Daily Times

There is a broad consensus among international scholars, researchers and historians that partition in 1947 was unfair to Pakistan in terms of unequal distribution of wealth and resources. The four provinces, now territories of Pakistan, were considered part of the western frontiers of the British Raj’s strategic depth which had no political significance and no established governance and administrative institutions. The political leadership of All India Muslim League had never been able to bring the military under civilian control. In this context, the civil-military establishment in the new state deliberately chose religion as a force for national unity to transform Pakistan into an ideological as opposed to a democratic state, and conveniently aligned with the religious right; it also advocated an arbitrary role of religious parties in Pakistan’s politics despite unpopularity among the masses.

The establishment viewed partition as unfinished business, and this conception got cemented from the start with the onset of confrontations with the much stronger India on the issue of Pakistan’s territorial claims over Muslim majority state of Kashmir. Since then, the establishment has portrayed Pakistan as a security-seeking state, and redefined winning as being able to stand up, confront and challenge to India’s regional influence and hegemony in South Asia. The establishment’s world view demands conformity as a prerequisite for being able to operate freely in public discourse without being accused of treason or being the enemy of the state.

Since partition, the establishment in Pakistan has not only succeeded in forging a tacit agreement with the religious right, landed gentry, aristocracy, business cartels, media barons and the masses, but has gradually consolidated its influence and powerbase. It has crafted and dominated popular narratives on the country’s ideological position, national character, political discourse, internal security, foreign policy, governance, diplomacy, morality and even its educational curriculum. Arguably, successive political leaderships were not able to challenge the establishment’s dominance effectively due to their own shortcomings in terms of lack of vision, corruption, greed and self-serving interest to hang onto power for personal gain.

In recent times, three distinct and interesting ideas in the contemporary political discourse have captured the imagination and have contemplated a world that is nonlinear, hyper-normalised and post-truth. The ultimate objective behind these ideas and concepts is to seize and retain power to create a new system of political control by keeping all kinds of opposition constantly confused, ineffective and in an environment where personal and popular beliefs are more important in shaping public opinion as opposed to objective facts. However, I would argue that these ideas are deeply intertwined in our managed democracy in Pakistan. Consequently, our civil-military establishment, the religious right and self-serving political actors, perhaps unwittingly or otherwise, have created a nonlinear, hyper-normalised and post-truth Pakistan.

There is a broad consensus among international scholars, researchers and historians that partition in 1947 was unfair to Pakistan in terms of unequal distribution of wealth and resources.

Although, the western world has only recently begun to unpack these ideas and concepts, for a long time our establishment has known, used and successfully applied them in Pakistan to maintain control and authority over political forces. The self-appointed vanguard has portrayed and marketed itself as an institution that holds moral superiority, uncorrupted character and unquestioning loyalty to the state as opposed to the questionable morality, honesty and loyalty of the political forces.

The idea of a non-linear world stems from “nonlinear warfare” used in a sci-fi short story “Without Sky” by Russian ex-deputy prime minister and a close Putin aide Vladislav Surko (under his pen name Natan Dubovitsky). It can simply be defined as promoting confusing and contradictory narratives and a new system of political control for those in power by keeping any opposition in check and in constant confusion.

The word “hyper-normalisation” was coined by Alexei Yurchak, a professor of anthropology, in his book “Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More: The Last Soviet Generation”. Professor Yurchak terms society including politicians and citizens as hyper-normalised when they accept the fakeness of any system as real and readily support the status quo due to the absence of any alternative.

The term “post-truth” was coined by the blogger David Roberts and is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

It will be useful here to contextualise and examine a nonlinear, hyper-normalised and post-truth Pakistan.

Firstly, let’s examine nonlinear Pakistan. The establishment has been using the idea of a nonlinear world and employed this idea for political control. Evidently, a lot has been written about the establishment’s involvement in creating, supporting and using political parties, groups and alliances. In addition, bribing, funding and using political figures and parties are also well documented. The collusion with MQM in Karachi in the 1980s, organising the Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) to stop PPP returning to power in 1977 and the forming and funding of IJI in the 1990s are some examples. The use of the media and judiciary to achieve political objectives is also well known throughout the political history of Pakistan. The political disappearance of dissidents, activists and members of the media or any opposition in the so-called national interest is well documented. Intimidation, aggression, violence and bullying have been common tools in Pakistan for a long time. The ultimate objective here was to exert political control and use groups and political parties across the ethnic, religious and political divide.

Secondly, I would argue that Pakistan has been hyper-normalised over time, by which I mean that our managed democracy is widely perceived as the only way of governing and ruling Pakistan. For example, there has been wider acceptance and support among the Pakistan public for military-led governments, taking control of the country away from so-called corrupt politicians. Political parties in Pakistan hardly engage in educating the masses and creating tiers of leadership on a national, regional and local level. In addition, political forces failed to offer any alternative which appeals to the masses and compels the public to rally around. The manifestos of three large parties, arguably offer no political ideology but mere service delivery commitments that are not completely fulfilled. Discussions about the role of military, entitlements of its members to prime agricultural land and real estate plots are absent from the public discourse and these issues have never been part of any public or political debate. The absence of an alternative political vision, inability of political parties to translate public sentiments into political issues and no ground work on voter education to rally support created apathy among voters and an attitude of believing in the status quo i.e. nothing will change even if they participate in the electoral process.

Thus, a bigger picture of hyper-normalised Pakistan postulates that the establishment will stay in command unchallenged and can easily discredit one party to bring another party to safeguard its interests and political control. This means that the same political wrangling will go on, as before, among different actors and political forces will face consequences if they question the authority and interests of establishment and new forward groups, alliances and parties will keep mushrooming from the old ones.

Thirdly, post-truth Pakistan has been a reality for a long time. Objective facts were concealed from the public on various occasions e.g. lost wars, misadventures. Even the narratives on the ideological positions and historical facts have been tampered with in our education syllabus. Various commissions were setup to establish facts on a number of important historical occasions but were either not made public in the ‘national interest’ or considered unworthy of being used to learn lessons or implement their recommendations.

These three ideas and concepts are surprisingly relevant to the way our managed democracy has been functioning over the past several decades. It is obvious that these ideas are thoroughly embedded and applied in some shape or form to govern the country. Over time, alliances have been built among the establishment, the religious right, the media and judiciary to promote well-crafted but confusing narratives about the supposed corruption of successive civilian governments to implicate and suppress any political dissent. It is not intended here to suggest that civilian governments were not involved in corruption or siphoning of public money, but a blind eye was turned to corruption until it was used as a tool against civilian governments for political control or to kick them out of power. During all this time political interference and regime change have been rampant and whole groups and parties were formed, supported and put in power based on religious, political beliefs and ethnic lines to achieve the desired objectives.

In a civilised, functional and vibrant democratic society, the unelected state institutions have no role in political affairs. However, in Pakistan, these institutions are a force to be reckoned with and their increasing political control and corporate interests make them stronger. Thus, segments in these institutions have a lot to lose if Pakistan is ever to become a fully functional modern democracy, upholding democratic traditions, values and the rule of law. In a real democratic Pakistan, unelected institutions will have to give up their unchallenged political role, entitlements and privileges as well as corporate interests through effective legislation based on fairness and rule of law.

The writer has a Masters degree from London School of Economics and a PhD from Oxford Brookes University and he has worked extensively in Pakistani education sector. He is currently working as an External Consultant for the Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development

Published in Daily Times, January 28^th 2019.