SOFT power excites academicians greatly. It refers to one’s ability to gain widespread voluntary compliance from people based on their respect for one’s accomplishments, knowledge or ethical loftiness. It is most cost-efficient since it delivers widespread compliance without the use of expensive military, economic and political powers.

Academicians see it increasingly playing an equal role in politics along with these ‘dirtier’ traditional sources of power. Its rise has raised hopes for greater justice globally, given soft power’s egalitarian bases.

Anatol Lieven’s book calls Pakistan a hard country because of its rough politics. Soft power seems the perfect antidote for hard countries. However, when the goose of soft power lands on distant Third World shores, it changes colour and utility dramatically.

Seeing its high cost-efficiency, traditional power-brokers there cunningly develop soft powers to conserve their more expensive power stocks. They then employ soft power as an additional weapon along with other sources of power to dominate society.

Take the army, Pakistan’s pre-eminent power-broker. Its ability to undertake coups repeatedly depended on quickly securing key government installations through military force. However, the longevity of its rule depended on its political and soft powers. Lacking the self-confidence to capture power directly to pursue their economic interests, Pakistani landlords, capitalists, and middle classes instead pursued their interests by politically backing generals’ rule.

The military also amassed huge soft powers by meticulously developing the facade of being more competent, honest and patriotic than politicians, thus garnering support for prolonged martial laws. In reality, military rule has hurt Pakistan more than civilian rule.

However, the generals’ political powers have eroded gradually but significantly. Seeing them pursuing an independent agenda which often undermined their interests, Pakistani elite classes started abandoning army coattails and striving for power directly, eg, landlords within the PPP, capitalists within the PML-N and middle classes within the PTI.

Corruption and unpopular policies during army rule have also depleted its soft power stocks somewhat. Its economic power has increased meanwhile through military-owned businesses, as Ayesha Siddiqa’s book Military Inc shows. But, overall, this weakened constellation of different powers precludes easy direct assumption of power.

However, surprisingly, the military still manages to control or heavily influence the three most strategic governance domains, ie, foreign, security and economic policies. This continuing control derives heavily from its soft powers, which have not depleted as fast as its political powers. While no longer seen as competent to run the country fully, the army is still for many the most trusted institution to manage foreign and security policies and the saviour of last resort.

These soft powers were vividly on display in the recent tiff with Geo where the security establishment was seen to push buttons rapidly within society to garner widespread support. It skillfully switched national attention from the physical attack on a leading journalist which had near-fatal consequences, to verbal attacks by Geo directed at the ISI.

The military also uses its different powers to frequently disrupt policies covertly, eg by orchestrating street demonstrations against policies that it disfavours. Politicians, who possess higher political but lower soft powers, are kept in check. Having led from the front directly for decades through martial law, it now strives to lead from behind for another few decades through what may be termed as ‘partial law’, ie, covert control in selected domains.

It may succeed unless challenged, for such partial law will be as harmful as martial law. Academicians attempt to calculate the number of years remaining of significant army political influence. Politicians hope for its quick end. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s jaunty generals laugh heartily at these naive hopes and, paraphrasing Bernard Shaw, mutter smugly: the news of my political death is greatly exaggerated.

Soft power becomes a negative or mixed weapon against democracy and human rights in Pakistan in the hands of others too. Fake pirs exploit their soft powers among the masses to violate human rights. Militants use their soft powers over sections of society to raise financial and human capital.

Finally, the media, bar associations and the judiciary possess large stocks of soft powers and have undoubtedly strengthened democracy in many ways. However, they have also undermined democracy in other ways, eg, by sensationalising journalism, garlanding murderers and encroaching in the domain of others respectively.

Thus, until politicians develop large stocks of soft powers based on genuine accomplishments, others will continue exploiting the potential of soft powers to undermine democracy.

The writer is a development and political economist.

murtazaniaz@yahoo.com