The stable (in) stability?

Social stability is indispensable for the progress and prosperity of a nation. In sociological lingo, social stability is a dynamic equilibrium and suggests a society's success in evolving a social order characterised by cohesion and continuity and effectively functioning without disruption or upheaval. It is manifested, among other things, in balanced socio-political, economic and cultural stability. This balance affords individuals and groups the predictability, cooperation, prosperity, harmony and dynamism rooted in core cultural values.

Stability can be attained in two ways: first, through inclusive public prosperity, and second, through brute strategies. Societies with legitimate political systems, responsive governance and accountable institutions cultivate stability through inclusive policies that lead to public prosperity and, in return, garner informed public trust. That is, stability obtained through a legitimate power structure serves the masses at its best and therefore lasts longer. Societies with inclusive prosperity and high HDI rankings enjoy reputed status in today's world.

On the other hand, brute stability, or one enforced through force and exclusive and extra-legal strategies, rarely establishes order. Instead, it tends to consolidate the stakes and vested interests of its architect, abettors and beneficiaries of a parasitic order. Brute stability is often sought when the governance institutions questionably claim legitimacy with little public input or accountability, disproportionately serving powerful stakeholders at the public's expense.

Exclusive policies, parasitic practices and extractive institutions characterise brute stability; in such a system, stability means the sustainability of elite power interests — all the outcomes of brute strategies. In other words, brute stability acts as a smokescreen, and most efforts, policies and pursuits accompanying the notions of stability actually add to and strengthen the stakes of stakeholders — a pattern very familiar in our part of the world.

The pursuit of brute stability has solidified the palaces of power in Pakistan while marginalising the subjects to almost an irreversible extent. This isn't, however, the point. The point is, all this has been achieved in the name of stability, national security, democracy, republicanism, religion, justice and the promises of public prosperity. Yet, stability in the ruling elite's canon, should not be identified with their efforts of stabilising people's interests. But, in most instances, their own.

In the age where efforts and resources get tunnelled towards the consolidation of power and interests of a handful of powerful elite, crony capitalists and a couple of dynasties — all in the name of national stability — freedom of expression reduces to freedom to profess the narratives of the powerful: prosperity to the richness of the powerful, justice to the protection of the powerful, bureaucracy to the service of the powerful, clergy to the divine justification of all acts of the powerful, and truth as the lies of the powerful. All the undemocratic acts and constitutional tweaks are rightly carried out as the doctrine of necessity. The necessity to dictate and sustain brute stability. Or the stability of thinning tentacles of power grasping the gasping fate and potential prosperity of the people of Pakistan.

The road to lasting national stability that otherwise should have passed through public prosperity remained diverted towards the palaces of dynasties and powerful lots, who, for all their intentions, (in)efficiency and (il)legitimacy, know that their prosperity rarely syncs with that of people. Therefore, they have chosen to sustain the brute (in)stability and (dis)order in such a manner that could rarely accommodate national stability and inclusive public prosperity.

The ministers' and bureaucracy's claims of "the country's growing prosperity and stability" aren't altogether wrong. What they mean is not about the people, but the brute and authoritarian (in)stability.