Hamza Alavi argues that classical Marxist theory does not apply to Post-colonial societies even though all

PCS has a lot of the same features. Pakistan in fact has some specific features with 3 existing classes.
Firstly there is the indigenous bourgeoisie (native/local capitalist class). Second is the metropolitan neo-
colonialist (foreigner living class) and thirdly there is a landowner class. This article discusses the
relationship b/w these 3 classes and military-bureaucratic oligarchy. Pre-partition: the classes had
varying interests, the colonialists maintained absolute rule over the other two and the military oligarchy
served colonial rule (British). The native bourgeoisie opposed military and landed classes were in a
demand for rights leading to several peasant uprisings and rebellions. However, Post partition their
interests were still competing but no longer contradictory as a new understanding was developed and
military oligarchy acted as the mediator b/w the interests of the 3 classes. The landed classes and the
native bourgeoisie developed an understanding in hopes of ensuring the capital progress of the state.
The bourgeoisie needed landowners to earn a living. Landowners in turn needed them for labor.
Similarly, the neo-colonial bourgeoisie also became important as it invested in the new nation (set up
industries etc). No class was dominant over the other two. Hence, none could gain power. This
ultimately gives the mil-bureaucratic oligarchy a relatively autonomous role.

Also, the state directly appropriates a large part of the economic surplus and deploys it in
bureaucratically directed 'development' activity. The 'centrality' of the post-colonial state, implies the
'centrality' of the state bureaucracy. Alavi suggested that this bureaucracy, which he called an
'oligarchy', was relatively independent of control by any social class. Moreover, in Western societies, the
indigenous bourgeoisie is responsible for creating the framework of law and capitalism which gives them
power. However, in PCS, the indigenous bourgeoisie adopts an already complex ruling structure from
the colonialists (British). They are not well-equipped to support the structure by themselves which
means they can’t establish dominion.

Alavi’s basic contention about the role of the ‘military-bureaucratic oligarchy’ remains difficult to deny
today. While there is no question that this role has changed and that the relationship of the state
apparatus to society is much more complex than what Alavi suggested, the oligarchy — and its military
segment more specifically — remains the arbiter of power in Pakistan.