Why do some nations prosper and become wealthy whereas others remain poor and weak?
On 11th February 2011, following the 'Arab Spring', ignited in Tunisia, Hosni Mobarak, after ruling for thirty years, was ousted after a popular revolt.
The roots of discontent in Arab countries lay in their repressive regimes, corruption and years of autocratic rule by oligarchic elites in an extractive political and economic system unresponsive and unaccountable to the common man who lives mostly in dire poverty.
All the economic impediments faced by poor countries arise from the way political power is exercised and monopolised by a narrow elite.
Conventional wisdom attributes poverty to: a) geography: poor resource endowments, harsh climate and poor utilisation of agricultural resources; b) poverty on account of cultural attributes of the people being averse to economic development and prosperity, possessing a work ethic that places precedence on success in the other world rather than terrestrial prosperity; and, c) countries are poor because the rulers of such countries do not know what strategies and policies to pursue in order to prosper.
Precisely countries are poor because they have been ruled by a narrow elite that have organised and operated society and the economy for their own benefit at the expense of the common man. Political power has remained concentrated in the hands of the few to create great wealth for the elite few stashed away in foreign banks and offshore accounts leaching popular economic welfare.
Countries such as North Korea, Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe are poor since they did not experience revolutions such as the 1688 Revolution in Great Britain and the American War of Independence which overthrew the elites classes which controlled political and economic power and created a society where political rights were distributed much more widely, where the government was accountable and responsive to citizens, and where the great mass of people could take advantage of unrestricted economic opportunities.
In 1688 Great Britain underwent a Revolution in which the people fought for more economic and political rights and they used them to expand their economic opportunities. The result was a fundamentally different economic and political trajectory, culminating in the Industrial Revolution.
Although poor countries like Egypt did undergo revolutions like the overthrow of the Ottoman rule by Napoleon in 1798 and later the shaking off of British Imperial colonialism in 1952, these changes failed to usher fundamentally different political systems. Rather Egypt saw another set of extractive political elites replacing the Ottoman and British supported elites which were least interested in the prosperity of the common citizen. As a result one group or set of political elites were replaced by another without fundamentally changing the shape of the structure of society and institutions. Egypt continued to remain poor. No new category of institutions allowing for popular participation and accountability resulted and the past continued, in its extractive garb, into the present.
Fundamentally, for a poor society to transform into a prosperous and open society it is a political transformation that is required to take place bringing about stronger institutions allowing for greater transparency, opportunity, accountability and openness.
An oligarchic political system gives rise to ambient institutions that are self-fulfilling and obviate forces impelling fundamental changes in the elite structure.
An extractive and rent seeking economic system further entrenches an oligarchic structure based upon crass inequality , exploitation and unaccountability.
Since inception we experienced a constant creation of a perception of being a "besieged" state with dire existential threats: domestic and external.
From 1947 Pakistan became a pro-western ally due mainly to two reasons: the security and economic threat from the eastern borders; and the precarious economic and financial conditions faced by the country. In the given circumstances of the cold war it was thought only appropriate to take sides with protagonists which could provide required security, economic and financial aid and succour and the ability and readiness of the western countries to salvage the country from a precarious food, financial, economic and security situation came as an easy salvage.
From the beginning we became a security state militating against a social welfare state with abysmal health, education and sanitation indicators sapping productivity and economic development.
Civilian supremacy was faced with daunting autocratic tendencies with anti-democratic forces of feudalism, militarism and mandarinism. The parliament remained a representative of the elite with little connection to the true social reality of the country.
Weak and infantile political parties lead to unstable and vacillating civilian governments opening a way to men on the horseback, being the most organised institution in the polity, to assume political ascendancy.
Judicial norms and rule of law deteriorated with legal supremacy giving way to becoming a handmaiden to the dictates of the establishment and/or civilian oligarchy.
From the outset we pursued a nationalist and cultural paradigm predicated upon centrism, lack of regional tolerance and shunning of dissent and inclusion and cultural and economic exclusion.
Cultural and lingual diversity was considered as a threat to national unity and resort was made to creating a national polity which had religion as its lietmotif leading to various national political contortions and problems in the shape of ethnicity and Islamic extremism.
Power imbalances between individuals, groups and classes like feudals, military, bureaucracy, parties has led to inequality of resource distribution between regions, uneven socio-economic growth, education, hygiene and sanitation.
How these institutional aberrations and weaknesses can be removed by converting an oligarchic system of government into one in which the citizens possess a share in governance and authority closely accountable to the people? Historically revolutions have delivered the desired results but maybe few and far between in the present day and age and suggest an evolutionary paradigm which, however difficult to achieve, may be the only peaceful path to modernity, prosperity and responsible democracy.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ