For multiple decades after independence, mainstream politics, and public perception, remained heavily tilted towards agrarian Pakistan. The nature of our political system fortified the view held by residents of urbanistan that landlordism was the number one socio-economic ill in this country – responsible for everything ranging from lack of educational attainment, to female oppression, to lower levels of capital accumulation. The most recent manifestation of this particular phenomenon was in the debate on the implementation of an agriculture income tax the failure of which was seen once again as the product of the vice-like grip that landlords have on our political and policy space.
The persistence of such views, both in Karachi and in parts of central Punjab, is not completely without reason. Land inequality, does after all, remain one of the biggest impediments towards both, rural development, and persistently low levels of agrarian accumulation. But at a more analytical level, urban besiegement simply highlights how discourse and analysis have remained largely static and have completely failed to capture new trends and developments in Pakistani society.
In 2009, urbanisation levels were officially reported at 34.3 percent. Unofficial calculations, including those done by multi-lateral institutions, placed it at around 39-40 percent. The total contribution of the urban services sector was nearly four percent more than agriculture and industry combined. Similarly, employment in the services economy has surpassed employment in manufacturing by nearly 4.6 percent. What these statistics allude to is that Pakistan can no longer be classified as a predominantly rural society.
The urbanity of a country can be gauged from both its economic and demographic characteristics, as well as from the premium its politics places on urban opinion. Both of these qualifications, in todays context, point to Pakistans shift towards a heavily urbanised socio-economic and political ethos. The trouble however, is that we have yet to connect how our economic condition continues to inform our socio-political reality.
For example, the failure to even talk about an agriculture income tax was quickly labelled as another victory for the landed elite, but the failure to implement the reformed general sales tax was hardly connected to the political clout that traders command in at least two of our main-stream parties. Similarly, the hue and cry over higher petrol prices, while done in the name of the common man, was largely reflective of the demands of major transporters groups, all of which stood to lose profits had the decision persisted.
All things aside, efforts to regularise, formalise, and tax the services sector have always been resisted by trading associations and transporters groups through street action and public agitation. But the major difference between the strikes of the late 1970s, and the backdoor/frontdoor politicking of 2011, is that these urban groups have managed to find institutionalised voice in the process of participatory politics through the PML(N) and MQM.
What all this amounts to is that if landlords and feudals were the lynchpins of our political landscape over the last century, then transporters, traders, and contractors are the powerful arbiters of policy space in present-day Pakistan. But it doesnt quite stop there. Beyond policy space, our prevailing urban political arrangements are now also largely responsible for setting the boundaries of social discourse.
The bend towards orthodoxy, conservatism, and deep-seated intolerance is positively correlated with our move towards a services based urban economy. Trader associations, for example, have always allied themselves very closely with right-wing movements, and have contributed to the Afghan and Kashmir insurgency, and to sectarian causes. Most recently, on a trip to Lahore, it came as a little surprise that most banners in favour of the killer Mumtaz Qadri proudly proclaimed multiple trader associations as willing sponsors.
When the liberal/progressive community throws up its arms at how mainstream parties remain mum about Taseers assassination, they miss a very important point in how this wave of deformed conservatism is actually a confluence of multiple currents in our political economy. No mainstream party wants to alienate its financiers and supporters when there is a chance that an election could very well be around the corner. No politician, involved in constituency politics, would want to lose his campaign funding or face a kaafir bullet from his opponent.
There remains absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is an urgent need to focus our debate on the sociology of urban Pakistan. We have used binaries of extremism, conservatism, and fundamentalism, without understanding how our politics and our economics are interrelated and how they are all part and parcel of our societys current trajectory. Without enhancing our understanding of multiple classes and their socio-political behaviour, we cannot come up with a workable and viable agenda of change.
The writer has written more on the middle classes and urban politics at http://recycled-thought.blogspot.com. Contact him at: [email protected]
