Nayab Amjad Submitted to: Dr.

Rashid Amjad
15/11/18 Development: History, Theory and Policy

Assignment 4: Critique of HamzaAlavi’s theory

With the emergence of independent states, their role and nature has also changed. While

philosophers like Aristotle stressed upon….there are others who say that the role of the state

is to be subservient to its people. With regards to the subcontinent, the question of who rules

Pakistan has led to heated debates amongst academicians of various fields. The changing

nature of leadership till 2008, consistently oscillating between democratic leaders and

dictatorships, had left Pakistan struggling with establishing a stable political atmosphere

conducive to its economic and social development. However, one writer in particular, Hamza

Alavi, propounded an interesting new theory in 1974; whereby, there is a nexus between the

military and bureaucracy of the Pakistani state, effectively allowing them both to coordinate

and run the country. Though the theory has a number of de-merits, it has brought into light

the otherwise less discussed subject: the power of institutions.

Hamza Alavi argues in his book “…”, that the British deliberately created the civil-military

oligarchy in order to legitimise its rule in the colony of the subcontinent. The colonial state in

this way, was left “over developed” by the British, as they not only dominated the people of

the subcontinent but left an overarching structure that was difficult for the state to subjugate

after independence. This structure is the alliance between the military and the bureaucracy

that work together as a mediator between three classes present in the post-colonial society:

“the indigenous bourgeoisie, the metropolitan bourgeoisie and the landed class”. Thus, the

state no longer serves the interest of any one class but is an instrument of these three

propertied classes. It effectively protects and promotes the capitalist mode of production,

enabling these three classes to remain empowered, so it can extract its own economic surplus.

Thus, the influence of the colonists has not ceased even after independence as the

metropolitan bourgeoisie has made the country dependent on many if its goods, raw materials
Nayab Amjad Submitted to: Dr. Rashid Amjad
15/11/18 Development: History, Theory and Policy

and services. It has joined hands with countries like US in dominating Pakistan through its

soft power. The political parties also play a third role in the military-bureaucratic nexus,

sometimes siding with the latter and sometimes challenging its autonomous role, depending

upon where its interest lie at that moment. For example, Nawaz Sharif was heavily favoured

by Zia who helped him …… Ever since, Nawaz Shrif’s party, PML-N, has enjoyed a

favourable relationship with the military. On the other hand, PPP has often seen a lot of

opposition from army during the 1990s when Benazir was in power and even after that,

because of a conflict of interest between the PPP and the military. Alavi also explains in

detail the reason why the military-bureaucracy oligarchy emerged powerful in Pakistan as

compared to India or Bangladesh. The reason is that the British relied upon the support of the

agricultural class to maintain its rule, such as using the bureaucracy to suppress nationalist

movements and reaching a compromise with people living in border areas to establish its own

system of law and order. As noted by Sandeman in his memorandum, “..If we knit the

frontier tribes into our imperial system in time of peace and make their interests ours, they

will certainly not oppose us in time of war…”, It drew its army in large numbers from the

landowning classes and in turn gave them a lot of concessions and favourable positions in the

army.

To understand and criticise Alavis theory effectively, one must understand the origins of his

thinking. As per Alavi, the birth of Pakistan itself, resulting out of Pakistan Movement, had

nothing to do with religious ideology or fundamentalism. The speech to constituent assembly

by Mohammad Ali Jinnah clearly stated the country to be secular. Contrary to contemporary

belief where the country was created in the name of Islam, Alavi emphasised upon the

structural imbalance which embarked since day first. Since partition the insecurity and

military conflict with India took a pivotal role in the shaping of foreign policy making

Pakistan’s military all the more relevant in the realist lens. The arms deals and security
Nayab Amjad Submitted to: Dr. Rashid Amjad
15/11/18 Development: History, Theory and Policy

alignment with the United States further weakened the role of civilian governments in

fulfilling their role, i.e. military centric policies were culminating the power directly from the

legitimate governments to military-bureaucratic oligarchy. The Pakistan Movement wasn’t a

long drawn struggle, Alavi argues, as compared to most European nations. Thus, it is

understandable how the ethnical paradox amongst Pakistanis has been exploited by political

parties over the years, increasing polarisation and therefore weakening the civilian structure

of rule. This animosity automatically led to the downfall of civilian forces, making way for

the militarian regimes drawing their legitimacy through ‘necessity’ and ‘failure of civil

forces’.

In my understanding, as Alavi explains the post-colonial structure to be a mesh of three

classes mediated by the military and bureaucracy, it is a very simple analysis of a diverse and

complicated problem embedded sociologically than constitutionally. The people were used to

being subservient to a ‘higher’ force and didn’t know the real liberation or independence. To

them, the creation of an Islamic State was enough to be cherished as now they would serve to

feed their religious dogmas. Therefore, the democratic process was a shard to begin with, the

rest accredited to ethnical ruptures and the clash between bourgeois and feuds.

The military bureaucratic oligarchy was the key intermediary between various key classes of

bourgeoise which not only had the classical role, but alongside it also assumed the economic

role of appropriating the surplus in the name of development to benefit its ‘stakeholders’.

This relationship takes a complex shape during civilian rule, as now they have to channel

these interests in a way which is acceptable to general public in order to reduce opposition for

ruling political parties. Thus, the civilian governments also form a major part of the cyclical

process in consolidating the post-colonial structure.

Nayab Amjad Submitted to: Dr. Rashid Amjad
15/11/18 Development: History, Theory and Policy

In today’s world the theory may or may not hold true but it does carry significance in

understanding Pakistani political dynamics but not how the ‘militical’ structure had imposed

itself. The thory lacks the representation of various other institutions which are a key to

determine the shift of power paradigm in times to come, for example, judiciary. Judicial

activism, as of today since the beginning of lawyers movement, has achieved significant

support from the masses. Be it the bureaucracy or politicians, judiciary has actively

participated in the shaping of ‘neo-justice’ – holding the selected ones accountable. Although

it may also be accredited to the heavy-weights of military support but it does prove to be a

significant pillar of the structure. Military courts, however, are distinct and therefore it is

immune to civilian judicial processes. Similarly, as mentioned before, how the ‘militical’

system was legitimised is still an unanswered question. Similarly, his explanation of post-

colonial structure completely ignores the middle-class and its relevance in the cyclical

process. Judiciary, military and bureaucracy, all of them do not belong to the bourgeoise class

but rather mainly comprise of middle-class. Therefore, the role of middle class has a lot to

decide in how the nexus is to be shaped in the coming years. But at the same time, the

presence of individuals and the posture of the institution itself are two distinct entities. The

processes or the culture of institutions matters more and outweighs the individualistic

capacity to bring about any meaningful or effective change in the status-quo. Hence, as it

may be categorized as an incomplete theory in today’s time, but not an invalid one.

21st century may have led to a slight change in Alavi’s theory if he were alive. The slow and

feeble steps towards an imperfect democracy and the downfall of bureaucracy thereafter has

definitely negated Alavi’s MBO in a reasonable manner. The emergence of political forces

standing in the way of military controlled political structure is a step forward towards the

partial liberation, if not complete, of the political machinery. The rise of Islamophobia around

the western world and the isolation of Pakistan with regards to its military-centric foreign
Nayab Amjad Submitted to: Dr. Rashid Amjad
15/11/18 Development: History, Theory and Policy

policy raises another question to the sustainability of such a structure. Indeed the political

apparatus at the time of independence was a mess and therefore autocratic setup had a

leverage which it exploited. As of today, the democratic process has evolved over seven

decades and however weak it maybe, the political forces are gradually eliminating the status-

quo through a populistic wave across general public. People may or may not be aware of the

intellectual puzzles, but certainly they are tired of the existing structure of malpractices and

corruption, just as indicated by Marx. It is not necessarily a bloody revolution but a gradual

evolution towards liberation in real sense. The military, as always, holds most of the cards but

the rise of autonomous institutions, political foresightedness and awareness amongst

individuals due to globalisation requires a new balance amongst the existing structure. This

maybe a more autonomous civilian government while military having a considerable power,

but certainly bureaucracy is losing its relevance through an active judicial process. In the end,

I would like to mention one of the most famous theories of Public Administration, as said by

Woodrow Wilson, that people are only content with the situation as long as they had a say in

the decision making process. Unlike Pakistan where the interests of bourgeoises have been

served ignoring the public at large, therefore inevitably bringing about a change. The

representation of people is only possible through an effective and real democratic process

where power actually belongs to the people and not a handful oligarchs maximising personal

gains.