Session 8: The idealogical hegemony of GHQ.

As much as the Pakistani military would like to pull the strings from behind the curtain, there is little doubt about its tendencies to delve into the realm of politics.

With over 30 years of military rule during Pakistan's short history, it would be safe to assume that the military junta did enjoy some level of legitimisation. Then, it can he logically extrapolated that the political culture of these periods did allow for a public affinity in the favour of the military.

If one were to follows Heywood's indicators of what accounts for political legitimacy, then it would make sense to say that certain values, which promote the need for military rule, trickling down over a long period of time, have culminated into an acceptance of military rule by certain spheres of the public. 

The long drawn hegemony of the Punjabi dominated military-bureaucratic oligarchy, could be seen as a repressing force against opposing values and ideas. This conflict of ideologies would help to explain why democracy has not been able to flourish in Pakistan. 

What differentiates Pakistan and other military dominated states from the Western democracies, who vehemently support their model of an apolitical military? 

I think it is important to realise that something is indeed different between the two. What those differences are is a discussion for another time. 

To understand why the Pakistani public adheres to a certain culture, we need to take into account Oakeshott's understanding of traditional values. Would it be too far fetched to say that, deep down, the public finds comfort in the long standing institution of the Pakistani military? 

It can argued that a strong military, through its very own agents of political socialisation, has swayed the public to find traction with the idea of a military ruled state.

Before independence, it was the highly dominant British army in the very same role. 

This notion might align with one of Weber's point about 'traditional authority', in which he claims that a system may be allowed to exist if it has remain unchallenged and unchanged in the past. In Pakistan's case, this would not be entirely true though. There has been a fair share of resistance against the military in the past, the most prominent being the protests against President Ayub Khan, that eventually led to his resignation. But, overall, it can be assumed that the Pakistani military still commands an aura of unchallenged authority that no democratic entity can rival up to. 

This might very well be a case of relative levels of authority. 

In light of this, I think it is extremely intriguing how the historical contexts of different countries lead them to give precedence to one idealogical system over another.