Hegemony of the Ruling Elite in Pakistan

Moez:

(You seem very dissecting when it comes to the prose but why find faults in the written when the intention is to present the facts.)

Thanks for your comments. You have rightly pointed out at the small things in life that irritate us no end. I have been accused before of counting the trees and ignoring the forest.

The way I see it writen words are used here/elsewhere with one primary intention: to communicate. In my book, if one communicates it must be effective. And to communicate effectively, one must respect words. When an author writes shoddily, he is conveying his disrespect for the word ---- the holy, almighty word-----and in the process insults not only his own ideas and presentation but also the readers` intelligence. Please note: I am confining my views on published pieces only. The interacts are beyond the scope of this articulation.

An infant cries. That cry is to convey hunger, pain or dicomfort. The adults are there to decipher the cry. This author, really anyone who indulges in writing for publication, has come a long way since infancy. I`d rather not hold hand and decipher him/her/them.

To over simplify I believe in Substance + Style. And lament the absence of the latter whenever moved. But in this case, I thought I made it abundantly clear this piece fails on both counts.

rgds

t

The fixation by ``educated`` people on both sides of the divide to quote percentage numbers spent by Pakistan on defence or debt servicing escapes me. 50% of 10 is still 5 no matter how you slice and dice it. If Pakistan thinks that it needs to spend x amount of dollars to retain parity with India the percentage comparisons are meaningless. In the long run, it may cause Pakistan`s ruin just as it happened to Russia in the case of the cold war but then who can predict the future? Depsite India`s seemingly technical and intellectual prowess, it might fall apart under the weight of its own contradictions with regard to its secular facade.

This reminds me of the discussions related to the enormous amounts of money being spent by internet companies on advertising. Once again in percentage terms, it may be a large number but in the grand scheme of things it is a pittance compared to the amount spent on advertising by more ``established`` companies. Its David vesus Goliath in many cases but as we all know the final outcome is sometimes very surprising.

RE: # (Temporal)

You seem very dissecting when it comes to the prose but why find faults in the written when the intention is to present the facts.

Cheers,

Moez Momin

Re: PM #9

Sorry, I meant a slightly more sophisticated debate than the usual posts I`ve seen on Chowk. Although, in all fairness, I haven`t read all the articles and all of the posts. I was referring to the mindlessness on both sides of the democracy debate: either ``dismissed jarnaile should be hung`` or the `` we only understand the danda.`` I must confess, though, if forced to choose, I would probably opt for the latter.

Regards.

[The author is the Chief Editor of Kuwait Television English News and correspondent of Dawn, Karachi in Kuwait... written a book on Pakistan`s politics ... Islamic Pakistan: Illusions & Reality...300-page book is available on internet ... pulished in 1996 but on internet the book was updated in August 1999. He has written another book, `Islam in the Post-Cold War Era`] blah .. blah ..

Dear Mr. Ghazali,

With all your credentials, I wish you had done better than reproducing from an elementary level text book and making conjectures which every 5 year old is able to make. Please come up with something new ..

Rgds

Reply to # 4 Re: Temporal

You are full of venom and unappreciative of Ghazali`s article. I have yet to see an equally challenging article by you. ......

I respect your views. Article has been thoroughly researched.

Regarding Jay`s reply:

I don`t know if you had too much to drink last nite or the eternal Indian angst and inferiority complex is manifesting itself here. I can refute each one of your assertions in the last paragraph but i just want to make sure you really mean everything you said.

Regards

-Sac

The title of Mr. Ghazali`s article seems to suggest something interesting. In scholarly works, hegemony means dominance with consent, while autocracy means dominance without hegemony (Ranajit Guha, 1997. Dominance without Hegemony). Rather than establishing hegemony, the ruling elite in Pakistan were successful only in establishing several predominantly autocratic regimes where coercion generally outweighed persuasion.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Fuzair,

you say (in #1) ``, lets ...see if we can generate any debate on the broader issue of democracy.``

er.. just wondering... which planet were you visiting the past couple o` months? :)

Oh c`mon.. not another debate on the appicability of democracy on this forum!

regards,

PM

The articles that I have read on this issue all miss a fundamental point. The reality is that after all these years, Pakistan`s owners now spend about 54% of its real annual GDP in debt service to foreign institutions; 33% is spent on its chowkidars (defense); probably 10% leaks through corrpution by its naukers (public servants and politicians). Thus each year, meagre 3% is left for the real owners (Pakistani Citizens).

Just imagine what would you do as the homeowner, if this is what was happening to your home. I am confident, there would certainly be a bagawat among the owners (family members). You can color this bagawat by calling it Talibanism or jehadis or plain thievery of politicians and civil servants, or highhandedness of the Army.

In such a scenario, the structural corrections to the economy are daunting task. The necessary corrections would be controversial, as they would hit everyone. A task, dictatorship - benevolent or not - has never achieved in modern history. This can only be done through a slow process of inclusion and participation, of not just foreigners, chowkidars and naukers, but more importantly owners. This can be done Iran-style or I may dare say Indian-style. These are two models - however imperfect or unappealing for the owners (its citizens).

In October 1999, there was a fight between the chowkidars and naukers of Pakistan to retain their shares. I assert this, because neither chowkidars nor naukers can solve the problem alone. The chowkidars won, while the foreigners are ready to make some adjustments and accept some delays in receiving their 54% of the present economic pie. It is yet to be seen whether chowkidars and naukers would accept cuts in their shares of the present pie.

In my view, nothing will work, until the owners demand and create real economic growth and increase the pie. Neither chowkidars nor naukers would voluntarily take serious cuts in their piece of the pie, because doing so, would make them poorer, like the owners. Interestingly, history tells us that foreigners always get their share from the nation-state sooner or later.

On the political seen, an important point that is ignored is that Punjabi Muslim (70M) is the single largest ethnic group from Iran border to the gates of the Red Fort in Delhi. This group must at all times be part of the stabilization force and not destabilization force. Otherwise this group shall cause instability not only in Pakistan but also in India too.

Currently, Pakistani Army is perceived to be the only stabilization force in Pakistan. This is, because it is only through this institution 70M Punjabi Muslims find their way in and around the home which is Pakistan.

Recently PML (N) and Pakistani Army competed for the mindshare of Punjabi Muslims and power. Obvisously Army won, and PML (N) lost. This was a sad development, because Pakistani democracy - however corrupt - was never able to find an alternative and viable way, which given the time a democratic set up would have eventually found.

There is another unfortunate part to this equation too, because 70M Punjabi Muslims are the single largest ethnic group from Iran-border to the gates of Red Fort. This part is India, the enemy. For the past 52-years Pakistan Army (the chowkidars of Pakistan) and Pakistani Citizens (the owners of Pakistan) have been fed a constant message, that only a strong chowkidar can keep the enemy India away and at the same can also get Kashmir too.

A reality check on this parameter is quite different, while a strong chowkidar may have in the past, and may in the future also could keep enemy India away, but there is not evidence of strong chowkidar getting the Kashmir. Despite this reality, very little progress has been made to find an alternative solution.

This India, the enemy factor complicates the economic and political scene even further.

Fuzair:

Wish I had read your reply before I posted mine. You are a generous man,``This article is fairly bad but not completely pointless. I think the point--fairly well hidden though-----.``

Ususally I find that sooner or later these discussions fizzle out. After the initial probings are over the participants fortify and then stalemate; punctuated by little skirmishes and forays into the other`s territory.

cynically

t

Fuzair:

Wish I had read your reply before I posted mine. You are a generous man,``This article is fairly bad but not completely pointless. I think the point--fairly well hidden though-----.``

Ususally I find that sooner or later these discussions fizzle out. After the initial probings are over the participant fortify and then stalemate punctuated by little skirmishes and forays into the other`s territory.

cynically

t

Abdus Sattar Ghazali:

There was nothing new, exceptional, or worth repeating in this article. I would not have even commented on it. But something caught my eye. The postscript informs me about who you are. So here goes------

With sentences like these:

---- In October 1958, General Ayub Khan extinguished a limping democracy, imposed martial and also abrogated the constitution.

----- The increasing concentrating of powers in the federal list under the 1973 Constitution has reduced the provinces almost to nonentities, whereas the centre now enjoys powers to legislate in as many as 114 subjects.

---There is some truth in the observed of Roy Olivier......,

---Asabiya, in the Khaldunian sense, refers not only to those primordial feelings which are embedded in the natural ties of kinship and blood relations, but also to those primordial feelings which are embedded in the natural ties of kinship and blood relations, but also to the broader context of group cohesion, affiliation and common concerns.

---The modern asabiya are recompositions of the esprit de corps based on the fact of the state and the globalization of economic and financial networks; they are translations of a traditional relationship of solidarity into the modern realm.

---Neither is Pakistan capable of earning the respect ``ITS`` people deserved unless the region and the world sees it as a healthy and functioning democracy. (throughout the article you are going haywire with the tenses.)

As I was saying, with sentences like those quoted above from your article, I wonder about the state of journalism in Kuwait.

Sir, to give you and Kuwait English Television the benefit of doubt, this may be good enough for you and them; but definitely not good enough for Chowk.



And while I am at it looks incredulous you are commenting on ``asabia`` while ensconced in Kuwait.

t

I think I have to agree with SameerJB here. This article is fairly bad but not completely pointless. I think the point--fairly well hidden though--is that democracy is not suited to the genius of the Pakistani people. Field Marshall Ayub was absolutely correct when he said this and we (and the rest of the Third and Fourth Worlds) prove this over and over again. The alternatives are of course dictatorship of one sort or the other.

There is a school of thought in economics (political economy actually, I suppose) which holds that democracy is not a viable option in any country that has a per capita GDP under $5,000 (in real terms). Lower than this, people have neither the education nor the disposable income nor the sophistication to take part in the ``democratic process.`` So education is a necessary but not sufficient condition for successful democracy.

The pathologies of ``democracy`` in poor countries is why Farid Zakaria wrote his thought provoking article on ``illiberal democracy`` in Foreign Affairs. If you look at the history of the successful democracies in the West (US, UK, etc.) democracy there was a phased-in process. The masses did not get the vote overnight but over the process of many, many decades.

This is essentially what the late Field Marshall Ayub had in mind when he instituted his ``Basic Democracies`` scheme in Pakistan. Do we need to revert back to such undemocratic means? While military rule in Pakistan has been a failure, has democracy done any better?

I`m sure that I will be severely criticized for being elitist and what not. OK, lets take the insults and personal attacks as a given and see if we can generate any debate on the broader issue of democracy.

Regards.

``However, times are gone when the common man in the Third World did not understand the motives and designs of the neo-colonial powers. The purpose is to keep a stranglehold on former colonies by weakening them economically and politically so that they remain subdued and economically dependent upon the West and its allies.``



Nobody wants a strangle hold on pakistan, it is the pakistani people who have borrowed beyond their m,eans, accumulated all the debts and now accusing the west of economic colonisation.

Give the poor white man a break, no one other than the TNT forced pakistan to spend 50% of budget on military, none other than religion ensured the subjugation and illiteracy of woemen, none other than islam ensured the astronomical birth rate, none other than koran united the tribals of afghanistan with the pak army to create taliban, none other than the grandois illusions led to economic sanctiona following the bomb, none other than islam created the jihadic forces and kargill. Pl give a break to the white man.

`