Book Review-I

 Power and Civil Society in Pakistan 

Anita M. Weiss and S. Zulfiqar Gilani (eds.)
Oxford University Press, Karachi, 2001.
Pages 312, Price not given.

bly edited by Anita M. Weiss and S. Zulfiqar Gilani, the book brings out that Pakistani society is presently gripped by a number of fundamental crises. These crises, in turn, have created extreme distortions in the state and society. The perception that power in Pakistan may be attained by any means is fast gaining currency. This unhealthy trend has also gone a long way in creating a sense of insecurity among all its stakeholders. As a result, a sense of uncertainty and social chaos has gripped the nation. The social aspects underpinning these problems have been largely ignored.

The task of this book is two‑fold. First, it makes an effort to understand the historic relations of power and authority in a range of social relationship in Pakistan as a means of creating a base‑line understanding of the traditional conception of power. While they vary somewhat by region, class and gender, ample common features exist to form a foundation of what can be termed as “Pakistani society.” The second task of this project is to grapple with the causes behind the disintegration of a moral consensus within Pakistani civil society, with the ultimate objective of re‑conceptualizing development priorities. The main purpose of carrying out this exercise is to contribute to the re‑building of a diverse, confident and culturally rich society.

Mustapha Kamal Pasha, in his paper “Savage Capitalism and Civil Society in Pakistan,” remarks that a civil society – a sphere relatively autonomous from the state, yet depending on it –is indeed emerging in the country. In other words, a modern civil society has started emerging and pre‑conditions for expansion of the sphere of both self‑interest and rights are gradually coming into being. However, the presence of massive inequality severely constricts the development of civil society.

With increasing pressures to “globalise,” the tensions in this nascent civil society are most likely to exacerbate. This makes the task of building a better society in Pakistan, as well as in the rest of the post colonial world, more complicated.

            Next, Anita M. Weiss, in her paper “Gendered Power Relations: Perpetuation and Re‑negotiation,” – explores the foundation of power relations within the home and the extended families. She also examines how this is mitigated by the socialisation process occurring in Pakistani schools. She holds that there is a clear connection between the re‑negotiation of gendered power within the family, greater number of women becoming literate, the resultant expansion of women’s labour-force participation prospects, and women wielding greater power within civil society. Women and men are actively engaged in re‑negotiating power relations and access to power in unprecedented arcs. It is through this process that the greatest potentials for positive, participatory outcomes can be realised.

            Dilating on “Politics of Power and its Economic Imperatives,” Shahid Javed Burki, in his well‑researched thesis states that politics, economics and social change proceed in step. Any lapse in this process produces dis-equilibrium, which can hardly be sustained. For most of its history, Pakistan has had to deal with this dis-equilibrium. For most of the times, the leadership groups sought to block the development of the political system, while the country’s social structure was being transformed. For some time, Pakistan’s economy also moved fast, creating wealth in the hands of the people who sought accommodation in the political system. As they were denied this accomodation, they welcomed change as an unpopular regime was dispensed with by constitutional means or by the periodic intervention of the army into the country’s political life.

Further, Omar Noman discusses the role of shadow privatisation, conflict and ideology with reference to an uncivil society. He brings out that the emerging civil society institutions are connected to these dynamics of power. Some institutions have emerged which raise fundamental issues of human rights abuses, environmental degradation and gender discrimination. These should be active agents in the aforesaid changes. At the same time, a number of civil society institutions are engaged in the opposite – sectarian bigotry and indoctrination of extreme religious views. Allowing this fertility of views, even unpleasant ones, are part of the process of building a civil society.

Next, Dr. Hasan Askari Rizvi, carries out an in‑depth analysis and convincingly brings out that the military has become an all‑pervasive force with expanding professional and corporate interests encompassing the government, the economy and the society. Its strength no longer depends on controlling the levers of power but it is derived from the political clout it exercises due to its organisational strength and its significant presence in the economy and the society. Its ethnic homogeneity contributes to internal cohesion, but it becomes a source of irritation for the under‑represented regions and ethnicities, because the military profession opens the way to a host of rewards, opportunities and prospects.  Further, Dr. Rizvi opines that the expanded role of the military in the polity and the society makes it a key decision-maker for determining politico‑social and economic priorities and allocating resources for societal developments.

            Its institutional and corporate interests make it imperative for the top brass to see to it that territorial security consideration gets adequate attention in policy making and allocation of resources. This means that the policies of the government will be heavily skewed in favour of these considerations rather than towards societal development or societal security.

In their essay on “Power Configuration in Public and Private Arenas and the Women’s Movement Response,” Farzana Bari and Saba Gul Khattak bring out that in Pakistan, the women’s movement has generally worked within social parameters in order to continue to have social legitimacy of sorts. However, a potentially strong role for the women’s movement is constrained due to the patriarchal structures within which it must function. Working within the framework of a masculinist culture necessarily impedes its options. Additionally, the extent to which it is able to negotiate for women’s voice at the individual, family, community and state level, is dependent upon its relationship with other stakeholders within civil society. Furthermore, the position of the women’s movement within civil society is marginal vis-à-vis other contenders for power. It negotiates from the position of relative powerlessness. Therefore, the chances of achieving a voice for women consistently across contexts are not very high at present.

            To conclude, power in Pakistan is being negotiated between different groups in new, unique and innovative ways. This bartering for power has resulted in unprecedented and unanticipated contradictions, which, in turn, have unleashed a descending spiral of confrontation, uncertainty and social turmoil throughout the country. It is in the course of negotiating the ground rules of changing power dynamics that we can envision a new balance that can lead to developing new visible paths to rebuild discourse and consensus within the country.

Colonel (Retired) Ghulam Sarwar