![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
The emphasis since the 1990s in the neoliberal paradigm on the non-interventionist state, and the theoretical disinterest in the state by critical scholarship, has negatively affected the prospects for political and social change. The fragmented and dispersed social movements analysed by critical scholars have proven insufficiently counter-hegemonic. All this invites us to reconsider the postcolonial state at a new theoretical level to guide better choices for political practice. This article analyses the prevalent academic literature on the postcolonial Pakistani state. In these analyses, an omnipresent and omnipotent military state decides the fate of democracy, now and again replacing politicians at the helm and also promoting Islam. Political practice remains confined to inter-elite struggles for the restoration of democracy, whereas imperialist hegemony and the role of marginalised classes as reservoirs of counter-hegemony are largely missing. This article critically builds on the legacy of the renowned Pakistani scholar Hamza Alavi to show, historically and empirically, how imperialist powers (from the United States to China) have used the military as a seat of power to bring the local elite under their hegemony. A political theoretical practice and the building of a counter-hegemony which goes beyond and beneath inter-elite struggles is much needed.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful for the comments of the reviewers as well as to Noaman G. Ali for extensive discussions and crucial contributions which have strengthened this paper. I also acknowledge the detailed feedback that Sara Abraham, Shozab Raza and Hiba Akbar have provided.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 The list of such literature is long and will come up in the discussion of different aspects of Pakistani state and politics in this article.
2 Books as particular examples of journalistic and policy accounts are: Lieven, Pakistan: A Hard Country; Haqqani, Pakistan Between Mosque and Military; Cohen and Fatemi, Future of Pakistan.
3 See Humera Iqtidar, Secularising Islamists, for an example of application of postcolonial theory and subaltern studies on the issue of Islam and secularism in Pakistan.
4 Alavi, “State in Post-Colonial Societies,” 59–81.
5 Alavi’s article engaged, John S. Saul and Colin Leys to reflect on postcolonial states in Africa; see Saul, “State in Post-Colonial Societies,” 349–72; Leys, “‘Overdeveloped’ Post-Colonial State,” 39–48.
6 Moyo and Yeros, “Intervention: The Zimbabwe Question,” 171–204.
7 Peck and Tickell, “Neoliberalizing Space,” 380–404.
8 Chimni, “Third World Approaches to International Law,” 7.
9 Miliband, State in Capitalist Society. For a good summary of the debate I am relying on Barrow, “The Miliband-Poulantzas Debate.”
10 Ibid.
11 Alavi, “State in Post-Colonial Societies,” 61.
12 Alavi, “State and Class Under Peripheral Capitalism.”
13 Alavi, “Bangladesh and the Crisis of Pakistan,” 289.
14 He used both terms ‘class’ and ‘auxiliary class’ like salariat class, which means a self-interested group apart from the interests of the state. See Alavi, “Misreading Partition Road Signs.”
15 Poulantzas, “On Social Classes.”
16 Cox, “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations,” 163.
17 McCartney and Zaidi, New Perspectives on Pakistan’s Political Economy, 20–1.
18 David Washbrook has separated the represented form of colonial India after 1857 from the democratic one. See Washbrook, “The Rhetoric of Democracy and Development.”
19 Zaheer, The Times and Trial of the Pindi Conspiracy Case; also Toor, State of Islam.
20 See Malik, “Alternative Politics and Dominant Narratives,” 520–37.
21 For literature emphasising the military’s superiority as socio-economic modernisers, see Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies. See also Stepan, Military in Politics.
22 For details on the bureaucracy of this time, see Braibanti, Chief Justice Cornelius of Pakistan.
23 See Cohen, Pakistan Army; see also Wolpin, Military Aid and Counterrevolution in the Third World.
24 Hussain and Ahmed, Experiments with Industrial Policy.
25 Moyo and Yeros, “Intervention: The Zimbabwe Question.”
26 White, Industrial Concentration and Economic Power in Pakistan.
27 Naseemullah and Arnold, “Politics of Developmental State Persistence,” 122–3.
28 Malik, “Public Authority and Local Resistance,” 817.
29 K. A. Ali, “Strength of the Street,” 87–107.
30 N. G. Ali, “Agrarian Class Struggle and State Formation,” 1–19.
31 Eqbal Ahmad called him ‘fascist’; see Ahmad, “Pakistan: Signpost to a Police State,” 423. Gerald A. Heeger called him a ‘patrimonial ruler’; see Heeger, “Politics in the Post-Military State,” 254; see also Alavi, “State in Post-Colonial Societies” 66–7.
32 N. G. Ali, “Hashtnagar Peasant Movement,” 20.
33 “Kaviraj, Trajectories of the Indian State, 115, as cited by N. G. Ali, Hashtnagar Peasant Movement, 20.” (emphasize in the original).
34 For this I draw heavily on N. G. Ali, “Hashtnagar Peasant Movement,” 263.
35 See Abbas, Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism.
36 I am borrowing this description of the nature of neoliberal hegemony from Moyo and Yeros, “Intervention: The Zimbabwe Question.”
37 Husain, Pakistan: The Economy of an Elitist State, 300.
38 M. Azeem, Law, State and Inequality in Pakistan, 114–31.
39 Shahid Ahmed, Rentier Capitalism, xii
40 T. A. Khan, Post-Colonial State, 103–05.
41 Rahman, Pakistan: Sovereignty Lost.
42 Rahman, “Who Owns Pakistan”; also Husain, Pakistan, 378, 380.
43 Weiss, Class, Culture and Development in Pakistan, 11; Munir and Naqvi, “Privatization in the Land of Believers: The Political Economy of Privatization in Pakistan,” 1695–726; see also Munir and Khalid, “Pakistan’s Power Politics,” 24–7; Anwar, Infrastructure Redux; see also Khan F. S., “Political economy and the rule of law in Pakistan 1999–2004: resistance to implementation of law and caste capitalism”, PhD Thesis, SOAS, University of London, 2014.
44 Harvey, Brief History of Neoliberalism, 19 (emphasize in the original).
45 Purl, “Fathoming Pakistan’s Cycles of Instability.”
46 Hussain, Pakistan and IMF, International Expert Workshop organised by the German Foundation for Development (DSE), as cited by Kennedy and Botteron, Pakistan: 2005.
47 See for example, Kux, United States and Pakistan 1947–2000.
48 Zaman, Eradicating Poverty in South Asia.
49 Mahmood, Model for Social Development Based on the Community, 2, 5.
50 An example is subaltern studies.
51 Kaufmann and Kraay, Growth without Governance, 30.
52 Toor, The State of Islam, 192–202.
53 S. Azeem and Ali, “Zarb-e-Azb and the Left.”
54 He condemned India not to disturb Pakistan because it might disturb the liberal experience under Musharraf. Alavi, “Pakistan between Afghanistan and India,” 24–31.
55 Hanieh, Capitalism and Class in the Gulf Arab States.
56 N. G. Ali, “Gulf Sub-Imperialism and Pakistan.”
57 See the book by the PM at that time: Shaukat Aziz, From Banking to the Thorny World of Politics.
58 Haqqani, Pakistan Between Mosque and Military; Abbas, Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism.
59 See Iqtidar, Secularising Islamists?
60 This is a point raised to me by Noaman G. Ali.
61 M. Azeem, “Theoretical Challenges to TWAIL with the Rise of China.”
62 Hung describes Chinese capital in its ‘uniqueness’, while being embedded in and tied to world capital; see Hung, China Boom, 10. As opposed to this, Ching Kwan Lee believes in Chinese capital having its own characteristics; Lee, Specter of Global China.
63 Reuters, “IMF Warns Pakistan against ‘Excessive Loans’ from China,” October 10, 2018.
64 See State Bank of Pakistan Annual Report 2018–19, 69–75.
65 Mangi, “Pakistan Owes China More Money.”
66 Times of Islambad, “$30 Billion Investment Package,” February 10, 2019.
67 Alavi, “Bangladesh and the Crisis of Pakistan,” 306.
68 M. H. Khan, “Changes in the Agrarian Structure of Pakistan”; Akhtar, “Overdeveloping State,” 111–3; see also Zaidi, Issues in Pakistan’s Economy, 39-55.
69 See Ullah, Pakistan Under the Stranglehold of Feudalism.
70 Javid, “Class, Power, and Patronage,” 337–69; S. Khan and Gazdar, Social Structures in Rural Pakistan; Malik and Malik, “Pirs and Politics in Punjab,” 1818–61.
71 World Bank, In the Dark.
72 Zaidi, “Rethinking Pakistan’s Political Economy,” 50, footnote 8.
73 See many writings of Ali Cheema, especially Cheema, Khwaja, and Qadir, “Decentralization in Pakistan: Context, Content and Causes”. See also Qadeer, “Ruralopolises.”
74 Zaidi, “State, Military and Social Transition,” 5176.
75 Akhtar, Overdeveloping State; see also his book: Akhtar, Politics of Common Sense.
76 N. G. Ali, “Reading Gramsci through Fanon,” 241–57.
77 Moyo and Yeros, “Intervention.”
78 M. Azeem, “Theoretical Challenges to TWAIL with the Rise of China.”
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Muhammad Azeem
Muhammad Azeem is an Assistant Professor at Shaikh Ahmad Hassan School of Law, LUMS University Lahore. He teaches labour law, constitutional and administrative law, and international law from the South, with special emphasis on Third World approaches to international law (TWAIL).