Changing US and Pakistani "Elites"

On June 30th, Ayesha Siddiqa's column, "What is Pakistan's elites" appeared in The Express Tribune. It didn't move me as there wasn't anything new for me. Then, almost two weeks later, on July 12th, David Brooks's Column "Why Our Elites Stinks" appeared in New York Times and to my surprise, the arguments and conclusions were so identical to that of Ayesha's column, that I couldn't resist but read them twice to make sure, that I am not misreading their arguments. Wow, I said to myself, although, there is no match between the elites of both countries, but the Process of social mobility and the complaints are very close, if not similar. That was very surprising to me. So let's compare, the David and Ayesha's arguments and conclusions,

........."the elite are not just a group, but also the name of a process that facilitates a constant cycle of change in a society. In case of a powerful, yet easily manipulated state like Pakistan, the process of elite formation is directly linked with the ability of a group to manipulate the state, its power and resources. This means that what may be the middle class or lower middle class of yesterday can be the elite of today. For instance, who could imagine a few decades ago that one day, people belonging to lower middle or middle class backgrounds, like Altaf Hussain, Qaim Ali Shah, Malik Riaz, Humayun Akhtar, Ijazul Haq, or Arsalan Iftikhar will be powerful millionaires and part of the elite? Not to forget the fact that today religious leaders like Maulana Fazlur Rehman or jihadi leaders such as Hafiz Saeed, Fazlur Rehman Khalil, Malik Ishaq and others are also part of the power elite.".............

As, I have highlighted in the above excerpt, Ayesha recognizes "a process" and defines the process as "the ability of a group to manipulate the state, its power and resources". In the previous paragraph, she identifies the able group as "civil and military bureaucrats" but she doesn't mention about "the process" which form the bureaucrats,

....... "Popularly, the term ‘elite’ invokes the image of the landed-feudal group, which was originally part of the ruling elite in 1947. However, over the years this began to change with the state’s civil and military bureaucracy getting integrated into the elite and also using state resources to create other elite groups such as business and industry." ...........

Like Ayesha, David starts his column by pointing to the shifts in the elites of US, 

......"Through most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Protestant Establishment sat atop the American power structure. A relatively small network of white Protestant men dominated the universities, the world of finance, the local country clubs and even high government service.

Over the past half–century, a more diverse and meritocratic elite has replaced the Protestant Establishment. People are more likely to rise on the basis of grades, test scores, effort and performance.".........

But unlike Ayesha, David mentions the process  as meritocracy and later he elaborates the process, 

.............." I’d say today’s meritocratic elites achieve and preserve their status not mainly by being corrupt but mainly by being ambitious and disciplined. They raise their kids in organized families. They spend enormous amounts of money and time on enrichment. They work much longer hours than people down the income scale, driving their kids to piano lessons and then taking part in conference calls from the waiting room.".............


It would be fair to acknowledge that, Ayesha didn't mention the process because she wrote her column to highlight the negation of the "elites" as being elites and David wrote to defend the "meritocratic elites" but having said that, surprisingly both columnists points to the same trends among current elites and that is their negation and escapism from taking responsibility,



........Chris Hays, the man, whose thoughts were the main theme of the David Brooks' column......

  David; "Everybody thinks they are countercultural rebels, insurgents against the true establishment, which is always somewhere else. This attitude prevails in the Ivy League, in the corporate boardrooms and even at television studios where hosts from Harvard, Stanford and Brown rail against the establishment.

As a result, today’s elite lacks the self-conscious leadership ethos that the racist, sexist and anti-Semitic old boys’ network did possess. If you went to Groton a century ago, you knew you were privileged. You were taught how morally precarious privilege was and how much responsibility it entailed. You were housed in a spartan 6-foot-by-9-foot cubicle to prepare you for the rigors of leadership."............

Ayesha; "The fact is that the term and concept, ‘elite’, is misrepresented and misunderstood in this country. Intriguingly, those who are part of the elite themselves carry out most of the anti-elite commentary. In fact, castigating the elite at popular forums is a way to gain legitimacy that could lead to acquisition of greater power. For instance, the MQMcondemns its opponents as elite, while being a part of the power circle itself. Similarly, the PTI leadership, which comes from an elite background, sells a middle class narrative to gain access to greater power and control of government. Even the judges challenge the elite when they are historically part of the power establishment of the country."......................

I may not be in position to analyse the changing elites of US and Pakistan however, I know, why there is a denial on the parts of elites. To make the  picture clearer, let me bring a historical excerpt from meeting and conversation of Ibn Khaldun (the "greatest Arab historian") and Tamerlane (The last of great Mongol conquerors). Why I have chosen Ibn Khaldun and Tamerlane? I chose Ibn Khaldun because he is the ideal representative of the 13th century hybrid elite (Aristocracy +Meritocracy). His family was part of upper class Arab Spain and after fall of Spain, they still managed to maintain their status in Tunisia.  He was involved in Politics and was Qadi of Maliki sect of Islam in Egypt. On other hand, Tamerlane was the Khan of an empire (Mongolian Khans had brought a world order that had unified Far East, Central Asia, South Asia and Middle East and had created an Eastern globalization based on Silk Road) that was superpower of his time. When Tamerlane and his army camped outside of  Damascus walls, Ibn Khaldun sneaked Damascus to meet Tamerlane and this resulted in a historical conversation between the two historical figures (It should be noted that no Persian historian of the time had recorded this conversation and we know about this conversation only through Ibn Khandun's autobiography and Arab sources) ....

Most of their conversation is about history and geography of Maghreb (Northwest Africa; Currently, Tunis, Algeria, Morocco, Libya) and Heroes of history as per subject interest areas of the Tamerlane but what is relevant here to our topic is the efforts of Ibn Khaldun to please Tamerlane by exalting him,

After mentioning of the predictions by Astrologers and Sufis about the coming of the great power (Tamerlane), Ibn Khaldun says that, "May Allah aid you- today it is 30 or 40 years that I have longed to meet you," The interpreter, 'Abd al-Jabbar, asks him, "And what is the reason for this?"

He replies, "Two things; The first is that you are the Sultan of the Universe and the ruler of the world, and I do not believe that there has appeared among men from Adam until this epoch a ruler like you. I am not one of those who speak about matters by conjecture, for I am a scholar and I will explain this........"; Ibn Khaldun and Tamerlane and their historical meeting at Damascus... 

So, here is the greatest historian of Arab/Muslim world (Sometimes when I see Muslim religious scholars challenge each others' beliefs and refer to such scholars' books, I can think of nothing but saying, "for sure, there is no limit to stupidity") and first sociologist who knows, how to manipulate the power of his time. What is the difference between elites of the 13th century Muslims and those of today's. In Medieval ages, the source of the legitimacy was the bloodline of kings so Tamerlane was linking himself to Genghis Khan for legitimacy (Tamerlane's most conquered areas were in Khanate regions and he wanted to legitimize his dynasty by linking himself to great Khan) and elites like Ibn Khaldun could maintain their status by serving and glorifying Khans. In our time, the source of legitimacy is people so the elites want to be conceived as part of people even if practically they are not...

In conclusion, elites are attached to power and as Einstein was noticed, "The attempt to combine wisdom and power has only rarely been successful and then only for a short while." The elites will change as circumstances change  and likewise the nature of complains..............