In the times of the dutiful serf and the feudal lord, the black
slave and the ruling master, and the factory owner and the wage earner, the
power dynamics in play were clear to the naked eye.
But what about present-day times when the influence is less
evident and power is more diffused throughout society than ever before?
In Pakistan, there is no agreed-upon answer to the question
of who gets to run the show. Is it the elected representatives, who have the power
to shape the working and legislature of the country? The army, with a mighty arsenal and an evident willingness to grab the reins whenever things go
haywire? The judiciary, with which lies the ultimate decision-making power of
the law? Or is it instead the common man, who can make or break the country (or
at least bent it out of shape for a while) as he determines the funds, votes and
support that allow the state institutions to function like they’re supposed to?
When the definition of power itself is so wide-ranging
yet so inconclusive, it is very difficult to successfully pin-point the most
powerful societal agent in a multi-faceted setting such as ours.
3 comments:
I agree with your remark regarding the fact that the definition of power makes it problematic for us to pin-point who hold the reigns of the state and thereby our fate. However, it is mutually agreed that certain bodies such as the army do possess power. No one in Pakistan would say that the army is powerless. Therefore, there is some common denominator which even the illiterate man can use as a sign of power.
With that said, the need in our present modern generation to categorize and define terms such as power or politics is what creates problems because often the definition is either too broad or too narrow Our generation must learn to understand that there may be multiple answers to a solution and divergent definitions, even in terms of power/politics, and these can be in themselves an empowering tool rather than a source of criticism.
The powerful actors you mentioned are undoubtedly influential, however in Pakistan the religious "scholars" cannot be ignored. Sectarianism makes the matter worse as scholars from different schools of thought preach different things for various agendas. As Pakistan is essentially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, these scholars exert control over individuals as well as political system of the country. Parties like Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam etc are functional and have managed to gain great support.
Interesting post and I'm glad that this has sparked a discussion.
My personal take is that a society is multipolar, just as the international system is multipolar. Just as there are stronger and weaker states in the international system, so too are there stronger and weaker power poles within society. For example, as Geena points out, the Pakistani military wields a great deal of power in our society and I would argue that it is one of the most powerful poles within the country. But as Haya points out, there are various religious sects that also exercise power. Ultimately I think that power is diffused in a variety of institutions, organizations, and people in society and it is a useful exercise to think about how these varied actors interact to shape the direction of our society and county.
Post a Comment