Deep State Needs to Revisit its Policies

Many of the politicians, media persons and political commentators are often being heard as saying “Establishment”- Establishment did this, Establishment is against this, Establishment wants this etc. They describe the Establishment in the same “undefined but we all know who we are talking about” terms which makes it too confusing for the general folk to fully grasp the meaning of this term. In order to have a clear picture of what it is, how does it function and who it includes, lets dig out its origin in history. In the beginning of the second half of the 20^th century, the term Establishment in its modern sense was first popularized by the British Journalist Henry Fairlie, who in September 1955, defined the network of some prominent, well-connected and powerful people as the “The Establishment”. With the passage of time, Establishment redefined itself as a nexus of a few powerful individuals either belonging to politics, civil and military bureaucracy, Intel-agencies, media houses, corporate businesses, academia, think tanks or a combination of all, aimed at maintaining the status quo that usually benefits them or people around them.

In the context of Pakistan, Deep State is often deemed to be leading the country’s Establishment, it is too often considered as the main pillar which is at the top of the pyramid and rest are just tools who are being used to maintain or legitimize the power and status quo of the deep state, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that rest of the pillars of the country’s Establishment are irrelevant, they are relevant as long as they are loyal and subservient to the deep state.

However, this concept of a deep state or a state within a state isn’t just confined to Pakistan, countries like Egypt, Turkey, UK, and even the United States have frequently been referred to as states under a deep state, which includes potentially secret and unauthorized networks of power operating independently of a state’s political leadership in pursuit of their own agendas and goals through unconstitutional ways. For instance, During the Trump-administration, deep-state rhetoric had been used in the United States to describe the “permanent government” of entrenched career bureaucrats or civil servants acting in accordance with the mandate of their agency and congressional statutes, when seen as in conflict with the incumbent presidential administration. In Egypt, the deep state was being used to refer to Egyptian military and security networks, particularly the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces after the 2011 Egyptian revolution. According to the author Abdul-Azim Ahmed, They are “non-democratic forces within a country” whose power is “independent of any political changes that take place, who are often hidden beneath layers of bureaucracy and may not be “in complete control at all times” but have “tangible control of key resources whether human or financial”. He also wrote: “The ‘deep state’ is beginning to become short hand for the embedded anti-democratic power structures within a government, something very few democracies can claim to be free from.”

There are two popular narratives in Pakistan regarding the deep state and its role in politics, so the whole country is divided into two groups. First, being sympathetic towards “them”, is of the view that that they are the only saviors of the country during peace as well as in war. The second group totally rejects their involvement in politics due to the fact that their role in the country’s politics is unconstitutional.

Unless role of the deep state is nullified in a country’s politics, hope for a genuine democracy is next to impossible. Since, role of the deep state in politics is a blatant violation of the constitution, therefore, it is high time for our deep state to revisit and rethink its past policies if we are to avoid further polarization and anarchy in the country. Even if the country’s most popular leader such as the former premier Imran Khan wants “them” to play a constructive role in politics that too shall be damaging for democracy to flourish in Pakistan. Because “they” have nothing to do with politics, “their” prime duty is to defend the country against external security threats, not to run the affairs of governance and policy making.