THERE is a feeling known to many who do any research work on Pakistan. It is a feeling that one is wasting one’s time researching the history of this country, or attempting to methodically arrive at an understanding of how things work in it. Instead of writing the history of this land, one often feels that it would be more appropriate to be writing its obituary.

The feeling is usually stirred by events, and there is no shortage of them in our country. The ongoing spat between Geo and the military has raised the spectre of a clash of institutions just like the old days, and once again reminded us of the wafer-thin basis of stability on which everything rides.

It’s hard to be absorbed in researching events from 25 years ago in times such as these, but for better or for worse, that is my position. What does it really matter? Who cares why this or that particular decision was made back then, when the current moment presents such a spectacle?

Whenever the feeling hits, it’s useful to recall that we’ve been dealing with the politics of spectacle and institutional clashes for longer than anyone cares to remember. Somehow, something has ensured that we are all still here, so perhaps through it all — the noise and chaos of the moment — it’s worth our while after all to keep a focus on the larger picture.

Perhaps some might remember the press conference given by the army in 1989. Then COAS Mirza Aslam Beg had stood before the assembled press corps, with his commanders seated behind him, and proudly informed everyone that the army was now a professional outfit, no longer interested in politics, and focused on building up its war-fighting capability. Remember ‘glasnost’ and Zarb-i-Momin? A new image for an old army, and what a clean, bold-faced untruth the man told everyone with a straight face.

Of course, while those words were being uttered, unbeknownst to the press, Brig Imtiaz was plying his craft in the shadows, buying votes in an attempt to build a bloc in parliament that could unseat the PPP government. The run-up to the vote of no-confidence that left the civilian government wounded was under way by the time that press conference was given.

The overlap is striking to view in hindsight, and in the turbo-charged spectacle of the time, it appears a lot of people missed it too. I find little to no comment at the time about the irony behind Beg’s presser superimposed upon the good brigadier’s actions.

There are so many examples of this sort of thing happening in our political system that it begins to feel almost routine. So many examples of deeds belying words in real time that it gets a little surreal, and not a little difficult to figure out what really is going on.

When dismissing a democratic government, military rulers have spoken of the corruption and misdeeds of civilian politicians. When handing power back to elected governments, they have always spoken of the need to preserve the professionalism of the army. Emphasise the other’s demerits when snatching power away from them, and emphasise your own righteousness when handing power back. That’s been the formula right down to our time.

But through all the continuity, something is changing. The constant fighting amongst the institutions of state has brought on a policy paralysis that inhibits any strategic decision-making.

We’ve been engrossed in fighting amongst ourselves all the while the revenue base of the state has shrunk; as our power sector reached critically high levels of dependence on oil to generate electricity; as our gas supplies dwindled and new discoveries were not made in over a decade; as the scale of untaxed wealth grew to such massive proportions that it now dictates terms to the state and not vice versa.

Today we can only attract investment by offering rentier terms. People I’m meeting here in D.C. who deal with those who invest in Pakistan say they are very impressed at the kinds of returns their money makes over there.

The very foundations of the state’s stability are eroding, sending us in search of geopolitical rents constantly, but the size of each successive bailout is growing.

Somebody needs to explain this to the hostile triangle that appears to be preparing for a showdown today. This senseless stand-off that is about to be created used to take a couple of years to come about in the old days, but this time Mian Sahib has brought us there faster than ever before. For the sake of the mandate that he has now, and that he lost in 1999, something that he seems to be reliving every moment of his new term at the top, he needs to learn how to do politics. Repeated stand-offs are a sign of political failure, and there’s a sharp learning curve ahead if wiser counsel does not prevail.

The writer is a business journalist and 2013-2014 Pakistan Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Centre, Washington D.C.

khurram.husain@gmail.com

Twitter: @khurramhusain