Home / Economy / Pakistan’s destiny | Dr Niaz Murtaza
Pakistan’s destiny | Dr Niaz Murtaza

Pakistan’s destiny | Dr Niaz Murtaza

THREE beliefs about Pakistan’s destiny trouble patriotic Pakistanis deeply. A review of each belief seems timely. The first, based usually on comparing Pakistan’s lower-middle-income development status inappro­priately with advanced rather than peer countries, is that Pakistan has done extremely poorly.

Independent sources show that among eight Saarc peers, Pakistan ranks second after India economically despite the higher per capita income of Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Among 40-plus non-oil-rich ummah peers, Pakistan ranks among the top five to six economically, behind Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia etc., but ahead of high-income Lebanon.

However, exports-wise, it rivals poor countries. It is also performing poorly overall economically since 2007 even among peers. On social development, Pakistan rivals low-income countries and on security is among the most dangerous countries presently. This contrast between economic, social and secu­rity indicators reflects elitist and erro­neous policymaking, especially under unelected regimes. Overall, this track record should invoke neither pride nor complete despair.

Political collapses usually occur in undemocratic states.

Patriotic Pakistanis may reject these comparison countries and argue (the second belief) that had Pakistan had sincere leaders, it would have rivalled South Korea given both countries’ similar initial per capita incomes. However, is it just bad luck that Pakistan got bad, but Korea good, leaders? The focus on good leaders is correct but decontextualised.

Progress does come from sound policies adop­ted by effective leaders. However, both emerge from strong, people-oriented institu­tions, which emerge from relatively egalitarian societal structures developed gradually over time.

Besides per capita incomes, one must consider the differences on those societal structures which determine the quality of governance that emerges nationally at a given time. Those governance-determining endow­ments are less obvious but more binding than economic endowments. Not just Pakistan but dozens of developing countries with initial per capita incomes similar to East Asian countries but weaker governance- determin­ing endowments have developed less rapidly.

Patriotic Pakistanis voice the third, rapidly spreading, belief: given its current mess and mal-governance, Pakistan faces imminent colla­pse which only a technocratic government can forestall.

Predicting state failure is difficult. The US-based Fund for Peace’s Failed State Index (renamed the Fragile State Index) has placed Pakistan around rank 10 since 2006-07, suppo­­sedly dangerously perched near colla­pse. Yemen, Syria and Libya were ranked around 20th, 40th and 120th then. Today, they have collapsed while Pakistan, still ranked 10th, limps along!

Faced with multiple, grave challenges since 2005, Pakistan has shown more resilience against collapse than many countries facing lesser problems. This does not make Pakistan eternally collapse-proof, but does mean that collapse prophecies should include stronger evidence-based analysis.

Political col­lap­ses usually occur in undemo­cratic states, when militants capture large territory. Taliban ‘conquests’ peaked under Musharraf, but today they hold isolated pockets. While their striking capacity re­­mains intact, no­body seriously thinks they can recapture large territories, despite IS support. Economic col­la­p­ses occur due to Zimbabwe-style conti­nuous 25-30pc annual fiscal deficits and hyper-inflation; 1997-98 East Asia-style private-sector foreign loan overexposures and currency col­lap­­ses; or USSR-style prolonged negative growth. None seems imminent in Pakistan today.

Their likelihood actually decreased given reducing in­fla­tion and incre­asing fore­ign reser­ves due to fal­ling oil prices and PML-N half-mea­sures.

Thus, advocacy for technocratic gover­n­­ments is mis­guided. Iro­ni­cally, Pakistan collapsed in 1971 after 20 years of non-democratic techno-military govern­ments, despite their supposed economic miracles. If inegalitarian societal structures produce self-serving political institutions, those structures will invariably also produce self-serving military, religious and bureaucratic institu­tions. Expecting them to provide better leadership is futile. Better leadership emerges through demo­cracy as social structures change gradually.

Pakistan is not facing imminent collapse but is certainly deeply fractured and exper­iencing titanic institutional, ideological, sec­tarian, class, gender and ethnic struggles. Countries develop rapidly after resolving such struggles amicably. These struggles are Pakistan’s big­gest challenge rather than the techno-mana­gerial tasks that techno-military regimes excel at.

It would be dishonest to claim that democracy (or even technocracy) will help improve overall governance immediately. However, even flawed democracy is better at resolving such struggles and keeping Pakistan intact than unrepresentative regimes that exacerbate societal conflicts.

Source: http://www.dawn.com/news/1162368/pakistans-destiny

Download PDF

Check Also


Pakistan’s foreign policy; 21st century approach | Quratul Ain Fatima

The challenges of twenty first century in a strategically important country like Pakistan are indeed …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Powered by themekiller.com