Sixty-three percent of Pakistan’s population is young, that is below the age of 18. The majority has neither discovered its human potential due to low quality education (or none at all), nor can it participate in the process of the cultural, social and economic development of the country. Pakistan’s elite-based institutional structure, by excluding the majority of a talented people from actualising their potential and using it, is essentially constraining development. Economic and social inequality thus constitutes a fundamental fetter to development as much as to the building of a humane society.
It can be argued that inequality is built into the economic structure of many countries. After 300 years of growth under capitalism, about half the world’s population is living below the poverty line defined in terms of two dollars per person per day. The poor majority subsist in a world where a small minority lives in incredible luxury. In South Asia according to Dr Deepak Nayyar at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, in the high-growth period 1981 to 2005, although in percentage terms poverty has declined, yet the total number of poor has increased from 251 million to 496 million. In terms of a poverty line of 1.25 dollars per day, the percentage of the world’s poor population that lives in South Asia has increased from 29 per cent to 43 per cent during the same period. This suggests high levels of inequality. Indeed a recent UNDP paper provides evidence that the index of inequality in South Asia (called the Gini Coefficient) has increased since the 1990s. It can be shown in fact that the higher the level of inequality, the lower the poverty reduction effect of economic growth. Thus the persistence of mass poverty, inspite of high economic growth at the global level as well as in South Asia, can to some extent be attributed to high levels of inequality.
The purpose of economic growth surely is not to enrich a few, while the majority suffers from social and economic deprivation. The fact of inequality also puts into question the humanity of the affluent who remain insensitive to the plight of the poor. As Jalaluddin Rumi the great Sufi poet said, those who have no empathy for the suffering of others, have no right to be called human.
The ability to love is what makes us human. Love is the path to God; it also links us with others, with nature and with our own nature. As Bulleh Shah said, “Demolish the temple, demolish the mosque, demolish all that can be demolished, but do not injure the heart of man for that is the abode of God”. This ability to love which defines our sociality, induces a sense of responsibility towards others. Its practice is the emblem of our beauty, and sustains our dignity. As Rabia of Basra the great Sufi lady, wrote in the eighth century: “Live with dignity, women, live with dignity, men. Few things will enhance our beauty as much”.
The human quest of self realisation requires the building of societies that are more equitable. For inequality in so far as it constrains the actualizing of the human potential, restricts human development. I have argued elsewhere that inequality, by narrowing the base of investment and innovation, also restricts economic growth.
So we need to rethink growth and development, by turning narrow orthodox economics on its head. Building societies in which humans can bring into play their humanity must be the goal of economics. Both sustainable economic growth and development require creating the conditions for enabling all citizens rather than a few to fulfil their human potential.
Published in The Express Tribune, February 12th, 2012.
COMMENTS (5)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
Loved the article with its spiritual dimension. As a whole, I think capitalism or socialism alone can not solve the problems of humanity. We need to evolve to a more complex hybrid version that provides the incentives as well as cure for the challenges of inequality. Economic inequality perpetuates social inequality. Moreover, if Maslov was right, addressing economic problems is the first step in helping a society reach its spiritual potential.
imo, in future only those societies will succeed who address properly the issue of inequality. the naked, greed based capitalism is bound to collapse sooner or later.
Charity begins at home.
A society in which the limiting factor is defined by only human potential is an ideal one, where all have the inalienable right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Yet, even in such a society income inequality will still persist. Whether such income inequality leads to poverty is a relative question, and what is poverty in US may be an extravaganza in other parts of the world. As long as the purchase power parity of the poor is within the reach of human potential, the society is progressing.
A merchant will amass wealth owing to his or her profession, while an artisan may not amass wealth as much as the merchant. Yet, if a society fails to appreciate the artisan potential, the artisan will become poor and the society will decay.
If all the wealthy merchants in a society are cultural misers who will patronize the artisans(musicians, painters, craftsman, writers, essayists, dramatists, composers, farmers and others), even if there is an equal access to human potential?
While I am fully in tune with the author, there is a paradox. Is poverty defined in terms of monetary potential between the rich and poor or lack of access to human potential between them.
In a capitalistic society there is no incentive for a merchant to patronize the artisans, unless the society values the artisans. In a socialistic society there is no incentive for individual to attain maximum human potential, unless the individual values it.
While education is a must for a healthy society, if the society values its value purely on monetary terms then the education is a curse for the artisan for awakening his or her human potential.
Often times we equate poverty to lack of accessibility to human potential. While there is no denial in that side of the equation, the underlying problem has always been the society that fail to recognize what type of human potential should they need, and often times this side of the equation skews the income inequality and perpetuates poverty, as well.
Yes, there is a wide income gap in developing nations compared to the West, but where the developing nations were, say, fifty years ago, many of the nations have progressed further in terms of parity in healthcare, education, food, clothing, shelter, accessibility, and attainability of human potential between rich and poor. The Asian nations, such as Indonesia, China, Singapore, Malaysia, India are few examples, considering what they were fifty years ago, and much of their progress has been due to redefining their social value and each country had their own visionaries.
In Pakistan's case the problem has always been lack of vision, and the rich merchants failed to patronize the artisans when they needed them most. Sadly, such an apathy is still evident today, in every walks of life, from government to individual.
A government cannot solve all the ills of the society which formed the government in the first place, unless the society wants to change it.
Unfortunately, such a change rarely happens. Despite its lofty goals two centuries earlier, it took Rosa Park to awaken the consciousness of the US society and it was hardly forty years ago.
Inequality in human potential is often due social illness, and wider the disparity the greater is societal decay, and the outward symptom is poverty: in monetary terms, knowledge, awareness, tolerance, life expectancy, justice, and even in love for the neighbor, domestic or foreign.
an excellent read - an interesting take and very relevant!
Dr Sahib,
I hope our dear Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission reads this. When asked why his "new" growth strategy unveiled with fanfare and great cost to the tax-payer did not include a poverty component, he is reputed to have said that growth alone will cure poverty.