An alternative model of development

There are many views about what triggers development, economic growth and modernity and what does not. What is generally ignored in this debate is what must come first in a post-colonial state — economic growth or equality? The dominant elite in general and the military rulers in particular uncritically embraced the colonial model of economic growth and development — infrastructure, industrialisation, foreign direct investment in profitable projects — profits to be repatriated.

Foreign loans generally labelled as ‘aid’ are procured to help the process of ‘development’. This vision of development has persisted whether we had democratic or military set-ups. We have become used to measuring ‘progress’ in terms of gross national product and per capita income, and continue to do so. There is no better evidence of ideological hegemony of new liberal economic thought than this redundant yardstick.

There are some false assumptions that need to be exposed. First, economic growth benefits all, as the wealth accumulation effects will trickle down to every section of society. What it means is that the vast majority of the poor must wait until that happens. Any impatience, rebellion and resistance to the natural play of market forces will create instability and disorder that will eventually affect his fortune. So, it is in the interest of the poor that he/she must not upset the apple cart. One day, he will have plenty of apples on his table.

Second, the dominant economic elite and their political allies or fronts, whether civilian or military, know what is the best economic system for society. This has historical roots in elitism and its patriarchal role in society, as the benign ‘father’ figures, knowing what the society needs and how to take it.

It is difficult to challenge dominant ideas of any age, as these are generally accepted as ‘good’ by society. Only the heretics would venture doing so. There are so many intellectuals around the world who question the traditional ideas of growth, and the numbers have kept increasing as economic inequality keeps growing, national debt becoming unmanageable, and corrupt national elites stealing national wealth and stashing away in the banks of metropolitan — the former colonial countries. Such elites are unfortunately encouraged and supported by the Western countries as they serve their economic and security interests. So the corruption, rather systematic plunder of states such as Pakistan, is not an ‘issue’.

There is an alternative model of development and modernity and that is essentially about humans, and not merely about physical objects. When a country like Pakistan has limited resources, it becomes a question of setting the priorities right. At one level, it is a choice between butter and guns, and at another it is between investing in motorways or public educational system. Our dominant elite has always been enamoured with guns and motorways, and the public education has always been a lower priority. I am not against security or development, I am against mixing and messing up priorities. What should come as a policy preference for a country endowed with raw human numbers? A wiser, pragmatic and rational economic choice will be in investing in human development or broadly speaking education, health, environment, justice, governance and rule of law.

In elitist societies, the elite would like to keep their domination through any device they can invent and use. Their best instrument is perhaps dual track systems of education, health, living spaces and even entertainment. Private and expensive means exclusivity of the elite. Human development would have produced a level playing field for the poor, a questioning civil society and more accountable governance. This is in conflict with elitist interests.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 20^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.