In a piece I had done for a newspaper, I looked at a growing unease within the privileged segment of society caused by the increasing convergence of interests of the military and a more expressive middle class.
Two aspects stand out. One, the level of concern on such a convergence apprehends a growing pool of common sentiment; and two, the latent capacity that exists within such a group that might just challenge the existing status quo. Speaking plainly, the concern is the military-middle class-Imran Khan (MMI) nexus that is perceived as threatening the hold of more traditional centres of power. Our issue, though, is to address the state-society divide — the more lethal brew endangering the nation-state formulation — that subsumes all other subsets and fissures.
Traditionally, power in Pakistan along the timeline of its existence haslain with politicians, bureaucrats, military among the formal pillars,while some others have emerged in recent decades. The latter include the judiciary, the media and civil society. The last three usually are more positive indicators of societal development, since they act as whistle-blowers to the excesses that traditional power-wielders may indulge in. However, increasingly, the signs are there that even these new groups are manifesting them in similar ways in a complicated state-society relationship.
Among these, civil society in particular is a complex mix. It is formed of influence groups representing various agendas including the professional classes that have political affiliations that determine their interests. Either this, or they have an inherent corporate disposition when as monoliths of various hues they share common concerns and common interests within each group. The industrial-trader group is another such conglomerate. The clergy, too, seeks political relevance through association.
Hence, we see the emergence of a corporate culture of the various power cliques that remain ensconced in a perpetual power struggle. Look at the Eighteenth, Nineteenth and Twentieth Amendments to the Constitution; these reflect preservation and readjustment of the power pie that remains the sole interest of the political corporate. The military corporate, whenever it gets its hands on the reins, will tend to nourish its own interests. A potential threat of each corporate upsetting the other’s control over power gives rise to division and power struggles. Somewhere along these power struggles, those that do not belong to any of these groups — the common man, the electorate, the ‘99 per cent’ of the population — remain irrelevant to this constant tussle. This is where the state-society divide is at its most precarious. This is also why I insist that the elected and the electors live in two different worlds, totally detached. For the moment, there exists absolutely no point of intersection, between the two orbits that each inhabits, other than elections. The question is, can our politics, in its existing shape, survive? Will society survive without an assuring intersection of interests between the rulers and the ruled?
Perhaps, politicians and all other stake-owners in the power pie need to begin to answer some of these questions even if it be out of corporate concerns. Both the state and the society are threatened more by this perfidious disconnect than any other. In the absence of a thriving economy, revenues are impacted. With restricted revenues, the capital available to political leaderships is negligible. Governments then resort to incurring debt, printing money, or both. This results in unmanageable deficits and high inflation. Both factors depress the economy. Low growth and high inflation give rise to stagflation — Pakistan’s predicament. This is when political leaders and corporate groups in the power pie dip into the state’s resource pie.
Much of this results in personal gain while the crumbs get thrown in various sustenance handouts to the dispossessed. Come election time, such handouts will buy votes for the rulers. In this game of enforced dependencies the cycle of increasing poverty through misgovernance and callous fiscal discipline gives the illusion of support that can sustain power without there being any substance to that power.
Thus, sovereignty of the state or of the people remains only a myth. This remains the story of Pakistan and our current malady.
Comments
Post a Comment