General Ashfaq Kayani – the chief of the Army staff of Pakistan- has gone public and responded strongly to critics. The immediate catalyst that has made General Kayani react is the Asgar Khan case which brought to public attention the nature of Pakistan’s premier spy agency, the IS’s , funding and the attendant manipulation of politicians. General Kayani has, in his riposte, warned critics not to undermine the institutions of the state, the national interest and not to be the sole arbiters of Pakistan’s national interest.
This raises an interesting and intriguing set of questions: What institutions of the state is the General referring to? What really constitutes the Pakistani state? Who decides Pakistan’s national interest? Is the cacophony of criticism levelled against the Army a good thing? Is this the harbinger of change that will ultimately bring about the democratization of Pakistan? And, concomitantly, would this lead to a paradigm shift in Pakistan’s foreign policy orientation?
Pakistan’s power structure has over the years morphed into what may be called semi authoritarianism. This structure is dominated by what the eminent scholar, the late Samuel Huntington, has called the ‘praetorian oligarchical’ elite. This elite is comprised of the Army, the intelligence agencies, the feudals and the bureaucracy. Stephen Cohen-the eminent South Asia expert- calls the Establishment. This praetorian oligarchical elite or the Establishment calls the shots in Pakistan and constitutes Pakistan’s real power. It sees and views itself as the guardian of Pakistan’s ideology and the promoter of its national interest. A very powerful clique, it could be said to be Pakistan’s most enduring institution.
Returning to General Kayani’s assertions, it would appear that it is this institution that the General has in mind and is referring to. Over a period of time, this establishment and its role in Pakistani state has come under scrutiny and criticism. Some view this as an augury of Pakistan’s opening up and democratization. This view, however, is plain wrong and fallacious. Why?
The reasons are prosaic: the path dependence of Pakistan’s institutions and their self perpetuation over the course of its independent history means the Establishment is not only a powerful institution but also has deep roots in Pakistan’s power structure. It has almost Kafkaesque connotations and power. Nothing can happen without the consent of the Establishment of the praetorian oligarchical structure. If Pakistan is to change and move along more salubrious directions, it is only if and when the Establishment takes a view on Pakistan’s future and decides to embark on the path of change.
Any diplomatic or political effort to crystallize change in Pakistan has to take the nature and perspective of this praetorian oligarchical elite into consideration. Such is the hold and power of this power structure on the Pakistani state and polity. All in all, the indications are that this power structure is waking up to the new realities of power and politics-global, regional and local- girding itself for change. Be it the normalization of relations with India, or adopting or in the least pretending to adopt a hands off approach in Afghanistan and reorienting the state to a new relational dynamic with the United States, it appears that some change is afoot in the Pakistani power structure. This can and will have foreign policy implications given the influence that the Establishment wields in all dimensions and facets of Pakistan.
In the final analysis, it is the direction and ideological thrust of Pakistan’s praetorian oligarchical elite that will determine the trajectory and nature of the Pakistani state. It is neither the politicians, nor the press nor any other power political actor that will impact the trajectory of the Pakistani state. General Kayani’s remarks must then be seen as asserting this power structure. Nothing more; nothing less. All else is sound and fury.
No comments:
Post a Comment