Power or Pakistan?

Explaining the genesis of the 1971 crisis, GW Choudhury, a federal minister in the cabinet of President Yahya Khan, in his book, The Last Days of United Pakistan, writes: "In the choice between the "two P's" (Power or Pakistan), the former was the selection by [Zulfikar Ali] Bhutto and [Sheikh] Mujib. Pakistan was not their priority and only the pursuit of power was their choice which led to the breakup of Jinnah's Pakistan."

What Choudhury narrated in his book 53 years ago proves true in the prevailing political discourse of Pakistan because it is power grab and not Pakistan which is central to political parties and other stakeholders.

What is power and how it plays a pivotal role in the destruction or development of a country? Why, in Pakistan, does power mean seeking wealth, authority, privileges and perks for self instead of using it for the welfare of the people?

Martin Griffiths and Terry O' Callaghan in Key Concepts in International Relations defined power by arguing that "At its simplest power in interstate relations may be defined as a state's ability to control, or at least influence, other states or the outcome of events. Two dimensions are important, internal and external. The internal dimension corresponds to the dictionary definition of power as a capacity for action. A state is powerful to the extent that it is insulated from outside influence or coercion in the formulation and implementation of policy. The external dimension corresponds to the dictionary definition of power as a capacity to control the behavior of others; to enforce compliance."

In societies where the mindset of the leadership is visionary, positive, pro-people and pro-development, power is not used for corruption, nepotism, silencing the opposition and patronising mafias. Power needs to be used for strengthening political pluralism, ensuring rule of law, human rights and good governance, and improving the quality of life of people by providing them access to clean and safe drinking water, affordable housing, efficient transport system, better education and state-of-the-art infrastructure. The models of South Korea, Japan, China, Singapore, Malaysia and the Gulf states reflect that the leadership in these countries - despite challenges of poverty, illiteracy, social and economic backwardness - is hardworking, honest and intelligent with a vision to uplift of quality of life of the people. India, now the world's most populated country and the fifth largest economy with an economic growth rate of around 6% and foreign exchange reserves of 700 billion dollars, has used power for pulling 500 million people from below poverty line and modernising its infrastructure.

Pakistan is a nuclear state and the world's fifth largest country in terms of population, but the use of power by those who helmed the state affairs since the very inception of the country, is questionable. Pakistan has never been a priority for the ruling elites who used power only to perpetuate their authority; indulge in corruption and nepotism; crush the opposition; and keep the vast majority of people illiterate, poor and socially and economically backward.

The nation suffered in 1958, 1969, 1971, 1988, 1990 and so on because it was power for the sake of power that was the priority. Had the nation been the priority, Pakistan would have been a First World country. It's because the talent and energy of the youth, which should have been utilised for the betterment of the country, was wasted to an extent that in the last two years more than two million Pakistanis, primarily the youth, have left the country in search of greener pastures. Had Pakistan been a priority for the elites, the country wouldn't have fared so poorly on Human Development Index, Human Security Index and Corruption Perception Index.

Why power and not Pakistan mattered to those at the helm needs to be analysed from three sides.

First, the mindset of those who matter is still feudal; and to them, power is only a means for ensuring their authority, perks and privileges and perpetuating a system which is anti-democracy and anti-people. When power is used to excel in corruption and nepotism, it is bound to result in bad governance, absence of rule of law, incompetence and erosion of merit. All the national assets of Pakistan like PIA, Steel Mills and Railways which were performing better several decades ago now stand ruined because of misuse of power and authority. Power can be an asset if used justly and efficiently. If the mindset of those who wield power does not change and authority is not used for the benefit of people, the country will go further down the drain.

Second, Pakistan is secondary for those who represent power elites and who live in their comfort zones. If power is used to crush political opponents, instead of adhering to democracy, political pluralism and freedom of the press, it will cause nothing else but suffocation, anger and antagonism among people. When corruption, nepotism, election fraud and perpetuation of power run rampant, the country is bound to lose credibility and prestige at the international level. When integrity and adherence to the rule of law is not a priority and when those in parliament, judiciary, bureaucracy, media, security establishment and other power centres only care about their own interests, Pakistan cannot excel in the realms of economy, governance, rule of law and infrastructure development.

Third, the silent majority in the country who have been bearing the brunt of misuse of power for decades will have to play their role, and force the helmsmen to prefer public welfare rather than their vested interests. Till the time the youth of Pakistan, constituting almost 55% of the total population, rise against the symbols of exploitation, corruption and nepotism, the helmsmen will keep preferring power for self-aggrandisement rather than the nation. Like in Bangladesh where the youths dismantled the system based on exploitation and repression, the youth of Pakistan must strengthen themselves with a single-minded approach against anything that benefits mafias under the garb of democracy. Critics insist that the DNA of the Pakistani nation is devoid of revolutionary tendencies. Had that not been the case, the popular movements in 1968-69 and 1977 wouldn't have led to the imposition of martial law. Unless the youth of Pakistan focuses on a strategy to put Pakistan first, things would not change.