Saeed Afridi

Career

Afridi is a researcher at the University of Westminster and works in the Department of Politics and International Relations. His work covers political theory, international security and energy security. The work has a particular focus on Central Asia. Afridi says he studies chaos and complexity. He also says he is in the Middle East. [1]

Views on Pakistan's political system

Afridi says Pakistan's system is a legacy of British colonial rule. He says the system was designed to extract resources from the country. In his account, it works well for the purpose it was designed for. He says public welfare is not the system's priority, and that extraction is. [1]

Afridi describes Pakistan as a competitive authoritarian regime. He says authoritarian rule is usually carried out by a group of institutions rather than one figure. He says primacy among the institutions that run the authoritarian system lies with the army. In his view the establishment has come to mean the army. He says the army has taken a complete dictatorial role over the past two to three years, setting other institutions aside. [1]

Afridi says institutional competition is not a matter of some institutions being patriotic and others not. He says that when competition between institutions falls, the primary authority tries to impose itself, which brings pushback in a cycle. He says that if a dictator is not benevolent or is unwise, the system will collapse. He also says Pakistan changed the label to democracy while the system stayed the same. [1]

Afridi says people's first reaction to a failing system is apathy, not revolt. He says people stop voting when they think their vote makes no difference. He says apathy turns into mass discontent over time. In his account, discontent usually finds a figurehead to channel it. He adds that this pattern of discontent and figureheads happens everywhere, not only in Pakistan. [1]

Views on the bureaucracy

Afridi says the 1973 constitution placed the bureaucracy under the executive. He says whoever controls the legislator controls the bureaucracy. In his account, since 1973 the bureaucracy has served the legislator rather than Pakistan. He says officials work for the satisfaction of cabinet members and legislators. [1]

Afridi calls the bureaucratic problem a systemic one that Pakistan itself seeded, not one handed over by colonial rulers. He says the bureaucracy has no agency left. He says the 1973 decisions caused the country heavy losses. He also says Pakistan made dysfunctional the arrangements that had worked under the 1935 India Act and Burma Act. [1]

Views on parties and the military

Afridi says the Pakistan People's Party was extremely popular and had a good story to sell, with Benazir Bhutto as its figurehead. He says the People's Party re-emerged as a main contender to the military. He says Benazir Bhutto decided this was not a fight worth fighting. He says the compromise happened between 1987 and 1988. In his view, the downfall of Benazir Bhutto's party started at that point. [1]

Afridi says Benazir Bhutto had more trust in the United States than in the people. He says what the United States wanted and what the military wanted became important. He says the People's Party later came to front for the military. He says the 1990s were turbulent because voters kept switching parties when leaders did not deliver. He adds that the People's Party was probably in a much better position than PTI is now to be a challenger. [1]

Afridi says Pakistan has returned to the same juncture and will likely make the same compromises. He describes PTI as the challenger with a very large support base. He says PTI's supporters are loyal to a cause, not to the party, and that the PTI leadership is loyal to its role within the system. He says PTI lacked popularity in April 2022, when a no-confidence vote was held. [1]

Afridi says his own views and those of his viewers have changed a lot over the past two years. He says PTI's one good outcome was seeing the system through to the end. He says people can no longer ignore all of this. He says the level of criticism PTI members direct at the KPK government is a sign of what is to come. He warns the next challenger will not be as accommodating as PTI, and chaos could follow. [1]

Afridi says the blame for the crisis lies with the Pakistan army, not with PTI, other politicians or their supporters. He says the army's mistakes come from a lack of skill, not bad intentions. He argues that even if PTI had won the election, it would likely have formed a weak government. He says the United States is the key external political actor in Pakistan and the military the key internal one. [1]

Afridi says the police have no agency. He says the lower courts are going along and have zero agency. He says some pushback in the judiciary is happening at the highest level. In his view, everyone except the challenger has lost their agency. [1]

Views on governance and reform

Afridi says authoritarian or single-party governments were the model for many developing countries. He describes Vietnam as a single-party state that is growing rapidly. He says an economic crash pushed Indonesia into a reform that made it radically different. He says the collapse of the Soviet Union provided a large laboratory. He describes Poland as a democracy. [1]

Afridi says the answer lies in attributes shared by successful systems. He says access to information is a key factor when designing governing and economic systems. He says systems should be designed to use access to information, whether they are democracies or authoritarian. He says a person with a data plan has access to a lot of information. He adds that the world has become networked, so governing structures must include networks. [1]

Afridi says the lowest tier of government should be people-driven, dynamic and responsive. He proposes small administrative units run by local people at the lowest level of government. He says the top tier needs decision-makers who plan for at least five years, ideally 20 to 25 years. He says innovation at the lowest tier comes from competition between cities. [1]

Afridi says Indonesia made its lowest level of government autonomous and responsive through democratic local governments. He says local governments in Vietnam and China are autonomous. He proposes that the government of Mardan district be made autonomous, so that its residents elect their own government. He says the same arbitration and management are required at a national level. He says people have to plead with their MP and then with an official. [1]

Afridi says turbulence during a period of change is not in itself a bad thing. He says discontent with the system fades when people's immediate needs are met. He says the best reform can do is turn a bad system into a better bad system. He says a redesigned system may have many flaws, which can then be reformed into a good system. He says Pakistan could very easily be among the G20 and be a functional country with an economic presence that would give it a seat at the table. [1]

Timeline

1935

In Afridi's account, the year of the India Act and Burma Act whose working arrangements Pakistan later made dysfunctional.[1]

1973

In Afridi's account, the constitution placed the bureaucracy under the executive.[1]

2022

Afridi says PTI lacked popularity in April, when a no-confidence vote was held.[1]

Appearances

Frequently asked questions

References

1. Pakistan's system isn't broken — it was built to extract . Thought Behind Things , 2024-10-16.