Establishment in Pakistan
In Pakistan, the army-bureaucracy oligarchy has had the control of power usurped from just after the inception of the country. The problem in Pakistan is only a class struggle. There is a ruling class and all other classes are subjects. The ruling class consists of the army and civil bureaucracy, this class controls the state with the help of feudal lords, which include the religious feudal peers, and urban business tycoons.
This oligarchy is what is generally termed as "establishment".
Now, the establishment has realized the power of people has done everything in order to keep it in check.
They have the resources, and they are smart enough to control the progressive elite. They knew how to dismantle any real political movement.
Here it needs to be pointed out that the establishment is not a single organic unit; its a complex class system, in which many interconnected power players try to manage the system, each knowing not to overstep. As any system, it has its own internal structure and power playing. Essentially the core of the establishment hails from Punjab, the largest province in Pakistan and even that from the northern part. The only way the establishment keeps the grip on the system is by having any potential threats under control. They could not do that in East Pakistan [now Bangladesh] so it got separated out.
Now, the feudal lords, religious peers, and other disconnected elements are kept in control by sharing with them in resource exploitation.
If someone steps out of bound, he is strictly kept in check, like ZA Bhutto (belonging to the same bureaucracy) ZA Bhutto but outside the main class, tried to take control by driving a popular movement. Note that even though he was from the bureaucracy, he used democratic tools to create the popular movement along with the usual tactics. But since he was the single most important power behind the movement, even though there was a democratic momentum, it was not a revolution. He could not overthrow the existing system which, along with the repercussions of his bigger than usual objectives in international politics, got back to him. Within 4 years of taking sweeping control, he was hanged, he and his family got a real shake down.
The establishment is the real power that runs the state, and it keeps and maintains the status quo. They only allow the people having the same mindset from outside into the club. If somehow a defiant outsider gets in their rank, he is required to keep submissive by small shaking, or if creates a little too much disturbance gets a real shake down.
One thing they do is diffuse any public pressure that keeps getting created in the populace. They know that the cannot control the masses. They, and only they understand this and they cannot let the public to know, let alone exploit its power. They keep a strict check on any real political movements, mobilize their power, resources and, brains to keep in control.
One tactic they have to keep from real movement getting any momentum is to change the face of the system every now and then.
A dictator takes over when democratic government starts failing to curtail the pressure, just before it gets out of hands and before public takes charge. As soon as the dictator comes, the populace gets a relief, law and order situation improves, financial situation starts getting better and then after a while when public pressure starts building during a dictatorship, when the dictatorial rule starts showing its details, its stubbornness, when any dissent (which cannot survive along with a dictatorship) is curbed even by violating the basic rights, when the public starts getting angry, suddenly there starts a new political movement, or an existing movement is hijacked and viola democracy takes charge. Though large public rallies are involved, this happens almost without any trouble, no mass bloodshed, no violence on large scale, in essence no revolution. Any violence that happens is either to control the masses or if genuine mob violence is sporadic and only affects the lower classes. Nobody from the prior regime gets a brunt (sometimes a small sacrifice is provided here and there if public pressure is too much and it is really needed).
In major democratic movements public protests though large are all controlled; either public participation is not genuine and is done through small controlled groups, or if it is somewhat genuine it is kept control under one or few leaders. No political party allows dissidence, so no one out of this oligarchy can take control. Specially grass root level movement is absolutely kept in strict control. No widespread dispersed middle leadership from middle class is allowed. Its always one person (or a few people) on the top driving the public, changing the direction any way they want.
Now this only happens with compliance of the public, and is heavily based on its naivety. Thinking potential is kept under strict control, media under even more stricter control. A game of hope and despair is played, always showing the public hope somewhere other than themselves. They are not let to take charge.
After a while in democracy, when the inefficiencies of democracy starts showing their results, thugs are clearly seen running rampant, people start getting angry then thump, another game changer happens. Either the army chief takes control, charging politicians of corruption. Or the government dissolved for new elections. In which all the control gets to some other party which now becomes the saviour, at least in relieving the pressure: the same party which only a few years earlier has shown its effects, but that is absent from public memory, it being so short lived.
This change essentially happens only on the surface, under the hoods, its all the same, the same class running the show from behind the curtain. The whole cycle repeats.
This is the reason, why the populace does not see the problem. No one can see the systemic problem by just looking at any individual in the establishment. Also the source of the generic problem is not in the establishment, its in the whole society, and its class structure. The middle class is frustrated just because it is the middle class. It is the same class that won't allow the lower classes to compete with it. Though, not through their active doing but essential its what they do, as they are more resourceful than the lower class. And only the smarter of the lower class having higher determinism, who can break the threshold can get elevated to the higher class.
This oligarchy is what is generally termed as "establishment".
Now, the establishment has realized the power of people has done everything in order to keep it in check.
They have the resources, and they are smart enough to control the progressive elite. They knew how to dismantle any real political movement.
Here it needs to be pointed out that the establishment is not a single organic unit; its a complex class system, in which many interconnected power players try to manage the system, each knowing not to overstep. As any system, it has its own internal structure and power playing. Essentially the core of the establishment hails from Punjab, the largest province in Pakistan and even that from the northern part. The only way the establishment keeps the grip on the system is by having any potential threats under control. They could not do that in East Pakistan [now Bangladesh] so it got separated out.
Now, the feudal lords, religious peers, and other disconnected elements are kept in control by sharing with them in resource exploitation.
If someone steps out of bound, he is strictly kept in check, like ZA Bhutto (belonging to the same bureaucracy) ZA Bhutto but outside the main class, tried to take control by driving a popular movement. Note that even though he was from the bureaucracy, he used democratic tools to create the popular movement along with the usual tactics. But since he was the single most important power behind the movement, even though there was a democratic momentum, it was not a revolution. He could not overthrow the existing system which, along with the repercussions of his bigger than usual objectives in international politics, got back to him. Within 4 years of taking sweeping control, he was hanged, he and his family got a real shake down.
The establishment is the real power that runs the state, and it keeps and maintains the status quo. They only allow the people having the same mindset from outside into the club. If somehow a defiant outsider gets in their rank, he is required to keep submissive by small shaking, or if creates a little too much disturbance gets a real shake down.
One thing they do is diffuse any public pressure that keeps getting created in the populace. They know that the cannot control the masses. They, and only they understand this and they cannot let the public to know, let alone exploit its power. They keep a strict check on any real political movements, mobilize their power, resources and, brains to keep in control.
One tactic they have to keep from real movement getting any momentum is to change the face of the system every now and then.
A dictator takes over when democratic government starts failing to curtail the pressure, just before it gets out of hands and before public takes charge. As soon as the dictator comes, the populace gets a relief, law and order situation improves, financial situation starts getting better and then after a while when public pressure starts building during a dictatorship, when the dictatorial rule starts showing its details, its stubbornness, when any dissent (which cannot survive along with a dictatorship) is curbed even by violating the basic rights, when the public starts getting angry, suddenly there starts a new political movement, or an existing movement is hijacked and viola democracy takes charge. Though large public rallies are involved, this happens almost without any trouble, no mass bloodshed, no violence on large scale, in essence no revolution. Any violence that happens is either to control the masses or if genuine mob violence is sporadic and only affects the lower classes. Nobody from the prior regime gets a brunt (sometimes a small sacrifice is provided here and there if public pressure is too much and it is really needed).
In major democratic movements public protests though large are all controlled; either public participation is not genuine and is done through small controlled groups, or if it is somewhat genuine it is kept control under one or few leaders. No political party allows dissidence, so no one out of this oligarchy can take control. Specially grass root level movement is absolutely kept in strict control. No widespread dispersed middle leadership from middle class is allowed. Its always one person (or a few people) on the top driving the public, changing the direction any way they want.
Now this only happens with compliance of the public, and is heavily based on its naivety. Thinking potential is kept under strict control, media under even more stricter control. A game of hope and despair is played, always showing the public hope somewhere other than themselves. They are not let to take charge.
After a while in democracy, when the inefficiencies of democracy starts showing their results, thugs are clearly seen running rampant, people start getting angry then thump, another game changer happens. Either the army chief takes control, charging politicians of corruption. Or the government dissolved for new elections. In which all the control gets to some other party which now becomes the saviour, at least in relieving the pressure: the same party which only a few years earlier has shown its effects, but that is absent from public memory, it being so short lived.
This change essentially happens only on the surface, under the hoods, its all the same, the same class running the show from behind the curtain. The whole cycle repeats.
Now, one aspect should be cleared that in general the individual people on which the establishment is composed of are not all-evil people. They have in their composition the same elements as in the general population. They have similar moral character as that of the population, they don't live like kings or princes. Just as in the rest of the population, they believe they are better than the lower level people. The only difference being they are the smartest and they are at the top.
Perhaps the establishment essentially believes that the current system is for the benefit of the people. They might believe that what they are doing is to keep the system stable. They just do what every one else in the population keeps on doing - maintaining status quo and saving their skin.
The people in establishment are trained by the same system to keep the system running, they just make sure that there is no instability. They allow all the ills and problems in the country just to maintain the stability, as trying to remove it may create too much turbulence, and also they need the same ills and problems to keep other unstabilizing powers in control. And since they are really smart, they usually get to it.
Also, they don't want to improve anything at their own cost. They would improve things only as they see fit. Now since they are product of the same class structure present in the general society (they just happen to be the highest up), it is a problem for the lower classes. But then this is essentially a common property of all classes in Pakistan, including the second-most lower. The lowest being powerless to subjugate anyone.
Perhaps the establishment essentially believes that the current system is for the benefit of the people. They might believe that what they are doing is to keep the system stable. They just do what every one else in the population keeps on doing - maintaining status quo and saving their skin.
The people in establishment are trained by the same system to keep the system running, they just make sure that there is no instability. They allow all the ills and problems in the country just to maintain the stability, as trying to remove it may create too much turbulence, and also they need the same ills and problems to keep other unstabilizing powers in control. And since they are really smart, they usually get to it.
Also, they don't want to improve anything at their own cost. They would improve things only as they see fit. Now since they are product of the same class structure present in the general society (they just happen to be the highest up), it is a problem for the lower classes. But then this is essentially a common property of all classes in Pakistan, including the second-most lower. The lowest being powerless to subjugate anyone.
This is the reason, why the populace does not see the problem. No one can see the systemic problem by just looking at any individual in the establishment. Also the source of the generic problem is not in the establishment, its in the whole society, and its class structure. The middle class is frustrated just because it is the middle class. It is the same class that won't allow the lower classes to compete with it. Though, not through their active doing but essential its what they do, as they are more resourceful than the lower class. And only the smarter of the lower class having higher determinism, who can break the threshold can get elevated to the higher class.
Comments
Post a Comment