Okay, so this was an older discussion and Part Un should be before "deux" but here at Tab'an Khamosh.. everything seems illogical and ass backwards some times.. and it is only apt to be ass-backwards since we're talking about our so called establishment, but I digress!
So, without further handwaving, here is the discussion that took place on the topic. First the "trigger" comment and then my response to it.
m5433d on March 3rd, 2008 8:23 am
As far as I understand Adnan,which could be copletely wrong.
establishment is the result of one powerfull person either creating a web of pwerfull figures that persue the same goals. So for example Zia-ulHaq had his own establishment of people in the army and intelligence that shared his views and thus functioned as opperatives. each time a powerfull figure comes he tries to create his own powerbase. If he is successfull then that is the establisment of the day. Most of the figures of establishment hold more permanent positions that the politicians. When Mush came along he removed figures of power in the army and other instiutes to build his own establishment. In order to ensure its contuity, im sure he has promoted a network of poerfull people thta will cause problems for the next forseeable future. Basically in my opinion establisment is a force whose appointment and dismissal is not based on public selection. Thie establishment agenda cab with or against public opinion.
it might be worth the effort to search on wikkipedia to see what they have said but not many people understand what this monster is.
And my Response:
Tab'an Khamosh on March 3rd, 2008 1:25 pm
@Adnan_H & @m5433d: I have asked the same question regarding this mysterious thing we keep calling “the establishment”. I tend to agree with m5433d’s assessment, but I think that is by definition not an “establishment”
Because “establishment” is a deeply rooted structure in a society which is like the roots of a tree, it is by nature conservative and keeps all the forces in a polity balanced. I think the tragedy of Pakistani politics is that …
drum roll please….
We DON’T HAVE an Establishment !!
yes siree.. we don’t.. this is why we are so rudderless.. In Pakistan, everyman is king (like every man/woman/child on pkpolitics is an absolute expert on everything.. ) The problem isn’t that we do, but that we don’t!!
Establishment is a structure that is “established” by nature, it is deeply rooted and it sets the direction of the country. For example, I remember reading somewhere that the Bushes are still not part of the American Establishment Bushes, with two presidents in the family and multi billionaires.. still not part of the “American Establishment” (this was before the 1st W presidency btw — so they might be now)
So, I think the thing is that we have no establishment.. Not every Arab-Patti should become part of an establishement.. The Establishment by definition has it’s fate tied with the fate of the country it is “established in”.. so if you look at the monkey’s who call themselves “Generals” or “Presidents” or “Secretaries” and think they are “establishment” you can be sure they’re not.
We are controlled by outside establishments (I think UK) and our senior generals, bureaucreats and politicians are basically their lackeys. See musharraf’s actions, and Zia’s before him. (Also See Pak Assembly’s reception of the the Queen of England). Being “rich” doesn’t automaticaly put you in an establishment.. our rich people think they are in some establishment.. but they are not… they’re just rich people with guards.. they don’t decide the fate of this country.. neither do the generals.. as their own fates are decided outside of this country. If we had an establishment, _they_ would be controlling the army not the 10 Downining street or the White House.
I vote for a local establishment!
Photo Credit: abro