the emergence of entirely new contenders for social and political power.

Factors such as migration have dramatically impacted the culture, economics and politics of entire regions, while consumer-oriented technology has changed the meaning of time and space.
Thus there is a complete disjunct between a state completely averse to change and a society that has undergone immense upheaval. There is little doubt that the major traumas to which the polity has been subjected to have been caused by the unwillingness of the oligarchy (and those social forces that have variously supported it) to relinquish some of its power. The secession of East Pakistan was the most obvious and painful example of the state’s intransigence.

No one could have predicted that General Musharraf’s firing of the chief justice would trigger not only a substantive challenge to the ruling military regime, but would also precipitate a strong and growing demand from a wide array of social and political circles for the complete withdrawal of the military from the political sphere. For arguably the very first time in Pakistan’s history there is widespread recognition that the ’steel frame’, and the military in particular, is not part of the solution but part of the problem.

And the government, by engaging in typically obsolete methods of controlling dissent, is digging its own grave. Take for example the revelations of the omnipotent intelligence agencies that a plot is being hatched by anti-state elements, under the direction and with the material support of an enemy neighbouring country, to undermine the army under the backdrop of the current standoff over the chief justice’s suspension. In this day and age, in spite of all of the jingoism that has been drummed up by unrepresentative ruling classes around the world under the pretext of ‘fighting terrorism’, such rhetoric simply invites ridicule.

Needless to say the government’s insistence on asserting the infallibility of the military reflects its desperation in the face of widespread censure from a diverse range of social and political forces. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Mohammad Ali Durrani and more recently General Musharraf have gone on record to warn against polemic that maligns the military, issuing barely veiled threats that the instigators of such polemic can and will be tried for high treason.

Clearly the mantra ‘desperate times call for desperate measures’ is operative. The launching of a long overdue book published by Ayesha Siddiqa detailing how the military has built a vast corporate empire on the back of its domination of state affairs was disrupted by ‘unknown sources’ that prohibited all public establishments in Islamabad from hosting the event. Not for the first time, what was probably conceived of by the political strategists of the regime as a masterstroke in intimidating dissenters turned into a public relations disaster. The attempts to censure what is undoubtedly a sensitive publication for the military simply raised its profile.

The state has been using strong-arm tactics to sustain its project of self-aggrandizement since its very inception, having inherited this legacy from its colonial predecessor.

But it is now considerably more difficult to get away with hyperbole, jingoistic rhetoric and straight-up coercion than it was when the British could invoke the ‘white man’s burden’ or even when Zia could invoke Islam. This does not mean that the state will not continue to try to repress dissent, but only that there is a qualitative difference in how this repression is projected and received.

Ultimately however, what is true is that 60 years of oligarchic rule has left political forces in a huge abyss. Most notably the military has successfully propagated its contempt of politics amongst much of the elite. It is perhaps not surprising that big business likes this military regime — and all those that have come before it — because ultimately capitalists’ interests are best served by a government that does not need to temper the accumulation of capital with concessions to the people. However, the true reflection of oligarchic hegemony is in the intelligentsia’s pandering to the colonial adage that apolitical administration is what makes a prosperous polity.

Of course the ’steel frame’ has never been apolitical, although it has always depicted itself as the antithesis of ‘inept’ politicians. The oligarchy’s 60-year-old state project has been an intensely political one, and still is today. And this is becoming increasingly clear to an increasingly large number of people.

This is why General Musharraf’s claims that the military is not involved in governance and is already in the barracks are simply exacerbating the crisis of legitimacy that his government is currently encountering. Similarly when generals claim that they have a right to acquire lands and make millions, they are testing the patience of a people already sick and tired of proclamations that are based on the simple logic of ‘might is right’.

In the final analysis, the utterly obsolete oligarchic system of power that prevails in Pakistan will have to go if this country is to survive. As much as the present regime insists otherwise, the cacophony of forces demanding change is representative of a wide cross-section of society.

By continuing to publicly dismiss the protests as the handiwork of ‘anti-state elements’, the regime is doing nothing more than alienating itself even more than it already is. Indeed the oligarchy itself is now in danger, and as is so often the case with a wounded ego, it is likely to continue holding on to its legacy of domination until the bitter end.

From The News

Related posts:

1. The Democracy Killers - Aasim Sajjad Akhtar The presidential referendum in Pakistan has come and gone. As...

1 Comment

• 

  By George Maciver, 4 June, 2007 @ 1:58 pm

  A private who loses a rifle suffers far greater consequences than a general who loses a war.

  [I]Lt. Col. Paul Yingling[/I]

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.