For IPSS Political School

State:

state

is a politicalassociationwith effectivesovereigntyover a geographicareaand representing a population. These may benation states,sub-national statesormultinational states Theform of governmentidentifies only one aspect of the state, namely, the way in which the highest politicaloffices are filled and their relationship to each other and tosociety. It does not include other aspects of the statethat may be very important in its everyday functioning, such as the quality of itsbureaucracy.Some scholars have suggested that the term "state" is too imprecise and ought to be replaced by the morecomprehensive term "political system." The "political system" refers to the ensemble of allsocial structuresthatfunction to produce collectively binding decisions in a society. In modern times, these would include thepoliticalregime,political parties, and various sorts of organizations. The term "political system" thus denotes a broader concept than the stateThe earliest forms of the state emerged whenever it became possible to centralize power in a durable way.Agriculture and writing are almost everywhere associated with this process. Agriculture allowed for theproduction and storing of a surplus. This in turn allowed and encouraged the emergence of a class of peoplewho controlled and protected the agricultural stores and thus did not have to spend most of their time providingfor their own subsistence. In addition, writing (or the equivalent of writing, likeInca quipus) because it made possible the centralization of vital information.The structure of the state in reality depends on the social structure of society. A generalization of the process of state formation can be viewed as an evolution from tribal society - decision making in a egalitarian fashionthrough consensus, to feudal society – decision making by the feudal lord which applies to his fief, toabsolutism – decision making & governance by the king who has absolute power over his domain, topopularization of sovereignty by the French revolution which gave the concept of power to the people. Since,states have been run by various interest groups in society who share power with others dominant groups. Themain issues are representation, transfer of power and governance which are usually written in the form of a‘social contract‘ called the constitution.The representation of the people is restricted in different ways. A dictatorship means that there is norepresentation of the people, an aristocracy means few people or groups are represented in the state. Some stateshave an adult franchise (one person one vote) while others such as Cuba have representation according to socialclass e.g. farmers, laborers etc. If judged from a representation standpoint, the poor who comprise 70% of thepopulation are not at all represented in the Pakistani parliament – the decision making body. What also mattersis the representation in state bureaucracy (military & civil) especially if the government is undemocratic,dominated by bureaucracy and highly centralized.The transfer of power mechanism is important because it leads to political stability. Without a standardmechanism, a mughal king had to kill all his brothers to be safe on the throne and more recently in Pakistan,abrupt changes in control of state because of intermittent military & democratic rule has lead to politicalinstability.Governance is extremely important as even with an authoritarian system or a semi-democratic system, somecountries have done well primarily because of political stability and an efficient, effective & uncorruptbureaucracy. Punjab for instance has 90 million people but one government which makes all the decisions. Thisis a highly centralized government structure compared to countries which are either small or have smallerprovinces. The Pakistani state structure has not changed since the British whose purpose was to rule over people& extract revenue, rather than let people rule themselves & the for bureaucracy to help them in this regard.

For IPSS Political School

The Concept of a Nation

If one wants to enjoin people to struggle for the national interest, one must have some idea about what a nationis and what it is to belong to a nation.There are two extreme options. One, purely voluntaristic definition, a nation is any group of people aspiring to acommon political state-like organization. If such a group of people succeeds in forming a state, the loyalties of the group members might be “civic” in nature. At the other extreme, nationalist claim a non-voluntarycommunity (ethno) of common origin, language, tradition and culture (religion) as the basis for an ethno basednation.For the ethno-cultural nationalist it is one's ethno-cultural background which determines one's membership inthe community. One cannot choose to be a member; instead, membership depends on the accident of origin andearly socialization. A more liberal proposal is a “socio-cultural definition” as nation is a cultural group, possiblybut not necessarily united by common descent, endowed with civic ties.Let us now turn to the issue of the origin and “authenticity” of ethno-cultural groups or ethno-nations. In socialand political science one usually distinguishes two kinds of views. The first can be called “primordialist” views.According to them, actual ethno-cultural nations have either existed “since times immemorial” or at least for along time. The second are the modernist views, placing the origin of nations in modern times. They can befurther classified according to their answer to a further question: how real is the ethno-cultural nation? Themodernist realist view is that nations are real but distinctly modern creations, created because of capitalism andtechnology. The anti-realist view nations as merely “imagined” but somehow still powerful entities meaningthat although nation does not exist in reality still people imagine/feel that they are part of a nation. The extremeanti-realist view claims that nations are pure “constructions” – meaning that they are not real but actuallyconstructed by a state or someone.Though the current term for state is Nation State, there are very few nations in the world that are homogenous(that 80%+ people fit the basis of that ethno nation) and thus it is a challenge to keep various communities tolive in harmony with one another in one state. If only one community controls the state, the other think that theyare persecuted.Thus it is important to differentiate between a State which is based on a Civic concept of nation versus a Statewhich is based on an Ethno concept. The State built on a civic concept does not differentiate between itscitizens on the basis of language, ethnicity, religion and culture. America is a good example of this type of statewhere the constitution does not differentiate among citizens. Turkey however is based on Ethno concept of theTurk nation, while Pakistan prides itself on the Ethno concept of religion – Muslims as one nation.The question thus to be asked is ‘Is nation real? If it is but the State includes citizens from different nations thendoes it make sense to have a State based on Ethno concept or does a State based on a Civic concept betterequipped to provide quality life to its citizens?

For IPSS Political School

Rethinking the National Security of Pakistan: The price of strategic myopia.By Ahmad Faruqui reviewed by Chanakya Sen

Always trust an economist to prick balloons of national security floated by militarists. Economic consultantAhmad Faruqui's commentary on demilitarizing Pakistan offers an alternative vision for priming humandevelopment, the road that rulers in Islamabad never took. Published when generals are yet again preferredinstruments of Western intervention in Pakistan, this book warns of dire consequences if new paths are nothewn.A Faustian bargainFaruqui's central thesis is that most of Pakistan's socio-economic problems originate from the heavy emphasison national defense and military spending. Pakistan's unconditional support for the US's "war against terrorism"after September 11, 2001 has augmented this lopsided stress. President General Pervez Musharraf has beenhanded "an enduring rationale for continuing as president under Kelsen's law of necessity that has served allprior military rulers". (p xix). He is less inclined to take any major initiatives to pursue peace with India.Military expenditure continues to absorb the lion's share of the government budget and no major overhaul of Pakistan's military organization is likely. The endemic problem of military dominance in Pakistan has beenperpetuated with the mutual embrace of the West and Musharraf.More harm than good has accrued when Musharraf short-sold Pakistan to the US. To prevent the "Islamicbomb" from falling into religious terrorist hands, the American 15th Marine Expeditionary unit is ready to"neutralize" Pakistan's weapons of mass destruction even at the cost of engaging Pakistani troops. The arrest of Pakistani nuclear scientists for passing know-how to al-Qaeda was done to please the US Federal Bureau of Investigation. Changes in the Pakistan army high command and the Inter-Services Intelligence were carried outto curry favor with the Central Intelligence Agency. India has succeeded in throwing flashlights on terroristtraining infrastructure in Pakistani Kashmir. The victory of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan is a majorsetback to Pakistan due to the former's closeness to Iran and India. Pakistan's economy is deteriorating, withsliding per capita incomes lower than 1%, and foreign economic assistance evaporating after the Taliban weredislodged from Afghanistan.Musharraf's decision to ally with the US turns out to be a Faustian bargain, not a bright tactical move. It issimilar to the 1999 Kargil war with India planned by Musharraf. Initially praised as "an act of militarybrilliance", Pakistan lost both the political and military battle for Kargil. It had to withdraw in humiliatingcircumstances since "the world chose to accept the Indian version of events". (p 16)History of militarismPakistan's governance travails stem from dictators who are "specialists in violence rather than in economics". (p19) Small cabals have acquired disproportionate organizational and collusive power under successive militaryregimes. The landed oligarchy, the bureaucracy and the jihadis are the main beneficiaries of Pakistan's "politicaleconomy of defense". (Ayesha Jalal) Their fortunes have been peaking through policies exacerbating inter-classand inter-regional inequalities.General Ayub Khan nurtured a class of robber barons with gigantic concentration of wealth in a handful of families. West Pakistan's per capita income was 61% higher than the East's under Ayub. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, afeudal lord himself, was unable to rise above his roots. He transferred resources from public enterprises toprivate individuals and income distribution worsened under his so-called socialist tenure. General Zia ul-Haqmass-appointed retired and serving army officers to top public sector positions and allowed one fifth of theUS$3.2 billion American aid for Afghanistan to be pocketed by the military-civil service elites. Benazir Bhuttodoled out franchises to thugs and convicted murderers and triggered a new arms race with India due to herrespect for the Pakistani military's "autonomy". Nawaz Sharif, Zia's protege, misused public funds forfavoritism and kickbacks and followed his mentor's promotion of orthodox militancy.