The word ‘state’ is perhaps the most misused term in the political discourse in Pakistan, if not in other countries. About few weeks ago a video resurfaced on Pakistani social media which showed former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton answering Howard Stern Show host Robin Quivers’ request to explain the term “deep state.” In this December 2019 interview, Clinton used Pakistan as an example in passing to describe what the term “deep state” meant in political science and how this term has often been misused in American politics. Although the conversation on the word “deep state” lasted only for about two minutes, Clinton’s explanation of how the political system worked in Pakistan was extremely relevant to the ongoing Pakistani political discourse.
Politics in Pakistan has historically seen a culture of labelling political dissidents, civil society activists, journalists and politicians as ‘anti-state’ and thus ‘traitors.’ One thing common among all such individuals is their sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit criticism of the Pakistani deep state as described by Clinton. In fact, this anti-state labelling is often done by political commentators and opinionmakers who are considered close to the deep state (or the military and intelligence community in other words).
The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), for example, has consistently been labeled as anti-state. In a similar case, the hashtag #ArrestAntiPakJournalists trended on Twitter on July 4, 2019, which featured a collage of 30 most prominent Pakistani journalists, which promoters of the hashtag claimed were anti-Pakistan and demanded their arrest.
In fact, academics and activists like Dr. Ammar Ali Jan, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy (brilliant professors whose student I have the privilege to be) as well as others have also been accused of being anti-state. And there seems to be no end to this; Nawaz Sharif, the leader of Pakistan’s largest political party recently joined this long list of traitors. In a resounding reply during his speech at the Pakistan Democratic Movement rally in Gujranwala on the 16th of October, the PML-N supremo furiously recounted the history of ‘traitor labeling’ in Pakistan.
Amidst the ever-increasing cases of sedition, Islamabad High Court’s Chief Justice Athar Minallah recently had to remark that “no Pakistani citizen can be declared a traitor,” while hearing a sedition case filed against a journalist.
But all of this begs asking: just who is anti-state? And by extension a traitor? To understand this, we must first understand what the term “state” means.
The term as it is used here has its origins in the works political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli and is used by political scientists to describe a somewhat abstract concept. Even though political scientists are yet to agree upon a single definition of state, the term “state” as defined by various schools of thought within political science, ultimately implies a “polity”; i.e. “an organized political community.” In a democracy, this political community consists of various stakeholders including a territory, a parliament, a government, a judiciary and the press (the national security apparatus is under the command of the government in this structure). All these stakeholders exist for the service of one supreme stakeholder; the people of Pakistan.
In this arrangement, the will of the people is formally embodied in the parliament as expressed through majority-takes-all principle. Informally, the will of the people is expressed through the civil society and intelligentsia as well as by opinion polls. The civil society and intelligentsia in this context are Pakistanis, who by virtue of their citizenship, voice their opinions in the public sphere and call on other stakeholders to adopt policies that they think are in the best interest of the people.
In the simplest terms, the state is an ‘independent institution’ that exists in perpetuity. The Friday Times could for example be thought of as a state consisting of a set of stakeholders which together form the magazine. These stakeholders include the management, the editors, the authors and the readership; without any of these The Friday Times ceases to function. Of course, the former three stakeholders exist to serve the interest of the latter.
To examine this in a more technical manner, it is helpful to look at Encyclopedia Britannica’s definition of the state which describes it as a “political organization of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of government [in the sense of a broader ‘state’ and not just the ‘executive’ branch of the government].” Britannica futher notes that “the state is a form of human association distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, the establishment of order and security; its methods, the laws and their enforcement; its territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries; and finally by its sovereignty.”
Hence, the other two distinguishing features of a state are its sovereignty and its organized structure, which governs the relations among stakeholders and allows its existence in perpetuity. Since ‘sovereignty in relation to state’ is a concept primarily used in international relations, it may not be relevant for our intents and purposes here. However, it is important understand the expression ‘organized’ political structure or community, as its forms the ‘foundation’ of a state and allows it to ‘legitimately’ use violence (as defined by Max Weber).
What makes the state, or any institution for that matter, an organized political community is a ‘set of rules’ whether explicit or implicit, which define the responsibilities and powers of key stakeholders and most importantly outline the limits to those powers. In a democratic state like Pakistan these rules are embodied in the constitution as well as in all laws and regulations enacted by the parliament.
Another important purpose of these rules is to ensure that no stakeholder abuses its power or acts beyond its given area of responsibility. This is accomplished by organizing a power structure in which each stakeholder keeps the other in check. The right to define these rules lies with supreme stakeholder of the Pakistani state, that is the people of Pakistan and their will as expressed by the parliament.
A strict adherence to these rules is what grants a state the ‘legitimacy’ to use violence. One example of this legitimate use of violence is the authority of law enforcement agencies to arrest and administer justice in the name of the state – on the demand of and under the strict supervision of the justice system of course.
Since constitution is the most critical and defining structure of a state, it was warranted for the authors of 1973 constitution to write article 6, which criminalizes its disobedience and formally declares its violation as treason.
Now to address our question: who is anti-state? Based on our discussion so far it is safe to conclude that any entity which intentionally acts against the existence of the broader Pakistani political community of various stakeholders, and deliberately undermines the interest and the will of people of Pakistan, is anti-state. Since the constitution is an embodiment of the will of people, its violation can be considered as anti-state and thus tantamount to treason.
The term ‘anti-state’ as used by pro-establishment commentators is often meant to imply ‘anti-Pakistan,’ and it would be rightfully so – but only if the person or entity in question intends to undermine the interest, rights and will of the people of Pakistan.
In this sense, a foreign intelligence operative who works to futher the interest of a foreign nation by undermining the interest of Pakistani people is anti-state and thus anti-Pakistan. But a journalist, politician or a political dissident who criticizes a stakeholder of the state with the intention of upholding the interest and will of the people is not anti-state in anyway. Criticizing the military and intelligence community, hence, does not make one anti-state if the intention is to uphold and promote the interest and the will of the people. Calling out any institution that acts beyond the law is in fact being pro-state.
In the Pakistani political scenario, however, any criticism of the establishment or the deep state (usually meant to imply the military and intelligence community) has unfortunately become synonymous with being anti-state. In fact, political dissidents, activists, academics, and members and organizations of the civil society – who are usually the victim of anti-state labeling campaigns – have come to accept the anti-state label. In their statements, they sometimes consider state to be synonymous with the security establishment. This could be due to the attempts by political actors to avoid directly mentioning specific institutions within the military and intelligence community, out of fear of a reprisal. But it has a downside; it allows the pro-establishment commentators to easily paint them as anti-state and hence anti-Pakistan and traitors.
With the launch of Pakistan Democratic Movement, it is a high time for debates surrounding anti-state and traitor labelling. It is important that each stakeholder be called what it is and not to be called with other words or euphemisms. The correct usage of terms “state” and “anti-state” can help diffuse confusion, prevent manipulation of the political discourse by certain actors, and promote a healthy debate.
The writer is a student of Social Sciences at Forman Christian College in Lahore. He tweets @BasilDogra and can be reached by an email to basildogra@live.com
Politics in Pakistan has historically seen a culture of labelling political dissidents, civil society activists, journalists and politicians as ‘anti-state’ and thus ‘traitors.’ One thing common among all such individuals is their sometimes explicit and sometimes implicit criticism of the Pakistani deep state as described by Clinton. In fact, this anti-state labelling is often done by political commentators and opinionmakers who are considered close to the deep state (or the military and intelligence community in other words).
The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM), for example, has consistently been labeled as anti-state. In a similar case, the hashtag #ArrestAntiPakJournalists trended on Twitter on July 4, 2019, which featured a collage of 30 most prominent Pakistani journalists, which promoters of the hashtag claimed were anti-Pakistan and demanded their arrest.
In fact, academics and activists like Dr. Ammar Ali Jan, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy (brilliant professors whose student I have the privilege to be) as well as others have also been accused of being anti-state. And there seems to be no end to this; Nawaz Sharif, the leader of Pakistan’s largest political party recently joined this long list of traitors. In a resounding reply during his speech at the Pakistan Democratic Movement rally in Gujranwala on the 16th of October, the PML-N supremo furiously recounted the history of ‘traitor labeling’ in Pakistan.
Amidst the ever-increasing cases of sedition, Islamabad High Court’s Chief Justice Athar Minallah recently had to remark that “no Pakistani citizen can be declared a traitor,” while hearing a sedition case filed against a journalist.
But all of this begs asking: just who is anti-state? And by extension a traitor? To understand this, we must first understand what the term “state” means.
The term as it is used here has its origins in the works political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli and is used by political scientists to describe a somewhat abstract concept. Even though political scientists are yet to agree upon a single definition of state, the term “state” as defined by various schools of thought within political science, ultimately implies a “polity”; i.e. “an organized political community.” In a democracy, this political community consists of various stakeholders including a territory, a parliament, a government, a judiciary and the press (the national security apparatus is under the command of the government in this structure). All these stakeholders exist for the service of one supreme stakeholder; the people of Pakistan.
In this arrangement, the will of the people is formally embodied in the parliament as expressed through majority-takes-all principle. Informally, the will of the people is expressed through the civil society and intelligentsia as well as by opinion polls. The civil society and intelligentsia in this context are Pakistanis, who by virtue of their citizenship, voice their opinions in the public sphere and call on other stakeholders to adopt policies that they think are in the best interest of the people.
In the simplest terms, the state is an ‘independent institution’ that exists in perpetuity. The Friday Times could for example be thought of as a state consisting of a set of stakeholders which together form the magazine. These stakeholders include the management, the editors, the authors and the readership; without any of these The Friday Times ceases to function. Of course, the former three stakeholders exist to serve the interest of the latter.
To examine this in a more technical manner, it is helpful to look at Encyclopedia Britannica’s definition of the state which describes it as a “political organization of society, or the body politic, or, more narrowly, the institutions of government [in the sense of a broader ‘state’ and not just the ‘executive’ branch of the government].” Britannica futher notes that “the state is a form of human association distinguished from other social groups by its purpose, the establishment of order and security; its methods, the laws and their enforcement; its territory, the area of jurisdiction or geographic boundaries; and finally by its sovereignty.”
Hence, the other two distinguishing features of a state are its sovereignty and its organized structure, which governs the relations among stakeholders and allows its existence in perpetuity. Since ‘sovereignty in relation to state’ is a concept primarily used in international relations, it may not be relevant for our intents and purposes here. However, it is important understand the expression ‘organized’ political structure or community, as its forms the ‘foundation’ of a state and allows it to ‘legitimately’ use violence (as defined by Max Weber).
What makes the state, or any institution for that matter, an organized political community is a ‘set of rules’ whether explicit or implicit, which define the responsibilities and powers of key stakeholders and most importantly outline the limits to those powers. In a democratic state like Pakistan these rules are embodied in the constitution as well as in all laws and regulations enacted by the parliament.
Another important purpose of these rules is to ensure that no stakeholder abuses its power or acts beyond its given area of responsibility. This is accomplished by organizing a power structure in which each stakeholder keeps the other in check. The right to define these rules lies with supreme stakeholder of the Pakistani state, that is the people of Pakistan and their will as expressed by the parliament.
A strict adherence to these rules is what grants a state the ‘legitimacy’ to use violence. One example of this legitimate use of violence is the authority of law enforcement agencies to arrest and administer justice in the name of the state – on the demand of and under the strict supervision of the justice system of course.
Since constitution is the most critical and defining structure of a state, it was warranted for the authors of 1973 constitution to write article 6, which criminalizes its disobedience and formally declares its violation as treason.
Now to address our question: who is anti-state? Based on our discussion so far it is safe to conclude that any entity which intentionally acts against the existence of the broader Pakistani political community of various stakeholders, and deliberately undermines the interest and the will of people of Pakistan, is anti-state. Since the constitution is an embodiment of the will of people, its violation can be considered as anti-state and thus tantamount to treason.
The term ‘anti-state’ as used by pro-establishment commentators is often meant to imply ‘anti-Pakistan,’ and it would be rightfully so – but only if the person or entity in question intends to undermine the interest, rights and will of the people of Pakistan.
In this sense, a foreign intelligence operative who works to futher the interest of a foreign nation by undermining the interest of Pakistani people is anti-state and thus anti-Pakistan. But a journalist, politician or a political dissident who criticizes a stakeholder of the state with the intention of upholding the interest and will of the people is not anti-state in anyway. Criticizing the military and intelligence community, hence, does not make one anti-state if the intention is to uphold and promote the interest and the will of the people. Calling out any institution that acts beyond the law is in fact being pro-state.
In the Pakistani political scenario, however, any criticism of the establishment or the deep state (usually meant to imply the military and intelligence community) has unfortunately become synonymous with being anti-state. In fact, political dissidents, activists, academics, and members and organizations of the civil society – who are usually the victim of anti-state labeling campaigns – have come to accept the anti-state label. In their statements, they sometimes consider state to be synonymous with the security establishment. This could be due to the attempts by political actors to avoid directly mentioning specific institutions within the military and intelligence community, out of fear of a reprisal. But it has a downside; it allows the pro-establishment commentators to easily paint them as anti-state and hence anti-Pakistan and traitors.
With the launch of Pakistan Democratic Movement, it is a high time for debates surrounding anti-state and traitor labelling. It is important that each stakeholder be called what it is and not to be called with other words or euphemisms. The correct usage of terms “state” and “anti-state” can help diffuse confusion, prevent manipulation of the political discourse by certain actors, and promote a healthy debate.
The writer is a student of Social Sciences at Forman Christian College in Lahore. He tweets @BasilDogra and can be reached by an email to basildogra@live.com