Pakistan’s Anti-State Middle Class
By Syed Kamran Hashmi
Westfield, IN
Don’t tell me that Pakistan’s middle class had never got a chance to lead the country and steer it out of political chaos or extricate it from crippling economic meltdown. Instead, the fact is that the middle class not only got a chance-much more their fair share - but it is also responsible for the situation that we have fenced ourselves in.
I agree, the political system, controlled by few super rich industrialists and feudal lords, does not provide them the opportunity to rise above a certain level and lead the party. You can see it yourself: in the last four decades people have voted either for Pakistan Muslim League(s) or the Pakistan People’s Party(PPP). The former is headed by the most prominent industrialist of the country while the latter is the most influential landlord with hundreds of acres owned by a single family.
The same trend is true for the emerging Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). Though its charismatic leader Imran Khan belongs to a middle class family, yet he ended up surrounding himself with the same group of people: the feudal lords and the industrialists. Look at the Vice Chairman of PTI, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, an influential feudal lord of Southern Punjab. Wearing the cap of a spiritual leader, and the Sajjada Nasheen of Shah Rukn-e-Alam, he sits next to the PTI leader on the right, while on the left of the Chairman is perched Jahangir Tareen, another prominent industrialist. Both of them represent the same class of people that the PTI claims to stand up against.
Similarly, MQM, the fourth largest party, sets itself apart by supporting its ordinary workers to represent the party in the National Assembly. The leader of the movement, Altaf Hussein too, stepped into politics with meager resources. He did not inherit his position from his family nor did he own the deep pockets to build a political dynasty. Quite literally, he had to start from scratch. However, MQM faces two major challenges. First, being a representative of an ethnic minority, its role in national politics is limited. And second, its reputation is marred by violence. What little credibility they had built in Karachi with the help of General Musharraf and the former Mayor of the city, Mustafa Kamal, it fell off the cliff after the murder of Dr Imran Farooq and the investigation that followed after.
In the end, I must mention the religious organizations with a political agenda. Since their agenda, inspiration, resources and structure stand on very different grounds, I cannot include them in the discussion. I believe that these parties should not be allowed to contest the elections because by mixing religion with politics we pollute the Divine message with mundane objectives of the few greedy individuals.
Having said all that, we cannot ignore the fact that the rich and corrupt politicians did not always rule Pakistan. Our nation suffered four martial laws which span over half of its history. And while martial law may represent the grandiose and illegal aspirations of an individual to seize power by hook or by crook, it also provided an ample opportunity for the high ranking commanders to lead civilian institutions in an attempt to reduce corruption and improve performance. At least for the first few years, the core commanders, too, act more or less like the part of a federal cabinet, a place where the ‘real’ decisions are made. In addition, an army of retired military officers offer their services to join hands. For instance, General Moin Haider assumed the role of Interior Minister after General Musharraf took over and General Javed Ashraf Qazi lead the railways for years.
Who are these officers? What is their financial background? We all know most Pakistani Army officers come from middle class families. And that holds true for the martial law dictators too. General Ayub Khan’s father, Mir Dad Khan, was a Junior Commissioned Officer in the British Army. General Zia ul Haq was the son of Muhammad Akbar, a staff clerk in the GHQ before partition and Syed Musharraf, father of General Pervaiz Musharraf, served as a civil servant in India. None of them owned large areas of land or ran an industrial complex. The core commanders and the mid-ranking major and colonels, most often than not, fall in the same category as well. What about their political perspective? Without exaggeration, almost all the officers carry the same mindset as most of our educated, urban, middle class does, which is to say, they are drenched with patriotism, self-righteousness and animosity towards the political clan who have failed them to give them a chance to rise and lead.
So the question is: has the thirty-year rule of the middle class in the country while enjoying absolute power brought significant institutional reforms? Or they have also failed like their rich civilian counterparts? I agree there is a blip of improvement in the first few years of the martial law; however, that blip is followed by long protracted political, judicial, constitutional and legal crises which can take years if not decades to resolve. And while it starts showing signs of recovery, the middle class jumps right back in the ring to beat the hell out of the rich - once again.
If my assertion does not hold ground and the military (middle class) rule does not promote corruption like the (rich)civilians and their education, dedication and clarity of vision boost the economy then why does Pakistan stand as a failed state? Why do we have to lose fifty-thousand people in five years immediately after a nine-year rule of a middle class ruler?
It is not my purpose to demoralize any institution or discuss the legal issues surrounding it. My intention is to bring up the inadequacies and gross misunderstanding of our civil society that thinks that it can change the entire system from outside without any struggle, without participating in the process and without developing an insight of how the country actually runs.
