In Pakistan, the shaping of public policy goes beyond administrative or developmental considerations; it is heavily influenced by remnants of colonialism and a persistent reliance on Western paradigms. Discussions on elite dominance often centers around economic or political implications, but the deeper issue lies in how this dominance is perpetuated cognitively—through a psychological adherence to Western norms by those in positions of power.
Building upon this understanding, it becomes crucial to examine how a narrow circle of influential individuals consolidates control over public resources and decision-making processes. Scholars like Dutta[i] and Ahmed[ii] have outlined how such dominance contributes to worsening inequality, encourages corrupt practices, and hinders social mobility. In Pakistan, this phenomenon is not only driven by socio-economic disparities but is also rooted in historical structures that continue to shape elite behavior. These structures are not just vestiges of the past but active frameworks that continue to inform how authority is exercised and justified. Understanding this continuity helps us transition from viewing elite dominance purely in terms of class or privilege to recognizing it as part of a broader epistemic and institutional legacy—a legacy best understood through the lens of coloniality.
The concept of coloniality, which, as scholars such as Quijano[iii] and Grosfoguel[iv] argue, reflects the ongoing influence of colonial-era norms on modern institutions. Despite the formal end of colonial rule, the ideological structures that privilege Western standards over local ones continue to persist. Ndlovu-Gatsheni[v] encapsulates this as a form of global mental dominance, which marginalizes indigenous perspectives. As we delve deeper, the psychological imprint of colonialism becomes evident in the form of the “captive mind,” a concept introduced by Syed Hussein Alatas[vi]. This refers to a mentality that is unable to break free from external intellectual influences and remains dependent on Western frameworks. In Pakistan, this has led to governance and policy models that are neither innovative nor grounded in local realities. This phenomenon is rooted in a colonial legacy wherein the British instilled a belief in the superiority of their systems and values—a belief that continues to shape elite behavior in Pakistan today[vii]. As a result, local policymakers frequently turn to international financial institutions and adopt foreign policy models without assessing their contextual relevance.
This epistemic dominance is further manifested in Pakistan’s elite governance structures, as the UNDP’s Pakistan National Human Development Report of 2020[viii] identifies key elite groups—military, industrial, and feudal actors—that wield disproportionate influence over state mechanisms. Their dominance not only distorts economic priorities but also entrenches policy directions that ignore the broader population’s needs. These dynamics are further clarified by Haque and Zulfiqar[ix], who distinguish between merit-based elites and gatekeeping elites. The latter, often composed of bureaucrats and corporate leaders, utilize inherited colonial administrative structures to maintain their influence. This continuity of outdated systems reinforces the disconnection between policy formulation and local challenges.
Such disconnection is evident in how policies are drafted and implemented. Insights from policy experts and officials reveal a consistent pattern: decisions are made at the top without consulting the communities affected by them. This centralized model mirrors colonial governance, sidelining participatory mechanisms essential for democratic policymaking. The enduring impact of colonial law is also apparent in outdated legal codes still used today, particularly in sensitive areas like child protection. As Toivonen and Seremani[x] argue, such frameworks fail to reflect modern social realities and inhibit the development of responsive legal policies.
Education plays a pivotal role in perpetuating these legacies. Public policy programs in Pakistan continue to prioritize foreign theories while overlooking indigenous thought systems. This results in graduates who are unequipped to craft locally relevant and effective policies, as noted by Alatas[xi]. Compounding this issue is the exclusion of empirical evidence and grassroots insights from policymaking, as often, senior officials and advisors dictate national strategies without input from field experts or civil society actors. Such a top-heavy approach risks producing ill-suited solutions and erodes the potential for impactful change.
Yet, within this challenging landscape, there are encouraging signs of innovation. Initiatives like the Dispute Resolution Council in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, inspired by traditional jirga systems, demonstrate how indigenous practices can be institutionalized for modern governance. Similarly, reforms addressing gender-based violence indicate a shift toward locally tailored legal standards[xii]. Despite these efforts, reliance on foreign aid and external validation continues to complicate genuine reforms. Policies funded or influenced by international entities may risk prioritizing donor agendas over local imperatives, raising concerns about the authenticity of such transformations.
To truly overcome these challenges, a comprehensive reorientation in policy thinking is required. This involves questioning the sources of our knowledge systems and realigning them with the cultural and social realities of Pakistan. As Restrepo[xiii] argues, integrating indigenous worldviews is essential to reclaiming epistemic agency. Hybrid policy models that mix local elements with dominant Western frameworks are insufficient for long-term progress. As Grosfoguel[xiv] suggests, transformative change must be rooted in the foundational adoption of indigenous knowledge systems that genuinely reflect and serve local communities. Ultimately, elite capture in Pakistan is as much a cognitive issue as it is a structural one. Tackling it demands intellectual self-awareness and a conscious effort to reconstruct policy narratives that are informed by Pakistan’s unique historical, social, and cultural context.
About the Author
Shahzadi Fatima Ali
Shahzadi Fatima Ali is a Visiting Faculty Member at Air University and Bahria University in Islamabad, and a Junior Research Fellow at the ROADS Initiative. She holds a Post Graduate degree in Governance and Public Policy.
[i] Dutta, D. (2009). Elite capture and corruption: concepts and definitions. National Council of Applied Economic Research, October.
[ii] Ahmed, M. A. (2017). Pakistan: State autonomy, extraction, and elite capture—A theoretical configuration. The Pakistan Development Review, 56(2), 127–162.
[iii] Quijano, A. (2021). Colonialidad del poder y clasificación social. In Cuestiones y horizontes. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1gm019g.12.
[iv] Grosfoguel, R. (2007). The epistemic decolonial turn: beyond political-economy paradigms. Cultural Studies, 21(2–3). https://doi.org/10.1080/09502380601162514
[v] Ndlovu-Gatsheni, S. (2012). Coloniality of power in development studies and the impact of global imperial designs on Africa. Australasian Review of African Studies, 33(2).
[vi] Alatas, S. H. (1974). The captive mind and creative development. International Social Science Journal, 26(4).
[vii] Nandy, A. (2009). The intimate enemy; loss and recovery of self under colonialism. Oxford University Press.
[viii] Zulfiqar, F., & Moosvi, A. (2022). Understanding elite capture. PIDE Knowledge Brief, 2022:67
[ix] Haque, N. ul, & Zulfiqar, F. (2024). Not elite capture but capture by colonial-made elites. PIDE Knowledge Brief, 2024:121. https://pide.org.pk/research/understanding-elite-capture/
[x] Toivonen, A., & Seremani, T. (2021). The enemy within: the legitimating role of local managerial elites in the global managerial colonization of the Global South. Organization, 28(5), 798–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084211015373
[xi] Alatas, S. H. (1974). The captive mind and creative development. International Social Science Journal, 26(4).
[xii] Ahmed, M. (2023). Political economy of elite capture and clientelism in public resource distribution: theory and evidence from Balochistan, Pakistan. India Quarterly: A Journal of International Affairs, 79(2), 223–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/09749284231165115
[xiii] Restrepo, E. (2018). Coloniality of power. In The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2118
[xiv] Grosfoguel, R. (2002). Colonial difference, geopolitics of knowledge, and global coloniality in the modern/colonial capitalist world-system. Review, 25(3