People in the know will often read the term “The Establishment” being used by senior writers and Politicians in Pakistan when discussing goings on…
Pakistan’s “Establishment” is an interesting structure..I liked Stephen Cohens explanation of it..
*The military is only one (albeit the most important) component of the wider “establishment” that runs Pakistan. Cohen calls this establishment a “moderate oligarchy” and defines it as “an informal political system that [ties] together the senior ranks of the military, the civil service, key members of the judiciary, and other elites.” Membership in this oligarchy, Cohen contends, requires adherence to a common set of beliefs: that India must be countered at every turn; that nuclear weapons have endowed Pakistan with security and status; that the fight for Kashmir is unfinished business from the time of partition; that large-scale social reforms such as land redistribution are unacceptable; that the uneducated and illiterate masses deserve only contempt; that vociferous Muslim nationalism is desirable but true Islamism is not; and that Washington is to be despised but fully taken advantage of. Underlying these “core principles,” one might add, is a willingness to serve power at any cost. * Stephen Cohen
The reality I believe is these people are the real masters of Pakistan ..with the occassional civilian ally thrown in to add some legitimacy..
Anyway I’m open for discussion on the topic..feel free to say whether you agree or disagree..and why you agree or disagree..
Yup...sure have FG..I found it simplistic and flawed in certain respects but a well researched read..(it felt like a policy paper for US foreign policy as well)
[QUOTE]
An informal political system that [ties] together the senior ranks of the military, the civil service, key members of the judiciary, and other elites.
[/QUOTE]
With all the democracy shamocracy this is the group, which is protected and served in Pakistan. In the past few decades the leadership is consumed with just feeding this "Establishment" and the wealth never ever trickles down to the ever non existing middle class of Pakistan. If you look at the "feeding" frenzy going on in Pakistan you will realize that people will do anything to join this "establishment" hence the corruption and lawlessness.
For the current leadership it will take another few years to just satisfy the appetite of the establishment, may me after that the leadership will just start looking at the people of Pakistan, by then we will have a new leadership and the whole vicious circle will start again.
I have just completed reading "The Idea of Pakistan" and I felt it was a very worthy attempt. Coming from a man who has had access to the Pakistani establishment like few other Westerners, it presents a grim picture.
^ I disagree about the grim picture..also many of it's observations have been overtaken by events..and the authors preference for the PPP does come across as quite obvious..
Did you read the chapter on the demographic and economic trends? BTW, for years Cohen has been known in the US as a voice of the Pak military establishment. It is only in his twilight years that he has moved towards the civil society part of Pak.
^^ True, but what he is saying is that over the past few years, the military has slowly pushed out any non-landed civil elements that used to be around. Now you have a military-feudal face to the establishemtn where it is hard to tell where the military ends and where the feudals begin.
Pakistan lacks those elements that constitute a civil society right now..the District government system was a good start but it's turned into an Ayub khan form of bypassing political groups. Pakistan right now lacks any proper student union elections or trade unions ..which would allow the growth of alternative power centres..
The negatives Talwar you are picking up on..have ben around for ages..but consider this ..one way of oppression is througha huge State Run System..that no longer applies as privatisation increases State Owned Enterprises are being sold of and the size of the federal government is falling..even a semi peace with India which addresses security concerns and a working relationship with the Afghan government deprives the raison d'etre of the establishment...that is fear of being destroyed by hostile neighbours..
Hi Zakk,
Read this book sometime back, so little rusty but here goes. Allow me to digress from your statement for just a while cause it defines the inherent problem.
His explanation of how the idea of Pakistan evolved was informative yet brief and touched upon issues which have been completely ostracized from our general discussions. For example, initial concept of Muslim nationhood included areas of UP, Bihar, Hyderabad Deccan and was called Osmanibad. Since most of the working/active All India Muslim League leadership belonged to areas which did not become part of Pakistan, they were forced to find new political constituencies, new alliances were formed and new ‘Ideas’ were discussed. Similalrly, political leaders of Punjab, Sindh and Frontier were suddenly faced with a concept which they were not prepared nor were they very willing to accomodate. It was in this environment where politicians evaded constitutional reforms, compromises were made with the religious right (Objective Resolution of Pakistan), Muslim Leaguer’s lost ground to nationalists and the newly established poltical leadership started its long road of upheavels, political gimmickry, compromises, deceptions and experiments.
One extremely important aspect of our political history which was not touched upon by SC was the role of US and the fight against communists/leftists. Since Pakistan depended upon US aid and military assistance, there was definite pressure to accomodate American interests. Indonesia is another example where Sukharno’s government was toppled by the military and purge or mass murder of leftist/nationalists/communists left 500,000+ dead. Result of such policies targets political parties with leftist/communists/nationalist leanings and then impacts trade, farmer and student unions. End result is in front of us, a state totally dependent upon its establishment i.e., military+beuracracy+feudals+clergy. People ask why India has such a success story, politically speaking. Answer is very simple, they maintained their political diversity. Communists have for ever ruled in the South and Bengal, Congress which started as a secular party has been able to provide India with the politcal leadership and cadre to carry on a political process in its true spirit. When you have freedom of expression, political diversity, tolerance and room for new ideas to emerge and evolve that is the road how civil socieities are formed, through the interaction of citizens with a stake in the system trying to form shock absorbers and creators ofnew ideas. Pakistan’s failure lies in its inability to promote freedom of expression, diversity of ideas and most importantly establishments misconception that national ethos can be manufactured and imposed. Cohen deals in detail as to how the establishment in different eras collaborated with political leaders, religious parties (JI, JUI), judiciary in their pursuite of imposing a cultural ethos as defined by this select group of leaders or interest groups.
Until policies and visions are defined by the state’s security concerns, we will continue to have ideas manufactured and imposed.
[QUOTE]
The reality I believe is these people are the real masters of Pakistan ..with the occassional civilian ally thrown in to add some legitimacy..
[/QUOTE]
Hehe. But you are correct. Military rule is basically an extension of 'Jageerdari Nizam'. And since caste system still holds Pakistan firmly in thrall, power will mostly be held by people related to the inter-connected ring of prominent families in one way or the other.
My two pence, well written comments..I am not sure what you mean by “states security concerns” the Pak establishments philosophy is one of an obsession with states security concerns and what is called “idealogical borders”. This is the result of the peculiar events around partition..specifically as far as Punjab and the Urdu speaking community is concerned.
To have an understanding of the establishments real role..one has to look through the names of Governor Generals and Presidents of Pakistan ( Minus Jinnah and Khawaja Nazimuddin) you have:
Ghulam Muhammad (Civil Servant, dismissed the first government)
Iskandier Mirza (Civil Servant and Army background)
Ayub Khan (Commander in Chief, also served in the dual role as Defence Minister)
Yahya Khan (C in C)
Zulfiqar Bhutto CMLA (exception to the rule as the Establishment was in disarray after 1971)
Chaudhry Fazal Elahi (ZAB appointee, was a rubber stamp)
Zia ul Haq Army General
Ghulam Ishaq Khan ( civil servant)
Farooq Leghari (former CSS officer and tumandar of the Leghari tribe)
Rafiq Tarrar (Supreme Court Justice claim to fame voted for Nawaz Sharifs government to be restored, close friend of Nawaz Sharifs father)
Pervaiz Musharraf (I don’t think I need to add much about him)
So out of Pakistans 58 year existence we have had overt and covert Military rule for 30 years and bureacratic rule for 12 years..
The Establishments role in making and unmaking Pakistani politicians is a lot more sordid, an example is the rigging of elections, sometimes with and other times without civilian allies from the major parties:
On June 11 1996, Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto’s interior minister, retired Lt General Naseerullah Babar, announced on the floor of the National Assembly that the former chief of army staff, General Mirza Aslam Beg had, in 1990, during the run-up to the elections held that year, withdrawn an amount of Rs.140 million from Mehran Bank, handed it over to the Inter Services Intelligence chief, Lt General Asad Durrani, and asked him to suitably disburse the amount to a selection of anti-PPP politicians and thus rig the elections in favour of the ISI- tailored IJI and Nawaz Sharif (who himself was given three million rupees). Cowasjee
Another interview by former COAS Mirza Aslam Beg excerpted from the Herald
*
“The former ISI chief, Hameed Gul, now admits that he created the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad in 1988 to stop Benazir Bhutto’s PPP from gaining a clear majority in the elections. Similarly, another ISI chief, Asad Durrani, has admitted to giving money to politicians in 1990. Both of them now claim they did it in the ‘national interest.’ What would have happened if Benazir had won the 1988 elections with a greater majority?”
Aslam Beg: “The army, perhaps, would not have allowed the transfer of power to Benazir Bhutto. There is a strong feeling in the army that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was responsible for the East Pakistan debacle and that he maligned the army… So, to ensure that power was smoothly transferred to Benazir Bhutto and democracy restored, the IJI was formed by the ISI. This was done with the clear knowledge that it wouldn’t stop the PPP from forming the government… I set up a fake competition by creating the IJI to ensure that a democratic government could be formed… Let me categorically state that the decision to hold on to or relinquish power rests squarely with the army… It would not be out of place to mention that even though the courts do provide moral support to justify army actions, a lingering subconscious guilt continues to haunt those who cause a rupture of democracy…” * http://www.dawn.com/weekly/mazdak/20001111.htm
states security concerns
Same as yours…idealogical and actual borders. Since its inception, Pakistani establishment and its puppets have used the Indian threat towards Pakistan by stating the Indians never accepted the idea of Pakista. Therefore, it was imperative for the state to protect its borders and idealogical frontiers thru whatever means possible. Real or drummed up, this threat had the West Pakistani ruling elite and a small segment of Bengalis convinced that Indian designs must be thwarted no matter what the costs. On this platform, our establishment which you have listed a few, went on their merry way of sabotaging, corrupting and maligning and dissenting voices.
List you have enclosed is the most obvious, these are people who can be easily identified in their role of subterfuge, demolition Pakistan. Behind this ugly exterior is a far more sinnister, conniving diaspora of retired generals, politicians, beuracrats, mullas, feudals and businessmen who have an equal share in what we have today. Chapter dealing with the religious parties is a excellent expose of how the JI’s, JUI have colluded with establishment. To think of it, points highlighted above in your posts can be linked directly to JI policies. Similarly, PPP role in the East Pakistan saga cannot be ignored or forgotten. But, JI and PML were to share the blame of Yahya Khan’s inept policiies and there overt and covert support.
PPP gets trashed for many things, rightfully so. To be fair, how long has PPP remained in power? 5-6years in Bhutto senior days (1971-77) and two interim governments by Benazir and Mr 5-10%. Another maximum 5years. Rest or bulk (47tyears out of 57)of the time, Pakistan has been ruled by establishment, either through representatives they prop or create (Nawaz S, Junejo, Jamali, S Aziz) or direct rule (Ayub Khan, Yahya, Mush) add to that the fifities era of Brown sahibs (Iskander Mirza, Ghulam Muhammed etc etc). We have had the honor of literally being ruled by the same people who were supposed to be law abiding servants of the state. Therefore, if anyone is to be blamed it must be the establishment and their friends…