Monday, February 9, 2015

Session 4- State: a political actor in its own right or a neutral body representing the interests of the society?


A state is a political association that exercises sovereign jurisdiction within the defined territorial borders.

Can the state be viewed as a neutral body in relation to interests of the different social groups or is it a political actor in its own right and own interests?

A state comprises of bureaucracy and different institutions such as the judiciary, police and military as well as the parliament. It can never be said that the state is a neutral body because it is constituted of different groups and it inevitably represents their interests. The state is a political actor in its own right with its own demands and interests. This is clearly evident if we look through the state’s role in the history of Pakistan.

The Punjabis have always dominated the military and the bureaucracy in Pakistan and they have been executing the functions of the state in a way, which represent their own interests. The Punjab’s interests were and still are viewed as the interest of the entire country. The state has failed to play a role of a mediator and has failed to act as a neutral body. For example, Baluchistan, the largest province of Pakistan, has been systematically excluded from matters of economic development and social welfare. The Balochi’s have developed hostility towards the state because it is not neutral and represents the interests of a particular interest group.

Hence the state acts as another interest group within the society and fails to play a neutral role in relation to the competing interests of the social groups. It becomes a representation of the interests of the dominant class within a country.

3 comments:

Naush said...

It's interesting how you note that a particular government's interests can hijack the state and supercede its objectives. So while a state should be neutral arbiter, I agree in this case it is not.

Mahum Shahzad Laun said...

I agree with your explanation of the state representing the interests of the dominant class. Taking your example further, the Punjabis have become a permanent part of the state apparatus in the form of the military-bureaucratic oligarchy irrespective of whichever government is in power.The state of Pakistan has aided the interests of the Punjabis either explicitly or in the background ever since its inception .

Unknown said...

With all due respect, we should also not forget the fact that although the state might have implicitly or explicitly aided the Punjabis but at the same time it is the province with the highest population, which is a clear illustration of the fact that if the state does not make any quota systems than Punjabis will keep on dominating these military-bureaucratic structures.