If we were a starving country with a food shortage, people would have been discussing a ‘bloody’ revolution. But nobody is dying of hunger in Pakistan. It is true that a high rate of inflation has badly affected fixed income groups and a large number of such people, especially children and women, are malnourished. But that does not create a revolutionary situation. It is another matter altogether that people’s discontent has given rise to ‘revolutionaries’, who deliver high-pitched speeches with empty rhetoric, signifying nothing.
At the political level, we face the same dilemma. We are not living under a stifling dictatorship against which we could launch a movement. Nations of the Arab Spring were unfortunate and lucky at the same time. They were unfortunate because they suffered long spells of dictatorial regimes of various varieties but they were lucky to have a target. They could dream of a better life under democratic governments if they gave sacrifices and struggled hard to overthrow exploitative, repressive regimes. Whether they will succeed in achieving their objective is another matter altogether.
Let us consider our circumstances. We already have an elected government in place. We have an independent judiciary. We have a free press. Even harsh criticism of the government is tolerated. We are much ahead of the Arab Spring countries because we have political parties of all hues and colours and have the government of our choice. But it remains another matter that the government is corrupt to the core and is highly inefficient, almost an epitome of systemic dysfunctionality.
In their frustration and desperation, most urban people want to get rid of the present dispensation, but a movement against the government is neither feasible nor desirable. Another military intervention is also not an option. It brings us back to our basic premise that our real problem is neither lack of democracy nor the current economic crisis. The real problem lies in our incapacity to come out of the trap we have been caught in. Governments come and governments go but our condition remains the same. It is like India’s infamous 3.2 per cent growth rate (which Western economists jokingly called the Hindu growth rate). It shackled India’s progress for almost four decades until Rajiv Gandhi opened up the economy.
We cannot move forward unless we diagnose our disease correctly. Our misfortune is that from the very beginning, Pakistan has been dominated by an oligarchy of vested interests. To ensure their continuous hold on power, they perverted the representative system and in order to hoodwink the people, called it ‘democracy’. Therefore, the argument that the cure of dysfunctional, malfunctioning democracy is to have more democracy may be difficult to apply here. Unless we take corrective measures, the same people are likely to be re-elected and dominate the scene.
For democracy to work successfully, there are certain prerequisites. The first thing is that there should be political parties which are organised on democratic principles. Secondly, there should be strong and effective local governments which cultivate new leadership on a continuous basis. Thirdly, people should participate in the process and make the government accountable. But here in Pakistan, all the powerful people have ganged up and divided the nation into two groups: those who are born rulers and the serfs. Almost all political parties are dynastic in nature and hardly ever hold party elections. There is no difference between one party or the other. Only names are different. Feudal politicians, military, bureaucracy, big business, industrialists, mullahs and media owners support one another in maintaining the status quo.
Previously, the arrangement was informal but now, in the name of ‘reconciliation’ and ‘consensus’, all mainstream parties have joined coalitions and are enjoying the perks of power. The most worrying thing about this coalition of vested interests is not their loot and plunder or cronyism. It is their ineptitude, mediocrity and poverty of ideas. They neither have any vision nor capacity to find long-term solutions for the problems we face.
In the early days of Pakistan, we could make strides because the calibre of our rulers (politicians, bureaucrats and military men) was high. They were committed, knowledgeable and serious-minded people, who could understand the problems and take decisions accordingly. Things deteriorated as time passed. Unfortunately, no attention was paid to institutional development during the last 40 years. On the contrary, existing institutions were stifled or destroyed, labelling these as colonial relics. The result is that today we have a bunch of nincompoops dominating the scene.
Much has been written about our current economic downturn. But nobody denies the fact that we have all the paraphernalia, wherewithal and potential for fast economic development. And initially, we did show promise. We have had three long spells of high economic growth but because of structural imbalances, they were not sustainable nor were we able to reduce mass poverty. Some people say an economic collapse is imminent. This may not happen because of our strong fundamentals. But what is likely to happen is that we may remain stuck to the vicious cycle of low growth, persistent double-digit inflation and ever-increasing deficits.It is true that the common man, especially the youth of Pakistan, desperately want a change and to break this vicious cycle. But the basic question is whether the current system, which is firmly entrenched, will allow this to happen.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 1st, 2012.
COMMENTS (18)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@ polpot Secularism is the problem, every govt in pakistan has been secular. Secularism has only one "principle" ---Expediency.
Mr Siddiui maintains that the calibre of our rulers (politicians, bureaucrats and military men) in the 1950s amd 1960s was high. Quite so. But they also regarded themselves as the rightful heirs of the British Raj and behaved as if they were the 'goras' and the rest were the natives who should obey the commands of their superiors. These rulers perpetuated the elitist divide.
Years later this elite was slowly replaced and then completely filled by less educated and cultured people who nevertheless continued with belief in their inherent superiority. Unkile Mr Siddiqui, I blame the early rulers for not introducing democracy from day one. It is because of them we are stuck with the rule of ill-informed, corrupt and power-obsessed individuals
The term "Hindu rate of growth" was coined by the Indian economist Raj Krishna and not by "western economists".
Well written, exactly how i feel feel. It is a shame that the 180mn people are destined to be ruled by Bhuttos and Sharifs PVT LTD parties
It is like India’s infamous 3.2 per cent growth rate (which Western economists jokingly called the Hindu growth rate).
i think the term 'hindu rate of growth' was coined by a hindu indian economist RAJ KRISHNA. so, it was a term used by hindus themselves to refer to their failure to progress, not by some western journalist. we have more than our share of 'self-hating' hindus, who would attribute each and every failure of india to hinduism, quite similar to your country, where everything is blamed on islam.
It shackled India’s progress for almost four decades until Rajiv Gandhi opened up the economy.
economy was deshackled under P V NARSMIAH RAO, not under RAJIV GANDHI.
@pmbm: " A society without a code of ethics and character is the basic problem" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Also a society wrapped in medieval times...without a secular state....Paksitan can never emege from the current morass.
Dilemma ?A society without a code of ethics and character is the basic problem. Nothing can be successful without an honest attitude on every body's part.
@Falcon: PML-N invested heavily in infrastructure? You're lucky the Sharifs owned some steel mills so they could contract them for construction. I can assure you, if the Sharifs owned a shoe factory, Pakistan would produce the world's best shoes. Sharifs only invest in whatever will make them rich. Grow up! What Pakistan have you been living in?
Therefore, the argument that the cure of dysfunctional, malfunctioning democracy is to have more democracy may be difficult to apply here
A typical approach of an ex civil servant, who do not hesitate to call themselves bureaucrats, that has started too often to appear in the English print media.
@Majid: While I agree that PMLN was lucky to have some good minds (such as Sartaj Aziz) to help them through, their governance was not as utopian as you seem to suggest. Pakistan's fundamental problem is not lack of infrastructure (which PMLN invested heavily in), but lack of focus on social development. We can have the best roads, but what good are those when we are performing so low on human development index.
When given a chance to PMLN in the 1990s to govern Pakistan, it more than delivered on all fronts. Major reforms took place in the banking sector, taxation, foreign exchange regulations, the telecom sector, import and export, aviation industry and other segments of business saw unprecedented growth. There was a major thrust on privatisation and deregulation. As a result of this, the economy boomed with a GDP growth of eight per cent in 1992 — the highest for any civilian government since independence. Although taxes were lowered for all segments, including the corporate sector, by 1999, Pakistan had achieved a tax-to-GDP ratio of 13.4 per cent, which has now fallen to just nine per cent and is a major stumbling block towards investment in social sectors as well as infrastructure projects. On the foreign relations front, major policy initiatives were undertaken, including the peace process with India, culminating in Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s visit to Pakistan in February 1999 and the signing of the Lahore Declaration. If the Kargil adventure had not taken place, the Lahore Declaration would have enabled Pakistan and India to forge closer trade and economic relationships with millions on both sides of the border benefiting from the economic boom.
Excellent analysis. Why is it that clear thinking people like you are not heeded ?
good introspection, sir.
Transparency in the governance be mandatory. The right to information act be made public friendly.and strong with delivery of information within a time frame with clause of punishment for non/ delayed delivery .. This will work as check on corruption in democratic set up, . Power should be decentralized for better and effective governance. This will also help emergence of new breed of leadership from the grass root level winch is expected to be more sensitive to the people's requirement for their well being.
TS Sahib, great to see your Op Ed in the ET. Your analysis is right on target. Considering India's example it would take four to six elections without interruptions to sieve out the political leaders and parties. In addition the lifetime leaders of almost all political parties has to change for sure. Once Pakistan embarks upon the economic and political progress it is going to outpace the corruption and even fanaticism. The main problem in economic and civic progress is lack of resources. About half of the budget is spent in defense and debt servicing. There is no country of the size of Pakistan's economy which sports such a huge army with hundreds of nuclear weapons and missiles and still has enough money for civic needs. More than anything else Pakistanis have to decide what is imp for them. Continue eating grass or make economic progress?
good introspection.
I don't know what to make of this article.I see typical bureaucratic arrogance dripping all through the article. Mr. Siddiqui! are you sure that no one is dying of hunger in Pakistan? Next time, I am in Pakistan, I will take you to my village and show you where hunger resides. Sir, Mai-Baap, Sahib Bahdar, please do not appraise your own class with self-praise(we made strides because caliber of civil-military bureaucratic was high). We are in the mess because of misdeeds of your class. The landed elite in the formative phase of Pakistan, to whom you call politicians, and include as power sharers always form an alliance with state structures (civil or military). They did so for their vested interests. Sir! There was a need for change in the post-colonial days but you did not change yourself with independence and ruled the nation in typical viceregal tradition. Yes! there were some good hearted people in your service group but their number can be counted on finger-tips. Rest were typical three piece suited sahib bahdars whose world did not go beyond DC houses, Dak Bungalows, or cozy air conditioned offices in Pakistan secretariat. Summing up my point, it was the civil-military alliance (starting from 1953) that pushed the nation to brink. Borrowing from Guillermo O'Donnell, "the civil-military bureaucrats have a very low level of tolerance for political activeness of the masses."