Pakistan at 60

A.B. Shahid
14-08-07

August 14, 1947 will remain a significant milestone in the history of not just the Indian subcontinent, but of the world because it symbolises the victory of a downtrodden minority against an imperial power that had the tacit support of extremists among the Indians. Muslims of the Indian sub-continent showed the world's colonized people that they too could wrest freedom from their foreign masters. The fact that after the creation of Pakistan colonies everywhere rose against their masters to become independent proves the point.
Since its independence, like most former European colonies, Pakistan went through a variety of experiences, some bad but others making its people proud of what they could achieve in spite of the insurmountable problems created for them by the British and their centuries-old co-inhabitants of the Indian sub-continent. Even today, when Pakistanis face a grave political crisis, their successes continue to inspire them to look ahead because so did their elders, way back in 1947 when there was nothing but fire of hate all around them.
In spite of the bewildering problems Pakistan faced at the time of independence, soon thereafter it produced heroes such as the swimmer Brojan Das, wrestler Gama, cricketer Hanif, squash ace Hashim Khan, singer Roshan Ara Begum, music director Rashid Atre, poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz, political thinker Eqbal Ahmed, researcher Niaz Fatehpuri, educationist Moulvi Abdul Haq, scientist Abdus-Salam and banker Agha Hassan Abedi, to name just one in each category, besides entrepreneurial groups like Adamjee, Dawood, Fancy, Isfahani and Valika. Their vision, the examples they set in pursuit of excellence, and their sense of commitment to their noble aims continues to inspire our youth.
They were inspired by a towering leader - M.A. Jinnah - who pointed out to them noble causes pursue, a sense of self respect, and a burning desire to make Pakistan "one of the greatest countries in the world". In the 1940s, Indian Muslims were divided into groups, each destructively conservative in its own way. Yet, the charisma of an overtly Westernised (but intensely oriental in reality) Jinnah built a nation out of them by the dint of his impeccable integrity, sincerity of purpose and unshakeable commitment. That is how he revived a firm belief in the values that a society must cherish to remain civilized.
After independence, the leadership he created in every walk of life began to deliver on the promises Jinnah made to the nation. Starting from a non-existent industrial base, in less than two decades, 15 per cent of the GDP originated from the manufacturing sector. But this was not to overshadow the disturbing fact that per capita income and domestic savings did not risen significantly, and development was financed through large chunks of foreign aid and loans. At a WB conference on the Problems of Developing Countries, an economist, said "Pakistan is a puzzle, a miracle of levitation. With one of the lowest domestic savings in Asia, its economy had performed quite creditably".
In spite of the rising debt burden and the tragedies that befell Pakistan in 1965 and 1971, it continued on road to progress. Not many may know that as early as 1973, Karachi's Machine Tool Factory trained three thousand South Korean engineers. Pakistan provided this assistance to several other developing states because Pakistan had become a frontline state in the fight for economic emancipation of the developing countries. Pursuit of this cause, and its intentions to acquire nuclear capability, made it a target of the neo-colonists. But, what made things worse was the disruption of its democratic process in 1977, and creation of a clueless class of politicians by the dictator Gen. Zia-ul-Haq.
The long years, during which the economy progressed according to the policies dictated by Zia's political strategy, took their toll. After sixty years of existence, Pakistan has not reached the level of economic development achieved by several South and South East Asian countries that started on road to economic recovery in the 1960s. It calls for deep introspection to determine where we went wrong, and how to make amends for it. At this point, I recall a discussion in 1994 that I had with Mr. Hafeez Pasha, a renowned Pakistani economist, during a seminar on banking.
In his paper read on the occasion (also addressed by experts from WB and the ADB), he emphasised the need for speeding-up economic development by freeing the economy of state control to allow unhindered inter-play of market forces to enhance market efficiency. This was understandable because bad regulation had caused economic decline. Perhaps, that was the reason why he did not dwell on the importance of a strong but rational regulatory role of the state in developing countries that start on the road to deregulation.
Such a regulatory dispensation pre-supposes a strong, patriotic, and responsible legislature to ensure balance between conflicting aims manifested by freedom of choice to make return-based investment, equality of opportunity, and social justice - expectations that legislatures of feudal dominated developing economies don't meet. This is exactly what happened. Until 190s, we tried the free enterprise system. In the 1970s the pendulum swung full circle with nationalisation of industrial and financial sectors. Now we are witnessing a return to the free enterprise system.
This shift in national priorities has been the cause of our lacklustre economic performance. It has yet to be appreciated by our politicians that credible economic progress is not possible unless the nation sets itself well-conceived development objectives that reflect the dreams and aspirations of the nation as a whole. It must have the will to pursue them single-mindedly, and the patience to wait for results that surface with a time lag. Frequent changes in development objectives are the recipe for blunting progress and undermining confidence, at first in the economic planning process, and eventually in the state itself. Shades of this frustration are unmistakably visible.
That neither the free enterprise nor the centralized economic system worked for us is undeniable but the fault does not lie with the systems; it lies with the attitude of our legislature and the bureaucracy. Economic development can be sustained but only if the political system is inherently stable and, bureaucracy, that provides continuity to the state through changes in government, is both competent and committed. That, unfortunately, has not been the case with us. Statecraft is now a decadent art in which politicians and bureaucrats seem to specialise.
Political instability, tensions on its borders with India, its involvement in Afghan civil war, its pursuit of economic policies that contribute to expanding its fiscal, trade, and balance of payments deficits and, until recently, the repeated devaluation of its currency, manifest that Pakistan's political and bureaucratic systems lack an appreciation of problems the country has been facing all these years. Together, these trends have contributed to uncertainties that cast a shadow on the economy each time it comes out of a big mess.
In countries like Pakistan where the legislature has always lacked focus on real issues, taxpayers too are not organised to monitor the performance of the bureaucracy. Civil servants therefore do not feel as strongly obligated as they should, about fulfilling their mandate. In this setting, it is not surprising that the incentive for managerial discipline remains weak. To worsen matters, government regulations (supposedly designed to energise the bureaucracy) actually undermine even essential management discretion and decision-making powers.
To conclude, undoubtedly, there has been economic progress in Pakistan but the question begging an answer is "was it the best we could have done, and should we be satisfied with the numbers achieved thus far?" I do not have an answer to this question but I believe that, besides its reflection in ratios and percentages of growth in the production of goods and services, progress has a more important dimension to it, the neglect of which reduces these ratios and percentages to mere numbers signifying nothing.
That crucial dimension is a visible enhancement of social equality. Progress must find its reflection in sustained rise in social indicators. It must gradually better the living standards for an ever-increasing number of people. Progress that does not achieve these ends is no more than an exercise in futility. Tragically, the few meaningless lines drawn on the canvas depicting Pakistan's economic landscape fail to portray a scenario that makes sense to the millions who have been staring at it for six decades.
To the man-in-the-street, this canvas has nothing thereon. He may eventually stop staring at it and paint his future thereon in violent colours that will flow from a reservoir of accumulated frustrations. It will lead to a class struggle in which everyone will be a loser. The test of economic growth is per capita income and, in that test, we don't score much. Rising poverty is progressively placing primary education, basic healthcare and housing out of the reach of the citizens, and denying them access to essential amenities like clean water, sanitation, drainage, and electricity. The per capita income was not enough in the 1950s; it is far less today, given the almost uncontrollable price rise.
Realisation of our failures alone should give us the strength and courage to resolve that, henceforth, we will do every bit that we are capable of, to undo this mess. In the 21st century, it will be a changed world with little room for those who do not place appropriate premium on good business judgement, and maximisation of productivity (not just profit), and shareholder value. Let there be no regrets when we go past the next milestone glancing back with a degree of satisfaction on what we had achieved. We have the capacity to do so. What we lack is leadership. As long as our clueless landed aristocracy leads us, we won't have a chance of improving any economic or social indicator.
Democracy will succeed only if politicians are professionally competent and they, rather than the bureaucrats, call the shots. This can be achieved only by laying down strict criteria that qualify individuals to contest parliamentary seats and the criteria should be: demonstrated vision, political foresight, capacity to manage complex socio-economic issues at the macro and micro levels, and, above all, integrity and noble ambitions. The media carries the responsibility of bringing about this awakening by highlighting what is bad in the present politicians, and what the people should look for in their future leaders.