Session 3: Dynamics
of power in Pakistan
At the dawn of
independence in 1945, Pakistan’s ruling class consisted of landlords and
capitalist industrialists being supported by the military and bureaucracy. Former
decided the economic growth patterns and the latter decided the power dynamics
for the state of Pakistan, to date there has been very less or no change in the
role of these elites in the sovereign state of Pakistan. Economic patterns over
the years have brought a lot of wealth to the few, at the expense of many. This
inequality in distribution led to the increased poverty, gradual breakdown of
social infrastructure and lessened influence of the civil society which has
accelerated the influence of military in the country. For better or for worse, Pakistan
has spent several decades under military rule. Many times in history, military
has taken over control of the country to stabilize the law and order in the
country or due to incompetent leaders, and in this continuous transfer of power
the welfare of the common man has continued to decrease. In a country of around
182 million people, half of the population lives under poverty line and with
continuous change of power the number of people under the poverty line keeps increasing and no one seems to be really working to eradicate or change this
situation.
The only hope of common man today is that one day they shall see a
change in this dynamics of power and they shall live in a progressive Pakistan.
2 comments:
Ayub Khan's policy of making Pakistan a central security state rather than a welfare state also played a major part in increasing inequality and tipping the power scales in favor of the military and eventually leading to the separation of East Pakistan. Do you agree?
I think framing the discussion in terms of the military dominating power dynamics and the landlords controlling economic issues has some explanatory value for the early development of Pakistan. But what about today? Yes the military has a tremendous amount of power, but it appears that it will no longer intervene in domestic politics (at least to overthrow the government). Yes the large landowners still have a preponderance of economic power, but there is a growing middle class of Pakistanis that are demanding change. What will happen as the middle class continues to grow and become more assertive in the political realm?
In response to your point Shehryar, I agree that Ayub Khan and subsequent military leaders were focused on ensuring security as opposed to developing a welfare state. I don't think Pakistan has ever aspired to be a welfare state, nor do I think it has the ability to do so. Pakistan cannot become a welfare state because there is not a large enough tax base to fund large-scale social welfare programs. In addition, the state institutions are notoriously corrupt and even well-meaning policies may end up floundering because of institutional incompetence and corruption.
Post a Comment