Reforming the Armed Forces

Shammi 351

I don`t believe Kaplan offers the example of post war Japan, and I don`t think the comparisons hold:

1. While Japn had a measure of representation in govt, the Moral and executive authority of the Emperor in society and culture was supreme. So, I point out that in a fundamental way the Japan and Pakistan situation comparison is not valid, does not hold true. No Pakistani leader, even Mr. Jinnah, has ever held that kind of authority or reverence, indeed in all Islamia, it may only The Khalifa (and even then just 4 - the Rashidiya - there is ieven controversy about that) who could be said to hold such reverence and authority. The Japanese emperor was a god, no Pakistani leader or Muslim authority, or Muslim society, can even consider entertaining such notions. Mr. Sharif and Ms. Bhutto were generally recognized in society as being essentially lawless, unscrupulous, megalomaniacs.

2. Japanese society was/is extremely disciplined, places a high value on such discipline. Pakistani society, you are witness, can you agree that it places a similar value on societal discipline and a hierachical integration?

3. Post war Japan was a devasted society, not just global defeat, but the ruin of the homeland, the de-deification of the Emperor - The comparison of that Japanese psyche and present day Pakistani psyche does not hold. Indeed note when the present constitution (what constitution? the one thankfully held in abayance) was accepted. Note that while women have the vote in Pakistan, their interest remain largely unrepresented given a combination of discrimination justified on so caalled religious grounds, the womens` lack of an organized, motivated, dedicated, political presence. Who will fight for someone who won`t fight for themselves?

4. Jernail Musharraf and his team had not an agreed internal mandate for rebuilding the State, their premise has been that nation building has been a missing priority in The Pakistani polity.

Once the economic copmplexities had been hammered home, did a concensus develop on the restructuring of the state and it`s institutions.

Indeed, once the need for structural changes was internalized, it`s expression has attracted wide spread condemnation by the politicians (Changing the constitution) - This is a bread and butter issue with the politicians and the nuisance value, the disruption in the momentum towards economic restructing, has been judged unnecessary by the regime.

5. Had Mr. Musharraf humbled a god, his task in some ways been easier. A more powerful god replacing another. Peoples of Pakistan simply do not respond in the commonly recognized manner to oppression - they are not a socialized, nor I would suggest, civilized, in that manner. Rebellion against an injustice or unjustified oppression, in a meliu of economic collapse and politics of destruction, dispossession and self aggrandizementwer, is a given in our society. Mr. Musharraf and his team are able to exert their will in direct proportion to the perception of public good, they are seen as delivering. Just watch, if this economy fails to deliver, expect changes, even challenges to the territorial integrity.

6. If it appears to you the Mr. Musharraf seems eager to continue in office, I should like to point out a couple of items for your appreciation:

Mr. Musharraf is a concensus leader, it is the way the office of COAS and corp commanders operate. International economic community have made it clear that they expect continuity of the restructing of the economy. The changing economic policies of the BB and NS era had resulted in Pakistan being the only One Tranche country in the world. Pakistan went from being a poster child of economic growth to achievements such as the most corrupt place in the world, with the dirtyist cities in the world, etc. While Pakistanis will allow a wide berth to Mr. Musharraf and his team, this free ride will last only as long as he and his team deliver.

Inside Pakistan and among concerned international friends, agreement exists that the Pakistani constitution, is a flawed document, in terms of the checks and balances between the offices of the President and Prime Minister. A free for all while economic and State restructing are in progress, is not the desired method to arrive at the necessary constitutional changes. Consider also that such restructuring is not being done in a vacuum, the international relations of Pakistan also require similar attention. You want to trust that to politicians who refuse to take the long view and remain fixated on their own personal economic imperatives? Most Pakistani would not trust the politicians to do that.

Is dictatorship in Pakistan going to take hold? no, a non-Westminster hybrid in Pakistan is the need of our times, Inshallah, Mr. Musharraf and his team will answer the call to institute such a hybrid.

Hobblyty #

The important point which Kaplan is missing and due to which he is excepting one fifth of world population in India.

But if instead of justifying some presumption with some exception he could try to find out underlying theme in countries who are achieving rapid progress.

The underlying theme is will of the nation and its leaders to build themselves. This is particularly true in current or previous third world countries like China, India or Iran. The underlying theme in all three is same. And there is no exception. Communist China, Democratic India or semi democratic Iran.

That is the thing we need for development. And we will find the way ourselves. If people donot see any advantage for them why should they work. And if they work, they will do only to survive. Whatever you want to give it a name.

Although, I agree to Kaplan`s thesis only on one point that a system cannot be forced on people.

But it also leads to only conclusion. Why any system is forced on us. Meaning why America is insistent upon supporting regime or system of its choice on us.

With the weakening economy, there was no question of Zia or Musharraf sustaining. Why America poured billions of dollars to prop up those regimes?

And in none of my post, I take stand for or against democracy. Because for me it is only sloagenization.

I always assert, in what arrangement people of Pakistan want to live.

Although time is not static and needs changes with time, but we have constitution of 1973 as a starting point.

Currently our approach is how can we strengthen our defense. Industrialization, etc is related to that.

Although, strengthening the people by investing on them is best guarantee for our defense also, as people will have stake on the system.

Hobblyty#

I think without a point of reference we are going wayward.

If you are saying development of country as primary goal. What does it mean?

One thing needs to be clarified is when we are talking about development of country, we are talking about development of people in the region.

For example direct colonization by world power with cheap labor available will lead to very rapid development. Can we call it development?

There is no such thing as abstract development.

What is your reference.

For example, when I take care of my house, I have to see that my children are going to school, are they doing O.K., what is their future, in which direction, I am going. If I make the citeria of money as the ultimate goal, best thing for me to do is either take the risk of drug smuggling or play lottery all my life in the hope that one day it will click. If I take that approasch there are one in a million cjances of success.

I have to work towards some direction. Abstract development is not a direction. It is helpful in achieving some goals. If we are thinking in terms of state or country, then primary concern is people living in the country. In fact people will ultimately guide the State towards that direction.

The era of development envisaged by Mahbub-ul-Haq resulted in the consequences of further deterioration of Pakistani society. And he had to admit, that without social development, abstract development is meaningless.

Re: Hobbyty

``I was pointing out that the development of Democracy was not an impostion, but rather that it develops...``

Did Kaplan offer the example of post-war Japan?

I think that it would be very useful for Musharraf to understand how Gen. MacArthur pulled off a great political success in post-war Japan. Both had military backgrounds, and both wielded unquestioned authority. While MacArthur had some advantages that Musharraf lacks (US economic backing, educated population, no jehadis/private armies to scare away investors), he also had severe handicaps (foreigner ruling over vanquished, but intensely proud nation, how to deal with the Emperor) that Musharraf does not. What MacArthur did was out and out imposition. The Japanese constitution was written by a group of new American college grads, one who whom being a woman, penned in equal rights for Japanese women. Just like that! Japanese women need to thank her for that today. MacArthur`s 5-year occupation of Japan and literally building it from the ground up, while destroying the edifice of the past, but saving the Emperor, offers lessons that Musharraf must understand. So far, Musharraf seems to be failing the grade in comparison with MacArthur. Realize, MacArthur wanted to get out of his job of running Japan (Musharraf seems eager), and Musharraf has already used up his 2 years and announced his intention to stick around indefinitely while MacArthur had only 5. MacArthur wrote Japan`s constitution, while Musharraf has just trashed one, is ruling by decree, and has not given any evidence of writing a new one. You can ignore these danger signals, but to me they leap out! I am not impressed by plans or personalites -- I am more impressed by action, facts on the ground and institutions.

Re: Hobbyty

I wish you (and more importantly Pakistan) good luck. Remember, the road to hell is paved with the carcasses of good intentions!

``I agree that Chinese will want greater political transparency and participation as the economy will continue to grow, however; a western model of democracy, especially one, that results in an economic downturn, will be avoided``

The Chinese (or anyone else) do not have have a choice of greater political transparency -- it is a necessity for greater growth. If they do not obtain it, bye-bye growth. And nobody has yet figured out a way to eliminate boom-busts in a capitalist market cycle. The Chinese are not in a privileged position to figure that out either. It is a risk that must be predicted, factored-in, and managed.

Krashid #347

Please understand my grounding. I am not among those who support a westernized Islamia. I support a strong (economy and defense), free, open, vibrant, Islamia. I do do not support the ``aping`` of westernism, rather I support an attitude that seeks to study and to incorporate those elements from international community that are rational, serve a public good and further the interest of a stable, growing, educated, rational, orderly, intellectually and socially open and economically strong Islamia. This does mean that I am position myself as a Icon Muslim; certainly not, that is best known to Allah.

I want to be counted among those seek neither confrontation nor subjugation, but rather seek an identity, primarily, Islamic.



The Kaplan article was written 97. The position he is taking with Particular regard to Azerbaijan is that the two previous elected leaders used nationalism to further their political power, but in the process ruined the economy of Azerbaijan and brought misery to her people and defeat to the nation (Nogorno-Karabagh).

The comment about ``Western oil companies`` is meant to suggest that there is a benefit for the US in States that value a stable, growing economy.

The comment on Iran is meant to suggest that the approach of seeking normal relations ``on our terms`` has been unfruitful.

Dear Sir,

your comment on infrastructure spending in Iran is complete without merit. The departure of the Multinationals was deeply felt by the Iranian economy. Oil production has reached the level of production during the time of the Shah, only by the back door help of Multinational Oil companies. This has taken more than 10 years to achieve. With regard to infrstructure spending, please note that during the time of the Shah, provincial governor were dismissed if they failed to spend or implement the infrastructure targets the central government had identified. The present exchange value of the Rial/Dollar have made Iran an ideal manufacturing prospect, I would argue that it is one of the best in the world, however; due to the entrenchment of a certain segment of the Bazaari, with support from the State policies, no international business can make a success out of the ideal situation that Iran offers, indeed very few Iranians can either. A tragedy for the Iranian peoples, who must do two and three jobs to afford life under the inflation of present times. This same Bazaari element prefer the incedibly high margin they accrue, again supported by a policy of exclusive control over imports and licenses. Though some measure of succor may be returning to those suffering.

May I make a request of you?, If yes, then, may I request that you read the article again. And trust me, I know that Kaplan is no friend of Muslims!

Krashid #346

Sir,

I have not suggested that we should leave the economy to the economist. Most certainly not. This would be a mispresentation of my position.

I have suggested that our primary interest should be the health of the economy and not the politics of destruction and dispossesion. Do you not agree that this characterizes the play of politics as played by the landing owing feudal elites in Pakistan?

I agree with you that the ``one size fits all`` approach is misguided, wrong. Indeed this is the point Kaplan is making in his article. Kaplan suggests that democracy is an outgrowth, evolves in a meliu of economic development, that it grew in Europe, especially given it`s desire to take inspiration from Hellenic civilization and in America, by England`s historic and intellectual legacy:

``Certainly, moral arguments in support of democracy were aired at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, but they were tempered by the kind of historical and social analysis we now abjure``.

``The ghosts of today we ignore -- like the lesson offered by Rwanda, where the parliamentary system the West promoted was a factor in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis by Hutu militias. In 1992, responding partly to pressure from Western governments, the Rwandan regime established a multi-party system and transformed itself into a coalition government. The new political parties became masks for ethnic groups that organized murderous militias, and the coalition nature of the new government helped to prepare the context for the events that led to the genocide in 1994. Evil individuals were certainly responsible for the mass murder. But they operated within a fatally flawed system, which our own ethnocentric hubris helped to construct. Indeed, our often moralistic attempts to impose Western parliamentary systems on other countries are not dissimilar to the attempts of nineteenth-century Western colonialists -- many of whom were equally idealistic -- to replace well-functioning chieftaincy and tribal patronage systems with foreign administrative practices.``

He argues that economic develoment, the creation and enlargement of middle classes, empirical eveidence suggests, is being done by States characterized as authoritarian. He gives the example of Pacific rim states,(China, Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Malaysia) in Africa, he points to Tunisia and Uganda. He argues that it is a wrong position to seek to impose democracy.

Krashid 339

Sir,

I do not justify war booty, unless it is weaponry used by an adversary.

Can International capital have an adverse effect on society?? look at two example, Singapore and Indonesia.

Singapore sees international capital as a partner, it`s authoritarian government is stable and generally not corrupt. Singapore is thriving.

The goal of Indonesian State builders was to provide a better life for their citizens and ensure that Singapore remained independent of Malaysia and Indonesia. It could do neither without the partnership of international capital.

Singapore carried about the required structural and created more or less, a consensus on the need for partnership with international capital.

Indonesia too saw international capital as a partner. It too built a concensus for the need for partnership with international capital. Yet it did not make the structural changes required. indeed corruption was/is a way of life. The very top segment of the Indonesian govenment was seen as corrupt, what options are left to common people? The results of this failure is obvious to all and is heart breaking.

International capital withdrew from Indonesia, as soon as the consensus governing their presence collapesed and Lawlessness and disorder became the order of the day.

So, yes, The withdrawl of international capital from countries in which it previously deposited confidence, can be very negative. But this will only happen in the presence of other factors such as the lack of agreement over their presence and a state of lawlessness.

The whole society producing wealth:

The millions of illiterate and semiliterate Indians, must first have a job to be able to afford to become consumers. In order to create jobs, investment is needed. People argue that Government must invest in commercial enterprize to creat jobs. Is not the Government of India selling off State enterprizes? Is there such a thing as a well administered State commercial enterprise? Name one. Of course not! Why not? Because it means one is placing commercial interests in the hands of people for whom commercial values such as reducing costs and increasing profits is meaningless. Afterall you do not go a kebab shop if you want to eat steak, you go to a steak house.

Please note that the million of illiterate and semi literate are consumers - they are not the direct producers of products and services, they are the consumers of both products and services.

``Each person of society is important and contribute in one way or another`` - Most certainly! No one can agrue against this.

Can one argue that in a situation where capital is insufficient and is critically required, that we concentrate on generating something other than capital?

Shammi:

I think you may have misunderstood me. The points with regard to china, I was making were:

1. That China is not what we would classic communist country.

2. China is a mixed economy. It is an authoritarian state.

3. I agree that Chinese will want greater poloitical transparency and participation as the economy will continue to grow, however; a western model of democracy, especially one, that results in an economic downturn, will be avoided.

With relation to Kaplan, I was pointing out that the development of Democracy was not an impostion, but rather that it develops, evolves, internally, over a long period of economic develoment. This I think is a more correct (mo`betta)understanding of how it is that Democracy may take root, especially in places where Western history and historic Western ntellectual (Hellenic, Mesopotamian) legacy do not exist.

On ``Deja-Vu`` - If Musharraf, fails to introduce the required structural changes, then, yes it may well be deja-vu.

Remember, Musharraf and his team`s venture is Inquilab and not just coup. Please examine how the Pakistani State and economy is being restructured. And Yes, If the institutions do not take hold, the Inquilab will not stand and certainly, it will be deja-vu, however; if he can maintain the momentum for 10 - 15 years, he will leave Pakistan more able to sustain a political process that does not include the politics of personal agrandizement and of destruction and dispossesion. It is this particular character of politics in Pakistan that is the problem. Nowhere do Pakistani politicians seem concerned about legislation as a rationale for their entry into ploitics, rather it is personal power as rationale. Inshallah with will end. This is a requirement which they must respect.

Hobblyty#

My comments on Kaplan article.

The article is written possibly to influence American intelligentia that democracy is not always beneficial to America and one should think interms of pragmatism.

The quote:

``A coup in Azerbaijan was necessary to restore peace, by developing Azerbaijan`s enormous oil resources, foster economic growth. Without the coup WESTERN OIL COMPANIES WOULD NOT HAVE GAINED THEIR CURRENT FOOT HOLD, which has allowed US to INCREASE PRESSURE ON IRAN and at the same time we attempt to normalize relations with Iran ``ON OUR TERMS``

pretty much sums up the intent and approach.

Also example of Algeria and Tunisia was irrelevant.

If Algeria could be compared, it could be compared with Iran. There was dictatorship. There were rich oil reserves. There was exploitation by West. While in Iran Islamic revolution succeeeded which diverted the revenues for infrastructure building and tilted the balance of power against America. They needed to prevent same kind of situation in Algeria where there is deep interest of multinationals.

Moreover, I am not at all impressed. The article looks like more of justifying a presumption rather than reaching a conclusion after analysing.

In polite terms it can be called propaganda.

Hobblyty#

I was thinking on your previous post regarding leaving the economy to economist.

Although, it may seem prudent, but there are many points which I need to stress.

1- How can you define that a person is aware of all aspects because he is an economist.

For example, there is a current trend in medicine for alternative medicine and slowly it is converting into scientific subjects. Does that mean doctors should start to propagate banning of all medicine except allopathic as that is the only one standing on scientific grounds.

2- The controversy between Microsoft, a poor company and IBM a big giant in early days of microsoft resulted in decision favorable to microsoft. If initiative of Bill Gates and microsoft was killed at that time, we would have been left decades behind.

3- People tend to transfer money through ``Hundi`` rather than bank. This is due to ease of Hundi and long process+ fees etc of banks. Although banks are highly educated institutions.

4- Orangi pilot project, depended on involvement of people in development of their area. While the highly sophisticated foreign firms given the other similar project in Orangi utterly failed.

5- The Grameen Bank in Bangladesh is doing a great job by its own initiative, defying the predictions and prescriptions of Leading Bankers.

5- Pakistan`s initial five year plans leading to disintegeration of country were with assistance of highly expert Harvard group and Ford Foundation.

The point is this. Applying the formulas by economist is not the solution. Until and unless a person has a grasp of subject and is able to apply it to the local condition. If that highly intelligent variety is not available in large numbers to run the affairs of state, I would prefer a local solution by even non-economist who has much grasp on society, rather than applying formula suited to Advanced nations as such on underdeveloped countries without taking into account other factors.

Western society is highly organized. A most of the things are taken for granted. Whether it is the role of police or beareucracy or people`s behaviour. Not in our countries. Those conditions or infrastructure does not exist.

Just to give you an example. Similar to New York where there is law of ``NO TURN ON RED``, I was amused to see its application in Islamabad on a deserted road.

In this regard common sense is much better than all ``HIGH STUDIES``

Hobblyty #339

I am not supporting anything or against anything.I am suggesting conceptual basis.

For example if the private property is so sanctified according to you. Then how can you justify ``War Booty``.

I will give my comment on Kaplan (and others article) later. In fact I had written it but computer got stuck.

If you can reread my post regarding the conceptual basis.

Capital is one of the most important form of power. I am not against foreign capital. I am just suggesting the basis of state. State is formed for the people living in state. Otherwise ruling the people of land by force with the help of foreign capital still will result in a state. But then it cannot be called state for the people living in state. Once you invite foreign Capital, you have to be much more vigilant. Consider the irritation of Americans with Chinese and you can understand that even a power like America is not immune to political interference. How can we expect a country like Pakistan without interference. It essentially weakens the power of people. Or you can say that, only organized power of people can resist the interference, even if foreign capital is allowed.

As far the whole society producing wealth. Suppose all the big brains of current century are send to moon. What they can do? Nothing. The society over millenia has reached a stage, where we are now standing. Or as Newton said that he was able to see on the shoulders of previous people. For example third world countries like India are a target of western world, because of a big market. Who is creating that big market. Millions of illiterate or semi illiterate.

Or for example American defence forces including from Lance Naik to Marshall (or whatever it is called) is there to protect the interest of Multinationals. Without armed forces would you expect Microsoft to be taken over by even a small army like Burma. It is the whole society which contributes in one way or another. Millions of Aids patient`s have been a great saviour of Hospitals in America and have contributed to development of drug industries and have led to important development in immune physiology. Again my point is that each person of society is important and contribute in one way or another. For example the wars and devastations of war have also led to important developments which are beneficial to the whole humanity.

Also it was the old axiom, that ``Necessity is the mother of invention``. Now invention is done before we are able to find the application for that.

Anyway these are just to make points clear.

Re: Hobbyty, Dost-Mittar

Dost-Mittar, thanks for the link to the Khuswant Singh article on the Emergency. This quote leapt out at me:

``The Emergency, when first imposed, was generally welcomed by the people. There were no strikes or hartals, schools and colleges re-opened, business picked up, buses and trains began to run on time. People are under the impression that the Emergency administrators were very efficient. They were not ``

Sounds a lot like the joy with which Musharraf was greeted. And this from a man who initially supported the Emergency.

Hobbyty, deja vu?

Re: Hobbyty, Dost-Mittar

Dost-Mittar, thanks for the link to the Khuswant Singh article on the Emergency. This quote leapt out at me:

``The Emergency, when first imposed, was generally welcomed by the people. There were no strikes or hartals, schools and colleges re-opened, business picked up, buses and trains began to run on time. People are under the impression that the Emergency administrators were very efficient. They were not ``

Sounds a lot like the joy with which Musharraf was greeted.

Hobbyty, deja vu?

Re: Hobbyty

I think that you misunderstood me.

I did not claim that the Chinese economy is ALL communist/socialist, nor did I deny that there is SOME level of Chinese entrepreneurship (Please refrain from putting words in my mouth).

All I said was that socio-political evolution cannot proceed unless there are reforms. In China too, growth will stall unless there are further reforms -- this time political more so than ever before. There has not yet been a 1st world economic success story in which BOTH political and market reforms have not been EVENTUALLY implemented. (For all its recent success, China still languishes in the 3rd world, and has not yet emerged as a middle income country a la Taiwan, S. Korea, Malaysia, etc). I know that you will agree to the dictum that the laws of economics do not bend to any narrow ideology.

If you are making the case that while you agree with the above in the `long-term`, but that for the `short-term` Pakistan needs to value stability more than democracy to EVENTUALLY put her on a path towards BOTH political reform and economic growth, I will accept the validity (with reservations) of your argument. Pakistan`s situation is peculiar and it is difficult to see the road ahead, and also be certain of the outcome. If Musharraf`s `guided democracy cum economic reforms` pan out, then I will be happy to have been wrong about my prognosis. I think that the risks outweigh the benefits - only time will tell. For an optimistic scenario to become reality, a few immediate problems need to be sorted out (a) reducing public debt (b) reducing expenditure (74% of the Pakistan budget goes to debt servicing/defence) through reducing tensions for the LONG-TERM with India (c) creating a climate for direct foreign investments (FDI), and (d) govt. should have the ability to create a tax/regulatory climate for promoting economic growth. For (c), the private armies must be reigned in and brought under complete control of the govt. Foreign investors are deterred less by petty crime, but more by private armies (ie. various jehadi/mujahideen outfits). (b) and (c) may not be possible simultaneously. In so far as (d) is concerned, another General (Zia) has `blessed` Pakistan with state Islamic values which are now coming home to roost -- I am talking about the Riba (interest free) issue -- the wasted energy in delaying its implementation is being expended at a time when there should have been an almost fanatic focus on getting the economy moving ahead, not putting out fires.

Re: your reference to BJP/Market reforms

In the case of India, the BJP did not come to power because of their economics agenda alone (on which there is now a consensus by all political parties -- It was the Congress party that initiated reform, and they have been out of power since `96). Political power in India ebbs and flows principally on issues of local appeal (inflation, law and order). The BJP was unable to form a stable government despite their highly touted nuclear tests (ie while there may have been much chest thumping by fanatics on TV, their coalition was nearly brought down by (guess what?) onion prices in 1998!) Even today, they are tottering on the brink of a wafer-thin electoral majority in the Lok Sabha. The NS/Musharraf combine delivered an electoral victory to the BJP in 1999 due to Kargil (chronology of events: 5/98 nuclear tests, 4/99 BJP loses key ally - fresh elections called, 5/99 Kargil war starts, 10/99 BJP voted in, October coup in Pakistan). Had there been no Kargil, the BJP would not be where it is today. Now that the Kargil halo is wearing thin, the BJP has lost in all 4 state elections last month, and may lose in UP in the next few months. Losing UP (Vajpayee`s state) would be a body blow to the BJP. The only thing going for the BJP in UP is that (i) the Congress is badly out of favor there, and (ii) Muslim poor may vote for BJP, thus dividing the opposition vote. Otherwise, it may be curtains for the BJP in UP.

Krashid 337

Sir,

If you will think of our conversation as a tool to focus your thinking on these matters, I offer the following observations:

You Suggest it is the whole of society that produces wealth - Let us examine this assertion and let us take the example of information Technology:- Information technology grew because it solved problems, it eliminated inefficiencies.

Large section of the society particpated in the benefits of this creation (do you agree? You and I certainly benefited, made each others acquaintance, converse, exchange ideas - the same opportunity is available to hundreds of millions of others) But it would be incorrect to say that you and I or the millions of others who benefited from the creation of the information technology revolution, actually created the infrastructure, standards and codes that enable this revolution.

Indeed, it is always true, Always true, that a minority, that can bring benefit to a majority, will accrue the greatest reward. Structured inequality is the engine that drives society. For instance: the Nabi (Pbuh) was a trader and a rather successful trader. He purchased goods and sold them at a profit. The point here is the inequality bewteen the cost of production and the cost of distribution. It`s basic, elementary.

You suggest ``if that wealth is enough to satisfy the needs of society, I don`t see why there should be a political struggle``. While I agree that political struggle should not be a element in the creation of wealth - I strongly disagree about the needs. The hierachy of needs, Roti, Kaprah, Makan, etc, etc. A soon as basic needs on the hierachy of needs is met, other needs develop. After all Roti, Kaprah and MaKan are not the only things one needs.

You say ``I have no idea about the sanctity of private property`` - I find this very hard to believe, indeed. Presumably you have some clothes that belong to you, or you may have a car or a mototcycle or a bicyle that belongs to you, or a computer - Would you find it objectionable if a person or coersive entity were to deprive you of the things you legally own???? I do think you would object. Therefore, it would be fair to say that the sanctity of private property is not only a personal but even religious obligation for the Muslim.

``Wealth is concentrated in few hands...and masses deprived of basic necessities, they are going to come out in revolt.`` If you are suggesting that we transfer the wealth of the few inot the hands of the many - I think this is an crude attack on the private property of others - and I shall find unsupportable. This premise is 18 and 19 century, it is completely invalid.

If on the other hand you are infering that therefore, the economy should be more open to the participation of greater numbers - Of course.

Steel - Again, Sir, you are presenting a simple picture. Thousands of jobs are at stake in Pak steel - BUT, consider, IS Pak steel a business or a jobs scheme? by not upgrading it equipment, not not reducing it`s production costs, by not developing a more economic production process, by not reducing it`s labor costs, By not producing a superior product at a lower cost (a basic in any business), Pak steel is in effect imposing a high tax on all segments of economy that use their products. In other words, instead of creating wealth, it is taxing the wealth that the consumers of it`s product have to pay. If I have to use pak steel in the building I am building, it will cost me more, in order for me to recover that cost, I have to sell the units in the building for more money, those who wanted to buy units in my building will now have even less to spend on other things. If you were one of those businesses that wanted to sell your product to those people who bought my units, you will be out of luck, without your sales, how will you pay your employees, how will your employess be able to afford their families next meal? It`s stupid, stupid, stupid. 2 plus 2 is always 4, it will never change.

International capital - Again sir, International capital is not an enemy - in fact, international capital does not care if you are Muslim, Martian or Communist, like they say China is! International capital offers us an opportunity to partner with it in the creation of wealth. A job that can afford a Pakistani citizen the minimum necessities and comforts is preferable or no job. Is it not? It does not matter that International capital seeks a share or a large share of wealth. It deserves this because it helps in the creation of our wealth. We do not seek to keep international capital away, we seek to invite it to help us build our country.

We do not seek to confront international capital, we understand that it is the private property of others and that it is seeking an opportunity to accrue earning for those to whom it belong. If by accruing the wealth for those who own it, it can also help us build our country, then, why should we reject it?? I wish more people understood that international capital is neutral to everything other than profits.

OUR challenge is to convince international capital that we are a good and SAFE investment and that we will keep the politicians away from the wealth we create.

Sir,

rest assured that the Pakistan State has never, ever, never, formulated economic policies or reoriented the structure of the State (till under Mr. Musharraf) to the benefit of those who wish an open, transparent, equal opportunity economy. Instead it is an economy for the benefit of an inefficient few, and that has always imposed very heavy taxation and reduced economy activity by it`s reliance of licence and duty fees instead of a vibrant, thriving, equal opportunity economy that provides the State revenues based on a rational,low,wide,tax base.

Please apprise me of your thinking about the Kaplan article I had posted earlier. Yes it is long, but you will find it invigorating.

Shammi

First things first - It is a misconception many persons across the divide hold and it is not supported by scholarship - Pakistan did not, repeat did not, have either infrastructure or bureaucracy or an economy comparable to Indias` at the time of it`s birth.

(Krashid recommended to me and I do to you, Ayesha Jalal`s ``The State of Martial Rule - The origins of Pakistan`s political economy of defense``) - I will introduce several quotes from Jalal`s book - Ch 2 ``Pakistan`s share of the spoils`` :

1.``The Indian independence bill, as Mountbatten himself confessed, had been drafted on the assumption that there was a continuing government of India under Congress control with Pakistan in a position of a seceding state.`` The implication for a fair division here is clear.

2.``So the government of Pakistan had literally to begin operations from hastily constructed tin shed` without such basic items as typewriters, telephones, pens or paper.``

3.``It has never been established conclusively just how many civil servants were engaged in the task of administering the new State. The best known estimate is of some 157 officers, inclusding thirty six British civil servants, forming the core of the Pakistani civil service. But this is an underestimate...a more reasonable figure might be somewhere in the vicinity of 200``

I have not included other figures as it will take too much time and belobour the point. Similar figures will be found for the financial assests and the share of armed forces and manufacturing. Please do read this book, it will increase your understanding into the Pak State and public psyche.

To our discussion:

1.The position is not that democracy is bad or inefficient. ``democracy evolved in the West not through the kind of moral fiat we are trying to impose throughout the world but as an organic outgrowth of development`` (Kaplan) Please also read Weber ``The protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism`` - The relationship between religion and the economic and social life in modern culture -You will find this a much deeper analysis than those of Marx.

2. A utilitarian spirit prevails in corridors of Power and the development of Hybrid State may be seem in this light.

3. Pakistan seems to be evolving in the direction of the Hybrid State.

4. The Hybrid State is not necessarily authoritarian - it`s utility is deeply influenced by the fear of the disorder of the past ( BB / NS - provincial disharmony - the politics of personal destruction and dispossession - the systematic deconstruction of State and societal institutions leading to a state of anarchy, wide spread corruption, societal fragmentation along regional, ethnic, tribal and denominational lines, the flight of capital and the educated)

5. Given a choice between the chaos and destruction of society in the democratic period (BB/NS) and free, orderly, economic development, a overwhelming majority of Pakistani will choose the latter. The press in Pakistan has never been more free. The logic of sectarian violence has never before been threatened as it is today.

International confidence in the ability of the Pakistani State to think and behave in a rational manner is renewed. Movement towards peaceful realtions with neighbors has begun. The economy has stabilized; I did not say grown, it`s downward slide has been checked. This first step is imperative it is to register meaningful growth trends. Pakistani citizens for the first time in their experience, have freely elected local government. Old sytle politicians may no longer feed at the public trough. So, is it not reasonable to posit that the Pakistani citizen has never had it better?

7, Democracy is much more deeper concept than the absence of Military takeovers.

On China

Have you ever done business in or with any Chinese companies or have travelled to China?

It is a Huge, Huge, misconception to advance the proposition that China is a communist country. It`s authoritarian (reminded me of Iran, during the time of the Shah). On any Flight to China, the presence of large numbers of Europeans and Americans is undeniable. The majority of these persons are business persons. Krashid has suggested that in China, ``the means of production`` is under State hands. Rubbish, It is increasingly the case that the Chinese State is divesting itself of large State controlled commercial entities (where politically feaseable- given the number of unemployed or underemployed this generates). You will encounter Americans and to a lesser degree Europeans business persons, who can be classified as ``small business``, for instance, a investment in partnership with the Chinese State in a chair making factory or a small toy making concern. The place hums with opportunity. I was marketing a PC based product performing a function previously done by main frames, (a job a person like me should never do) they listened to my presentation and asked if they might show a home grown solution: Two members of the staff had developed a similar (actually, even simpler) PC based solution, with the added attraction that it was in Chinese.

While ideologically and politically motivated elements in China certainly want a more open, transparent, inclusive political climate, they also realize that the present abundunce is a product of order, not anarchy. They too have a similar past and are no strangers to the politics of personal destruction.

Will they want ever increasing levels of participation in political and adminstrative affairs - Yes, they will, but only as long as economic benefits continue to accrue. Would The BJP be in power without the economic reforms it introduced? Had the reform been mismanaged and the ordinary Indian be poorer, less well off than before the reforms, what might the social compact, an ordinary Indian consider more beneficial? Religious based nationalism, increased expectations only to be confronted by poverty caused by the personal power plays of politicians? Sound familiar?

re fuzair #323:

Given enough statistics it would be pretty easy to prove how bad of a financial shape even the USA is in. We can leave that exercise for the academics. Let me go back to the question you propose.

``Who would you rather have in charge: the mediocre or the dysfunctionally incompetent? Choose your evil.``

I, fortunately don`t get to make that decision. While not a terribly ardent fan of democracy myself, the criteria I apply when I judge the relative well being of a country takes me back to the advice given to me many years ago by a gentleman who made his fortune investing his client`s money in far-off lands before most people in the west knew the difference between the Baht and the Won. I was showing him some of the correlation analysis I had done between things like GDP growth, inflation, savings rate etc. for a couple of East Asian countries. He put the sheets aside and asked me casually how much history I had read on any of the countries in question. I confessed not much. He smiled and ventured forth. ``Before you even think about putting your own or your client`s money in another country don`t crunch any numbers. Ask yourself the following common sense questions:

Would you feel comfortable if any of your family members decided to move to the country in question even on a short assigment? If you had the money, would you buy a house there? Would you let your daughter backpack through that country with her friends? Would you want to retire in there if given the chance? Would you hold significant assets in the country`s currency? Does the country have strong institutions to weather a financial or economic crisis? IS THE ARMY USED TO TAKING OVER CONTROL AT THE SLIGHTEST SIGN OF TROUBLE?

I argued with him in youthful exuberance countering that his criteria would rule out most parts of the world. We would be leaving the Russias and the Columbias of this world for others to exploit and profit. Little did I realize at that time that the old man and I had shared a Morrie`s moment. This in a nutshell is why there are countries that work and then there are countries that don`t. The countries that do by a large majority happen to be democratic(even with just a facade). The politicians are idiots of the highest degree or even ``dysfunctionally incompetent``. But isn`t the mythical `common man` the same way also? The politician is a scumbag but isn`t the common man one too? Give me a dysfunctionally incompetent fool anyday over a mediocre general.....And you wouldn`t have to look far in case of the Paksitani army.

I rest my case.

later

-sac