The World Is BUT are We Ready for a New Pakistan?

HisExcellency/ahmadzai: ``The underlying assumption in your argument is that ``stable democratic institutions are synonymous with progress``.....This is a flawed assumption``

I would agree with this wholeheartedly. I think the problem isn`t about supporting democracy. Most people, including myself, support it. The issue is the correct defintion of stable democratic institutions.

In my discussions with various Pakistanis on this subject, I have noticed that people tend to view this issue emotionally, and not practically nor statistically. For example, both of you (HisExcellency, ahmadzai) and I are making the identical argument, with identical logic and identical precedences, premises and views, on this subject. Yet, invariably, there will be emotional individuals who will get into an emotional tirade on my military career. I have still not figure out what that has to do with my support of economics over votes. If either of you were to declare something similar about yourself, the debate would switch to emotionalism also. Instead of arguing the point, individuals tend to argue the person making the point.

This is unfortunate, since emotionalism usually leads to wrong views.

Similarly, there are political groups who are convinced that religious parties are the future. Others are convinced that secular parties are the only future, etc. Some think Army is the future. Once one reaches this state of fanatic devotion, one loses all sight of the ground realities. Due to this, people start putting their faith in theories and concepts and organizations, and not on the results produced by specific organizations and govts.

Some of the misconceptions that exist are as follows:

- Elections after elections will result in the crooks in current politics being cleaned out: This cannot be proven logically. This will only happen if the pre-requisites of democracy are present. Otherwise, elections after elections will only strengthen the hold of the crooks. Everyone agrees that the feudals need to be out of politics. Yet no one can answer the question that if elections will get rid of them, then why in the world are the feudals the biggest supporters of elections. Don`t they know that these will get rid of them? Obviously, they know that this is the best way for them to control the system.

- People prefer voting over economic growth: Such arguments are based on personal beliefs and not on survey results. Every survey I have read on Pakistan, states jobs (economy) to be the most important problem. Democracy is way down on the list. People enthusiastically migrate out of Pakistan to places where they cannot vote (US, Canada, Dubai, Saudi Arabia), because they want better jobs. In fact, this is the first choice of profession.

Hence the general public in Pakistan will always judge a govt. by how it improved the economy. Not by how it got into power. This is why despite, all their efforts, neither the MMA, nor PPP nor PML has been able to launch any agitation against the current govt. I was their when Imran Khan tried to launch one. No one showed up. However, if today the economy tanks, everyone and his grandmother will be on the streets.

- Democracy is an end in itself: Democracy is merely a means to an end. The end being higher living standards.

- A govt. is merely the person sitting on the top: Govts. are never the person sitting on the top. That person is merely an interface of the govt. The real govt. is run by the individuals responsible for the ministries, state instituions, banks, advisory groups etc. The person at the top rarely has the technical knowledge to run these institutions. His/her job is to just appoint the right people in the right place, and give them enough room to operate. Musharraf is only as good as Shaukut Aziz, Ishrat Hussain, etc.

Real democracy involves a lot of factors. Only one of which is a continuous set of elections. The other include a high economic growth, lack of feudal land ownership, a population that has faith in the politicians, political parties that are internally democratic, a certain level of education, free press etc.

True democracy does not exist in a vacuum. And these factors cannot just appear through one election after another. There has to be a practical effort to create these factors. And they will never be created by politicians who are the biggest beneficiaries of the system that needs to be replaced. It requires a whole new set of politiicians. And those politicians cannot come up, until these pre-requisites are establish.

This is Pakistan`s Catch-22. And I am convinced that the only way to break it is through high economic growth - which will only occur in an apolitical scenario. Though not in all apolitical scenarios. Pakistan may now start achieving that. And it should be encouraged, until the pre-requisites of democracy start appearing. At that time, we should support elections after elections. This is the formula that will occur in China. It occured in other places like Taiwan, Hong Kong, Korea, Malaysia, etc.

In a few decades, I am convinced China will be more democratic than India or Pakistan. Although it is far less democratic than these two countries today. Because China will have developed a stronger base of pre-requisites for democracy. This is the mistake Russia made. It went for democracy, before economy and other pre-requisites. And has thus been left in the shadows of China. It is one of the most corrupt countries in the world today, with one of the most unstable economies.

I think people should realize that the economy is an issue much more important than the Army, Musharraf, Secular or religious politics, Benazir, or anyone else or any other ideology - including voting. People need to view it as such, and not get bogged down in the inviduals. They will come and go.

ahmedzai:

Good post.

PPP however garnered 25% of the total votes. I believe this is more than even PML-Q who won more seats. I suppose one can argue about this nitty-gritty thing back and forth. But similarly, whereas PML-N won only 14 seats, it attained a larger number of total popular votes than MMA which got 50 plus seats. These jarring discrepency- that one gets MORE votes but FEWER seats can be merely coincidental. Or they could not be.

Under Musharaf, with the PML-Q, Pakistan currently has the filthiest set of politicians. Every other one of them has the National Accoutability Bureau ready to chase them into the prisons were they not licking Musharaf`s asc. Across Pakistan, prisoner-politicians were let lose after making a deal with Musharaf to make sure PPP and PML -N lose. After Imran Khan began to criticize the military (after the referendum) the Military released a prisoner to fight under the PML-Q ticket hoping to defeat Imran Khan.

MMA and the mullahs thrive during military rule. The ONLY beneficiaries of the rise of MMA has been Musharaf- and MMA itself of course. MMA is the Military`s `B-Team`. Despite winning 50 plus seats, the total number of popular votes the combined alliance gained was no more than the last election. Because the religious parties lost seats in the biggest province, I may tend toward dismissing the MMA phenomenon as merely a hiccup- combination of Military favoritism and Afghan war. They lost seats in the Punjab and only won in Pathan or deobandi areas of Pakistan (Karachi). After Maulana Noorani`s demise, there is absolutely no hope that the current partners of MMA will make any inroads outside of their current areas. Only religious leaders like Tahir-ul-Qadri could stand a chance of appealing to majority brelvi-sunni/shia Muslims. But even he despite all the respect he gets is not able to get very far.

I didnt` like the PPP or PML rule of the 90`s either. BUT I support their removal through an electoral process and NOT by Faujiz/establishment. History of Pakistan since inception has shown that the establishment`s worst fear is to have a government complete it`s term and establish a clean transition. Politicians have made mistakes but that is not a justifiable invitation for bureaucratic/fauji meddlesome.

We all disliked the politics of the PPP and PML. However, under Musharaf there is the worst of everything.

What do you call a country where the population is falling below the povery line by the millions and where no one is willing to invest and that has absolutely no institutions thereby allowing outside powers to manipulate it at will? That`s right. A BANANA REPUBLIC.

Do you think Pakistan is a Banana Republic? If not, why not?

My whole argument is not for one or the other party. It is that we should allow a constitutional electoral PROCESS to take place where the various institutions and pillars of the state fight each other out to demarcate their space. No matter how dirty, it is necessary.

This is the ONLY thing Pakistan needs.

And the military is in the way.

plats8 #34
rozaiba #31

The underlying assumption in your argument is that ``stable democratic institutions are synonymous with progress``.

This is a flawed assumption, considering China`s explosive double-digit growth and $44 billion foreign investment per year. Authoritarian China was able to leapfrog democratic India precisely because of sound economic policies, curbs on trade unions, state-control over capital markets, trade-centric foreign policy... and limited political freedoms (which led to a stable government).

Political compulsions prevented Nawaz and Benazir from introducing General Sales Tax, agricultural tax and documentation of the economy. Musharraf and Shaukat Aziz could take these tough but necessary measures with relative ease.Political compulsions also prevented Benazir and Nawaz from confronting the Jehadi forces. No civilian leader could take a tough line on madrassahs, the way Musharraf is doing right now. Musharraf can implement IMF conditionalities without fear of losing power. Benazir and Nawaz had to face countless strikes and protests for accomplishing the same

I am not saying that Musharraf`s controlled-democracy or veiled dictatorship is a perfect system. It has its flaws. It is basically one-man rule, and if that one man happens to be a Zia-ul-Haq, we are all doomed. A veiled dictatorship also lacks transparency.

But this is a system that works. Even PPP and PML-N have sheepishly acknowledged the impressive economic performance of Musharraf. Musharraf may have faltered on his accountability and political reform promises-- but at least on the economy he did deliver.
Most Pakistanis would prefer a strong economy with limited political freedoms... than the other way round. At least in the short to medium term.

This does not mean that democratic forces should just resign themselves to their fate. They have a lot of soul-searching to do. There are a lot of issues on which they need to mobilize public opinion... and scrutinize the performance of Musharraf govt.

INDUSTRIALISATION..IS WAT HAVE BEEN THE BACK SEAT PRIORITY FOR THE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS SO AS TO BE FEEDED BY THE EXTERNAL PARTIES..TO ENSURE COMPLETING THEIR TENURE..

INDUSTRIALISATION..CONTROLS..THE ECONOMY WHICH WAS EVIDENT IN AYUB`S ERA..ALTHOUGH..EVERYONE..HAS SOMETHING..TO BOAST ABOUT AND SOME TO CRY UPON..BUT OUR NATIONS..GOES..AFTER THE AFTER EFFECTS OF TASHKENT AGREEMENT..

STRESSING..INDUSTRIALISATION..IS WHAT IS THE NEED..OF TIME..TO MAKE EMERGE PAKISTAN..AS SOME SMALL..POWER..AT LEAST NOT THE TIGER..

EVIDENTLY..AND EXPECTANTLY..IT IS SAID..YEAR 2005 IS..CHANGING FATE FOR PAKISTAN..AND FACE OF LATTER TOO..

LORD HELP US ALL!!

Arjun_m #13

---

My thingy seems to be broken....I`m .....

---

But India is shinning, here is an example

South India : World`s suicide capital

Out of every three cases of suicide reported every 15 minutes in India, one is committed by a youth in the age group of 15 to 29. -
http://in.rediff.com/news/2004/apr/15spec.htm

Now only if we can convince arjun_mf

Romair & His Excellency

Excuse me for butting into a discussion about Pakistan. But if democracy (in its ramshackle form) has been good enough for India and has contributed directly to social mobility and wealth creation in India over the past fifty years, why shouldnt it work for Pakistan too? China sounds all well and good but would there ever be a Tianamen Square in Pakistan?

I just dont buy your arguments. Let the people decide. If it is good for Indians it is good for Pakistanis.

HisExcellency #33: ``To cope with these challenges, Pakistan needs to follow the China model, i.e. authoritarian government, stable economic policies, limited political freedoms, and phased liberalization. If there are any political disturbances in the meantime, the state must crush them with an iron hand... and persevere with its reforms agenda. ``

I would tend to agree. Though I think press and media should have 100% freedom. And political disturbances should be allowed, as long as they don`t do material damage. Other than that, economy is the way to go. Given the choice between being rich and voting, Pakistanis have always opted for being rich. This is apparent from all the expatriates on this site. It is only after people are rich that they start worrying about concepts like voting.

At the same time, there should be a performance criteria set for every govt., on an economic scale. If it doesn`t perform economically, it should be out the door.

I think Pakistan`s natural growth rate is around 6%, historically. My criteria for supporting any govt are as follows:

- At least 6% economic growth, year after year
- Press and media freedom
- Limited or no corruption
- A team of technocrats in key ministerial position, specially those related to finance
- Relatively equal distribution of growth across provinces

Any govt. that achieves this, has my support. Any govt. that cannot, or has not been able to do this, will not have my support. I think if Pakistan can consistently keep doing the above, for fifteen years, with or without democracy, it will be a completely different country. It is statistically impossible for it not to. If it just votes for fifteen years, it will more than likely be in the same mess it is in today. At least that is what the history of Asia tells us.
-

re: Mubashir Butt

All indicators on the Pakistani economy point toward a bright future. Foreign Direct Investment is up and close to the 1996 levels. Foreign reserves and exports are at all time high. Moreover, Shaukat Aziz is optimistic that Pakistan`s GDP per capita will rise to $600 by the end of 2004. Considering his impressive record, one cannot dismiss such claims out of hand. The Americans are pouring in millions of dollars to help Musharraf reform the madrassahs, besides making Pakistan a major non-NATO ally. Pakistan`s macroeconomic and structural problems have largely been reduced. Microeconomic indicators have improved in urban areas but not in other parts especially farm sector.

Islamists dominated Pakistan`s decision making process for 23 years (1979-2001). It is unrealistic to expect them (or their influence) to wither away abruptly in just 3 years. Just like the Islamists penetrated judiciary, military, press, civil bureaucracy and educational institutions... the pro-US moderate forces also have to increase their strength in these institutions and become a strong pressure group. This process entails money as well as time.

To cope with these challenges, Pakistan needs to follow the China model, i.e. authoritarian government, stable economic policies, limited political freedoms, and phased liberalization. If there are any political disturbances in the meantime, the state must crush them with an iron hand... and persevere with its reforms agenda.

Rozaiba #31,

``Institutional stability has no substitute and has no `pre-requisites`. It is born
through a process of conflict.``

Precisely, and something that seems to be terribly under-appreciated in Pakistani
governance structure. As an outsider, it seems to me that there is an unhealthy
amount of hero-worship in Pakistan. Be it Musharraf, Nawaz, Benazir or A.Q.Khan -
people are always looking for a saviour of some sort. This attitude is fundamentally
inimical to building stable democratic institutions.

Rozaiba:

``Given the `dead-end` we`ve hit economically, I am at a COMPLETE loss on WHY you support the Faujiz. ``

Like I have said there is no indicator that we have hit the dead-end and btw, I don`t support the faujiz.

As a family we (my parents) have been supporters of ANP (early 70`s) and then JUI (since the Jihad days.

We don`t support the Faujis, but President Musharraf for making a good shift in policies.

This is one of the many links on economy of Pakistan that I have posted before and I hope that it tells you that we have not hit a dead-end:

WASHINGTON (US): The World Bank [WB] and the International Monetary Fund [IMF] Tuesday appreciated the performance of Pakistan`s economic and fiscal policies-based on discipline, prudence and reform.

Although my family is divided amongst JUI and Musharraf supporters, I believe that Pakistanis should be scared of MMA. Reason: remember my quote of a taxi driver in Peshawar - no cricket, no hockey, no music, no movies, no catwalks, no make-up, no fashion, no fashion clothing, no luxurious living, no average living because of austerity drive, no dining out, no watching entertainment programs on TV, no Basant, no Shandur Mela, no tourism, no our 8 year old daughters going out with their burqa clad moms without cladded in burqa themselves, no women in schools, colleges and universities, no women in workforce, no men out of work force as they will have to do a rota in Hisb Force or Jihad Army, no emigrating outside for their will be no demand for people from a country labeled extremist, etc.

Why should not we support PML N and PPP Benazir? We (Pakistanis) elected them to power twice. They fought with each other and made the 90s the lost decade for us.

PPP made two big blunders: (1) ZAB nationlaised the industry that later gave us nepotism, operational inefficiencies and lack of management skills, ills that still plague us and (2) BB was given a chance to lead the country to propsperity under one umbrella, but instead chose to go for the kill of ``Baqiyaat`` of Martial Law that gave us the worst political confrontation of our chequered history that lasted for 11 years.

The analyst during elections had suggested that PPP seats went up for only 1 reason: division of votes between PML N and PML Q and rise of 3rd force in MMA.

Nawaz, being an industrialist, gave a true hope of economic recovery, but instead went for worst showing - freezing of fcy accounts, assault against the institutions of judiciary and Presidency, etc.

Well, by opting for support to President Musharraf/PM Jamali Team, I have decided what I want for myself and for the ones I love. However, being a strong believer in democracy, I respect the right of others to opt for any other alternative. Opposition is always good. When I hear the views of Indians and other opponents of Musharraf like yourself, I challenge myself on gathering evidence against him. I always find evidence in his support.

Supporting any political party on the basis of evidence that convinces me is my right.

Like I always say however, we can always respectfully and honorably agree to disagree.

ahmadzai:

On your assessment of political dispensations.

Really? PPP is on its way out? Why do you think the dozen PPP members switched sides? Why do you think nearly all of PML-Q members don`t say a word against Musharaf?

Please don`t tell me you honestly feel PML-Q members are supporting Musharaf for his visionary policies.

Aside from the fact that the Faujiz have guns, there is one more reason: NAB. National Accountability Bureau.

Recent parliamentary arguments between Imran Khan and Chaudhary Shujaat are a case in point. The latter got really pissed at Imran Khan after he was accused of supporting the Faujiz to save his own asc and not face the courts for financial crimes of Shujaat family.

As for your insight that PPP is in decline, the final tally after the 2002 elections was that PPP had 81 seats. Up form 19 or so seats it won in 1997. Why did you say PPP was in decline?

Do comment.

The World Is a BUTT and we are ready.. ;-)

the islamist regime fear bogey is a wink-wink creation of military and the US foreign policy. there will be little difference to the word if mma rules via free electoins (except the us foreign policy). it would matter little to the immediate neighborhood. pakistanis would reject any silly stuff from the mma like hand-chopping and cable-tv bans in the next election. over time things will improve.

ahmedzai:

That is a good take on what `perhaps` explains the rapid increase in poverty and rapid decrease in investment under Musharaf.

But here`s a better take. Investors require a stable structure. Look anywhere in the world. This is not that `what comes first? chicken or the egg?` argument that is twisted and presented. Institutional stability has no substitute and has no `pre-requisites`. It is born through a process of conflict.

But if you say that America is hindering Pakistan`s growth, then it leads to the NEXT conclusion. Musharaf`s success at delivering positive macro-statistics, are a DIRECT result of American support. If however, this support is intentionally limiting as well by America, what is your basis for supporting Musharaf?

On the one had, there is no institutional stability. Secondly, American support is intentionally limited- THEREBY NEGATING every single comparison you and others supporting Faujiz make with Malaysia, Singapore, Korea, etc. etc. On top of this, unlike Malaysia, Singapore, Korea etc, not only are we intentionally hindered by America, our Army is hell bent on keeping Kashmir the `core-issue` for which over half the revenue go toward. The dictators or `constitutional dictators` of Malaysia and Singapore did not burden their economies with exhorbitant defense expenditures. They wanted to develop the economy and nothing more.

Dr. Mahatir when he came to Pakistan last year said very bluntly to Pakistan`s officials who were supporting the need for nuclear `deterrence`. Mahatir told them:

``YOU PREPARE FOR WAR TO GO TO WAR. YOU DON`T PREPARE FOR WAR SO YOU DON`T GO TO WAR.``

Now we can debate Mahatir`s stinging remarks against Pakistan Armed Forces policy but since you and others supporting the Faujiz admire Mahatir so much, I thought I`d mention this.

Given the `dead-end` we`ve hit economically, I am at a COMPLETE loss on WHY you support the Faujiz.

#13, mubakr:
****i agree with you in principle but the historic phenomena are impossible to reverse and what jamali said at ndc had a background of state`s failing to provide ANYTHING to its inhabitants (note: i am not using the word citizens here). the feeling is that people who live in the state of pakistan are the subjects; not the citizens.****

Nothing is impossible.

As a nation fissions so can it coalesce. We, as conglomerate population, need to recognize what led to what. The naysayers of all hues will block the path for reintegration of South Asia`s populations and there will be costs to each population. The coalescence will proceed only if and when populations deem that the coalescence is beneficial. The men of the millennium - Gandhi and Nehru - did think that that the aforesaid fission will (I use direct speech not indirect because their thoughts are still valid) not be in the best interest of people at large. SHORTSIGHTED leaders on both sides of the current borders created enough nuisance to cloud the impressionable minds of the populace of the South Asia. We know the result and graduallybut surely the stupidity of ``the blinds``` policy is getting proved.

I would not begin to address second part of your sentence as it speaks tomes. That needs a different and specific forum in its own right.

Ref mubakr #20

[hmmm...it`s not about being ``butt-ready`` under the ``U.S. orders.`` ....

and hey, i am also a butt...so be careful here :) ]

Well, I just couldn`t resist the pun!

Thanks for being so sporting about that!

Rozaiba:

Perhaps Pakistan`s negative image that has formed over a period of last many years and perceived instability at the hands of extremists is a more plausible reason for pathetic FDI. USA and UK`s issuing travel advisories has not helped either.

It seems that there is a deliberate attempt on part of the USA at least to keep Pakistan`s economic growth independent of the USA under strong check. As soon as international investors reach Pakistan or are about to reach it, the advisory is isuued scaring the investors away. The most recent one has been issued immediately after a USA`s delegation for furthering foreign investment in Pakistan left after chalking out a solid plan for FDI.

Rise in GNP (overall growth rate of 5.8% and industrial growth rate of 8%), rising exports, increasing financial ratings by international agencies, good comments of international funding agencies on economic policies, etc. can be cited as good indicators in favor of improving economic situation. I have posted links on all these indicators from time to time.