In Pakistan, revolution is confused with revolt. A revolution sweeps away the old order; a revolt just replaces the faces at the top. As we have discovered, a revolt is not enough. No matter how often the system is restarted by new saviours, it converges to the same outcome that is compatible with the attributes of the old order.
The principal attribute of the old order is stark social inequality, in which the majority is dependent on a tiny minority for access to services and basic rights. This kind of hierarchical order is compatible with patron-client forms of governance which is really what we have had in the guise of democracy. Everything we observe confirms that our rulers consider themselves monarchs while the ruled think of themselves as subjects.
Years ago, I asked a peasant why they did not elect an honest representative instead of the incumbent criminal. He took about a second to pose a counter question: Would the honest person be able to get his son out of police lock-up or employed in public service? People are not stupid — they understand well the distribution of power in which they have to survive.
A revolution would transform subjects into sovereign citizens, monarchs into accountable representatives. This kind of revolution has yet to take place in Pakistan. The political order has not changed; the departing British left the reins in the hands of the same social class that held power under it.
Is a revolution a la the French Revolution possible in Pakistan?
No, because there is no intellectual ferment that accompanies and energises systemic change. Adrift between faith in divine providence and charismatic saviours, Pakistan seems set to follow its pied pipers into anarchy and oblivion.