” a “moderate oligarchy” with “an informal political system that [ties] together the senior ranks of the military, the civil service, key members of the judiciary, and other elites.” Membership in this oligarchy, Cohen contends, requires adherence to a common set of beliefs: that India must be countered at every turn; that nuclear weapons have endowed Pakistan with security and status; that the fight for Kashmir is unfinished business from the time of partition; that large-scale social reforms such as land redistribution are unacceptable; that the uneducated and illiterate masses deserve only contempt; that vociferous Muslim nationalism is desirable but true Islamism is not; and that Washington is to be despised but fully taken advantage of. Underlying these “core principles,” one might add, is a willingness to serve power at any cost.”

The above 2 kinda come close to describing this abstract concept. IN short, military takeovers and civilian governments both are just violent shakedown not much different than Presidents breaking the elected bodies because of arbitrary digression.
Thus there exists a perverse symbiosis of this Kleptocrats whoseem to benefit most from the status quo. Imran Khan, the religious cadre (in whatever conceptual capacity this term may be used) do not form part of the inner circle of this establishment and the new born Pakistan media (PTV ofcourse being an obvious exception) and civil society groups are also outsiders. Industrialists and Bankers such as the powerful banking families of Habibs, Sharifs and Saighuls etc.. are somewhat of intermediates with powerful interlinkings with the embedded feudal-military elites. I say the last one based more on instinct though.

The loud averse antagonism amongst these various factions betrays the dynamic equilibrium that exists within its substratum. Hence the oft heard term in Pakistani political folklore: lotas, personality cults, family oreinted dynasties such as those of the the Bhuttos

Now all these things arn’t in themselves bad. they become an abomination when there is no check on them, there is nothing to challenge their control, and when corruption, nepotism and other such ills become so embedded that an honest broker is not only viewed with contempt, but often eliminated.

I was just watching news, the biggest factor in current demise of $ is that many big concerns inside US have started to dump US currency as soon as it was started to fall.

So my friend, be assured Establishment & Lobbies are very same, they are all about money & power which actually leads to more money.

That’s exactly what I mean by romanticizing which is No.1 pass time of Pakistanis, “Suicidal Military Bureaucratic Kleptocracy” instead of fancy words why don

We need to define and name things and concepts properly so we can deal with them. My opinion is that the so called “establishment” is not really an “Establishment” and that is the main problem with Pakistan.

My definition for the entity previously known as “Pakistani Establishment” is “Suicidal Military Bureaucratic Kleptocracy” (SMBK). There is a marked difference between SMBK and an Establishment.

Pakistani SMBK is a parasitic aggregation of individuals and families who will flee Pakistan as soon as there is a problem. An Establishment, OTOH, by its very nature, if it exists that is, has it’s life and death tied to the nation or the country that it is “Established In”.

Key difference. And equating that with a “lobby” is just insulting everyone’s intelligence .. so maybe it was more in jest that it was mentioned.. who knows.

No need to romanticize the term, its more of a common-sensical thing.

Pakistan’s establishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_(Pakistan)

The Establishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Establishment

Anti-establishment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-establishment

In Pakistan’s context in addition to Stephen Cohen’s above mentioned description, the adherence to the seperate muslim identity and its sequel, the ‘two nation theory’ and ‘Nazariya e Pakistan’ has been considered a must by the establishment. India, Islam and Urdu were the instruments of creating and sustaining a fragile nation-state. Centuries old Indus-identity was repressed. America, Army and Allah were the three contants to fall back upon while the Awam was ignored.

Well thought writing. After reading your comments I am still struggling with the word

You see, establishment, aside from being a mindset, is a coalition of behind-the-scenes actors that give stability to the nation or country or empire (a common entity and set of values to be protected) so that the concept can endure.

In Pakistan, what we have is a ‘focus of privilege’ like a show-biz search light and as long as you are under that spot-light you are in the “in group” but once you are used up.. you are just another used tissue paper.

Look at the “ex servicemen society”, if these people comprised of “the real mccoy”, no sitting president could call them useless POS! The establishment, by definition, is stronger than a single institution.

But the converse is not necessarily true. Something that is stronger than an existent overt institution is not necessarily (or by default as it were) “the Establishment’ in the *cough* established *cough* sense of the word.

An establishment, when it is strong, stops institutions from crossing certain lines. Because it’s own survival is attached to a set of rules such that the playground in which the Establishment exercises it’s hegemony is not destroyed by some of the participants.

In Pakistan, we don’t have an establishment, we have a loosely tied network of individuals which use the coercive powers of the state at the behest of external establishements - especially British

You see, you need an identity and a set of values for an establishment to protect (as it nibbles away at the sweet wealth secreted by the worker bees) ..

An establishment ‘gels’ around an identity. Identity is something dynamic, but it provides the substrate upon which the establishment spreads its roots and provides the anchor for a society and a set of unwritten rules that the various actors more or less agree to.

We don’t have any of that because we haven’t even agreed upon an identity yet. And the military-bureaucratic complex in Pakistan has proved to be a bunch of sissies and given NO reisitance to foreign strategic meddling in the indentity formation process which was key after the creation of the state.

So, we don’t have an establishment, we have a loosely tied group of vultures all bound together by petty self-interest who do not have interests in Pakistan and whose “retirement” plans include lives in lavish villas in europe and in the americas as rewards for loyalty to the interests of the foreign estabilshments.