Is India ‘indispensable partner’ of US?

Mahmood Riazuddin

US President barack Obama’s visit to India coincides with four important developments: i) The third round of Pakistan-US strategic dialogue has just concluded; ii) Obama’s Democratic Party has faced a humiliating blow in the mid-term elections in United States; iii) India has launched an aggressive campaign to have permanent membership of the UN Security Council; and iv) Kashmiris are observing Jammu Martyrs Day [November 6] which is reminiscent of en bloc massacre of Kashmiris in 1947. Obama’s decision to prefer India for his visit to the region speaks volumes for the sort of relations between the sole superpower of the world and the mini-superpower in the region. This is despite the fact that Pakistan has been playing the role of a frontline state in the US-led war on terror for the last nine long years and it has suffered colossal losses in terms of men and material during this course, and is still facing the consequences of its being a non-NATO ally of the United States. However, the Americans ignoring this role have waged an undeclared war against Pakistan and the bane of US drone strikes have posed a grave challenge to the very sovereignty of the country. Some Pakistanis are of the view that enhancement of US-India relations is just a misgiving, but they must acknowledge that the two countries share many commonalities and the common objectives besides the ‘common enemy’ that is China. The chronologies of India and United States reveal that both of them have expansionist and hegemonic designs and they have frequently indulged in adventurisms not only against their neighboring states but also the countries in other regions to fulfill their designs. United States is the sole power which has so far used a nuclear weapon while India is the sole country which conducted a nuclear test in South Asia thereby igniting a nuclear race in the region. In the recent years, United States has executed a so-called civil nuclear cooperation accord with India but at the same time, it has frequently refused such an arrangement with Pakistan. Similarly, both the countries have constantly been stockpiling sophisticated weapons. They have conducted 50 joint military exercises during the last few years while India is going to purchase military [war] equipment worth $2.5 billion. President Obama has regarded India ‘an indispensable partner’ of his country while India takes United States as its natural ally. However, United States desires to see India not its indispensable partner, but an invincible partner against the emerging superpower China and the basic objective of Obama’s visit to India is to control the growing might of China. United States does not like any country to try to become a superpower and as regards China, it has proved itself a peace-loving country during its post-independence history. The United States claims that China’s attitude is becoming ‘nationalist’ and its leadership shows unexpected assertiveness which reveals their ‘arrogance and belligerence’. That is why, United States has adopted a more forceful attitude towards China and has been encouraging India, Vietnam and other countries in South East Asia. As stated President Obama considers India an indispensable partner of his country, but at the same time, he appreciates the indispensability of a Pakistani role in a settlement in Afghanistan. However, in practical terms, he seems to be in no mood for a settlement nor is he ready to assign such a role to Pakistan, a fact which is evident from additional US deployments in the war-torn country. Similarly, Obama is also in no mood to address India’s growing presence in Afghanistan. Rather he welcomes its involvement in the economy of the war-ravaged country. In his electoral campaign, Barack [then Hussain] Obama had talked of peace and stability in different regions of the world particularly in the Middle East and South Asia. He had also promised to facilitate an amicable solution to the lingering Kashmir issue which he had realized to be a bone of contention between Pakistan and India. It is high time that Obama involves himself in the resolution of differences particularly the core Kashmir issue between the nuclear armed rivals. It is crystal clear that during talks, the Indian leadership will approach President Obama for help to promote Delhi’s bid to become a permanent UN Security Council member even without veto power. But it will be advisable that President Obama links the issue to India’s worst record of human rights abuses in Occupied Kashmir. The fact remains that India has waged a genocidal war against the Kashmiris and has martyred in just four months over 150 defenseless inhabitants of the territory it has been illegally occupying for the last 63 years. It is pertinent to mention here that since October 1989, the 700,000 strong Indian forces have martyred 100,000 Kashmiris – many more scarred and wounded, to silence the people’s demand for justice, respect for human rights, freedom and the right of self-determination. The occupation troops continue to carry out arbitrary detentions, summary executions, custodial killings, extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, rapes, sexual exploitation, torture and fake encounters. Generations of Kashmiris have grown up under the shadow of the gun; not a single family is unaffected; and the suffering and devastation continues unabated that has inflicted loss of life and destruction on an unprecedented scale, drawing no significant attention from the international community particularly the United States. The perception that the Kashmir is a bilateral matter between Pakistan and India is unfounded because since the adoption of the UN resolutions in 1948, Kashmir is no longer a bilateral or territorial dispute between the two countries but has become an international obligation. The prospect of peace and progress in South Asia is inseparably linked with the recognition of the right of self-determination of the Kashmiris, and thus rests upon the willingness of the world community particularly the United States to make positive contribution towards resolving the Kashmir conflict. The high scale of brutalities in the held territory suggests that India is poised to avoid implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir. If President Obama wants to see his name written in the history in golden letters or as a global leader, he should not only raise the Kashmir issue during his visit to India but should also facilitate its resolution through a plebiscite in accordance with the UN resolutions, and urge India to respect the UN resolutions on Kashmir to become a permanent member of the world body. Obama’s failure to do so will further weaken credibility and standing of the United States.

The franchise of Al-Qaeda

I M Mohsin

John Brennan, the US president’s top counterterrorism expert believes, as per The New York Times, that Yemen is a typical ‘franchise of Al-Qaeda’. The remark was occasioned by the recent seizure in Britain/ Dubai of two shipments containing explosives. These were sent from Yemen to synagogues in Chicago. The way the US media, as usual, have exploited the story to spread fear is a familiar tactic by now. Unfortunately, the American politics also appears to benefit from such questionable tactics. If one has the patience to watch Fox News for while, one runs in to very vicious propaganda financed by the Right-wing Republicans etc. It is meant to Castigate the Obama Administration on all pretexts. This is so as they make their living out of special interests under the cover of ’freedom of expression’. Their mandate is clearly dictated by their pay-masters. Hence they can’t dare to even mention atrocities committed in Gaza etc. It should be no surprise how they hammered in the latest incident. Such an approach could also be induced by the mid-term polls wherein the Republicans of all shades are running down their rivals. Prima facie, the alleged-attempt is regrettable as it poses a threat to air-travel as well as the intended-recipients. As only a media-version of the occurrence has been flashed, it is too early to assess the actual course of events. However, till the time a fair investigation can establish the prosecution-story, it will remain a moot-point. One can’t help thinking of the neo-con tactics like American Airlines bombing-plan discovered in UK under Blair and the ‘Anthrax’ scandal in US which were, reportedly, meant to mislead the public opinion at home for electoral success. No wonder both those incidents got buried for good once they had served the interests of the sponsors had been fully served. Nobody appeared to bother, generally, about the loss to US-credibility it provoked the world over. The surge of fear through media appears to have made drawn attention of Govts to their vulnerability in the field of handling of air-cargo which may turn out to be a welcome development. In view of the prevailing insecurity, genuine or induced, it be highly beneficial if fool-proof system are adopted to strengthen operations which regulate important sectors like the carriage/communication of passengers/cargo by air-lines. As regards the branding of Yemen as a franchise of Al-Qaeda, this may not help the US or her friends. The Middle East is facing a very uncertain situation following the way Netan yahu rebuffed President Obama on the issue of Settlements. After Israeli insult to US President, the Jewish lobby has been going out of the way to help the rightwing Republicans in the mid-term elections to undercut the Democrats. The results indicate what a potential for mischief the lobby has acquired. If the US is seen to be so helpless in relation to Israeli land-grabbing in West Bank of Palestine besides the criminal occupation of Gaza, it is bound to incite a reaction in the Muslim world. The intransigence of Israel supported by the US Jewish- lobby would generate forces which would marshal resources for fighting against the injustice done to Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir etc. Inspired by a mission of religious significance and bolstered by the concept of the right to freedom, such groups could destabilize the status quo badly. If they choose to join Al-Qaeda they will become its lifeline as well as out-posts for winning justice.US is badly stuck in Iraq and the situation is much worse for in Afghanistan. The spate of vicious bombing on Afghans, who have no air-force, can be termed an atrocity at some stage. If history is any guide, such atrocious indiscriminate killings can’t ensure a win. As civilian casualties mount, so do the number of people who would take up arms against the foreign forces as it becomes their religious/traditional duty to avenge such deaths. One would have thought that Gen Petraeus, being a highly-educated man, would always keep this factor in defining his policy to be followed by his troops. ISAF must appreciate that such tactics worked temporarily in Iraq where the US exploited Shia-Sunni divide to weaken resistance to their occupation. Now, despite the US forces, Iraq is becoming a hell is let loose on its people and this won’t go to US’ credit. Afghanistan is a different ballgame as the Pashtuns are up in arms against the foreign forces, generally. Initially the Northern warlords sided with the US, Russia etc when they conquered Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11. Only firepower would not help the US against the Al-Qaeda syndrome, force of goodwill and inter-dependence with the Muslim world appears to be the way-out. —The writer is a former Secretary Interior

Obama’s visit: Indian economy

Asif Haroon Raja

After the end of Cold War while Pakistan-US relations soured, Indo-US relations warmed up. The foundation of Indo-US strategic relations laid in 1990 prospered throughout the 1990s despite certain irritants such as nuclear non-proliferation, Russian origin missile technology and human rights violations. Huge investments were made to boost sagging economy of India . Software industry and agriculture sector in particular was given greater attention thereby enabling Indian economy to shrug off its sluggishness and become vibrant. Indo-US conjugation climaxed when Bill Clinton accompanied by extraordinarily large contingent of over 2000 businessmen and others visited India from 21-25 March 2000 and their relationship blossomed into solid strategic partnership. Besides removing sanctions imposed in the wake of India ’s nuclear explosions in May 1998, and turning a blind eye to the existing irritants, India was cajoled, pampered and showered with heavy investments worth billions of dollars. An atmosphere of festivity and rejoicing pervaded the Indian horizon throughout the period of visitors stay. In contrast to high profile visit to India , Clinton ’s five-hour visit to Islamabad was a non-event. Ouster of democratic regime of Nawaz Sharif by Gen Musharraf had not gone down well in Washington . Accompanied by his personal staff and contingent of security goons, his attitude throughout his brief stay was curt and officious. He preferred to meet President Rafiq Tarar and completely ignored Musharraf. He came with an empty bag and had nothing to offer to Pakistan except to lecture Pakistani nation. What he conveyed was that Pakistan should agree to return to civilian rule, rollback nuclear program, eliminate terrorism, accept Line of Control as permanent border in Kashmir , rein in fundamentalist elements and accept India as a regional power. He added that unless Pakistan agreed to these proposals, it would not qualify itself for the restoration of US economic and technical assistance that had been severed in October 1990. He cautioned that failing to fulfill the stated pre-conditions, not only 1990 and 1998 sanctions would remain operative, other financial institutions and world bodies would be asked to tighten the economic screws on Pakistan . In other words, Pakistan would be declared a pariah and a failed state. Needless for me to recount how George Bush led Republicans after coming to power twisted the arm of Musharraf suffering from legitimacy bug and made him agree to promote US interests in the region at the cost of national interests. Bush era promoted India as a counterweight to China . It helped India in consolidating its influence in Afghanistan . We also distinctly recall Bush’s visit to India in March 2006. Other than tens of defence and economic agreements worth billions of dollars, biggest trophy awarded was the lucrative civil nuclear deal. After this hi-fi visit, expectations in Pakistan were sky high. Reasons for such optimism were that Pakistan had acted as the frontline state and was playing a key role in US war on terror, had arrested and handed over more than 700 Al-Qaeda operatives to USA, and Musharraf had become the blue-eyed boy of Bush. High hopes crashed when Bush said that he had come on an inspection tour to check progress of Pakistan on ground. Not only request for a nuclear deal similar to India was brusquely turned down, no worthwhile defence or economic agreement was inked. Even direly needed counter terrorism equipment was denied due to Indian fears. Concerns of Pakistan about covert operations by RAW from Afghan soil were also not heeded to since he had approvingly listened to complaints made against Pakistan by Karzai at Kabul . Bush sympathized with perpetrators of cross border terrorism against Pakistan but he turned a deaf ear to Pakistan ’s pleadings that it was victim of cross border terrorism. It was understandable for Bush to pretend deafness since he knew that CIA was the chief coordinator of covert operations launched against Pakistan from Afghan soil. After Bush’s tour of this region, US attitude against Pakistan stiffened and became more and more aggressive. In his last year in power, Pak-US relations had dipped low because of unsubstantiated accusations made against Pakistan and Washington’s dissatisfaction over performance of Pak Army in war on terror. Mumbai attacks on 26/11 not only strained Indo-Pak relations but also had an adverse impact on Pak-US relations. Barack Obama from whom better response was expected did not prove any better from his predecessor. Rather, he shifted the weight of war on terror entirely towards Afghanistan and Pakistan thorough his ill-conceived Af-Pak policy. He brought no change in US tilt towards India and continued to prepare it as a bulwark against China and to make it a key player in Afghan affairs. Pakistan bashing continued unabated and drone strikes were accelerated. Propaganda against Pakistan ’s nuclear program and its alleged linkage with Taliban and Al-Qaeda became malicious. He also ignored Pakistan ’s request for award of US nuclear technology on the plea that it had not proven itself to be a responsible state. Attitude of Obama and his administration towards Pakistan became less vituperative at the dawn of 2010 because of brilliant performance of Pak Army in Malakand, Swat and South Waziristan and also due to worsening security situation in Afghanistan . The US wanted Pakistan to help in dividing the Taliban and isolating the hardliners led by Mullah Omar since neither Karzai regime, or India , or CIA, or Saudi Arabia could do so. A need for a political solution to Afghan imbroglio was direly felt since this was the only plausible way to ensure an honorable exit. Kerry Lugar Bill followed by strategic dialogue was aimed at bridging the trust deficit and creating better understanding between the two countries. Confidence building measures and carrots in no way match the endowments doled out to India , which is being continuously rewarded despite having done nothing in fighting war on terror. It neither sent any military contingent in Iraq nor in Afghanistan . Despite this glaring dichotomy, India is presented the cake and leftover crumbs are given to Pakistan which has given sacrifices more than any other country. After Clinton and Bush, it is now Obama’s turn to visit India for three days from 6-8 November in order to further cement Indo-US strategic ties. Principally speaking Obama should have visited Afghanistan and Pakistan where war is raging and not India which is covertly fuelling flames of war. Since economics override politics and strategic considerations, India has been preferred. Other reason for not including Pakistan in his itinerary was the heightened bitterness between two archrivals, both carrying host of grouses against each other. Obama was faced with a dilemma since on one hand India is indispensable to US, on the other Pakistan ’s significance in context with endgame of Afghanistan could not be overlooked. Obama was not in a position to offer goodies in equal proportion to both or to play one against the other. He also knew that presently anti-Americanism in Pakistan is on the peak and his own popularity is down because of high spate of drone strikes in Waziristan . Explosive situation in occupied Kashmir due to massive unarmed uprising and gross human rights violations by Indian security forces was another pressure point which he wanted to avoid. These considerations constrained Obama to take off Pakistan from his itinerary, but he hastened to compensate it by pledging to make an exclusive trip to Pakistan next year. Obama can ill-afford at this critical juncture to please India at the cost of Pakistan. Unlike his two predecessors who were in a stronger position, he will be cautious and will take extra care not to offend the sensibilities of Pakistan and risk losing its critical support. Obama’s visit to India will be outweighed by economic considerations. It will be more of a business oriented tour to promote US exports and less of politics. —The writer is a defence, political analyst.

Conflict resolution — I

The writer served as director-general of the ISI from 1990-92 asad.durrani@tribune.com.pk

It would be nice if we could resolve our conflicts without recourse to war. The problem is that hardly ever have warring parties, out of the goodness of their heart, sat down face-to-face and left in abiding friendship. Disputes may indeed ultimately be settled through negotiations, but only after the belligerents have exhausted all other options, or concluded that the price of conflict was exceeding that of peace. To secure the best possible position on the table, the adversaries should use all elements of national power to their optimum advantage.
India and Pakistan tried that for 50 years. During this period, they developed internal strength and sought external support, acquired unconventional capabilities and used sub-conventional means and fought wars. Finally in 1997, in the belief that they were now well-positioned, the two countries evolved a framework for peace.
The first challenge was to create the right conditions for a dialogue on Kashmir, the bone of contention between them right from their inception. It had now become so complex that a meaningful discourse seemed nearly impossible. In Pakistan, securing the right of self-determination for the Kashmiris is a national passion. It could not, therefore, embark upon a dialogue that was not seen to be addressing Kashmir. India, on the other hand, having declared the disputed state as its integral part, could not be seen negotiating its status. The foreign secretaries meeting of June 1997 found an ingenuous method to circumvent the dilemma.
The recipe, now known as the “composite dialogue”, was to form a number of working groups to discuss bilateral issues more or less concurrently. Peace, security and Kashmir were to be dealt with by foreign secretaries; others like trade, terrorism, and some territorial disputes by ministries or departments concerned. Pakistan could now claim that its “core issue” would be handled at an appropriately high level, and the Indians were free to explain that the forum was primarily to redress matters like cross-border infiltration. A clause in the agreement, however, could cease the process in its tracks.
A good number of people in Pakistan have always believed that if the two countries settled peripheral disputes before addressing Kashmir, India would have no incentive in its resolution. To assuage that concern, a clause in the joint communiqué (4.2) stated that the dialogue would be conducted as an “integrated” whole — implying that progress on all issues would have to be in tandem. That sounded fine — except for the problem that if there was little or no movement on one track, one would have to slow down on all the others. The favourable environment needed to deal with the more complex problems was thus contingent upon progress on all. This was exactly the catch-22 situation that the authors of the formula had set out to avoid.
The “integrated” part was, therefore, quietly dropped (though not from the official text). The process was now more like moving with our disputes on parallel tracks and settling them according to their degree of difficulty. No longer “composite”, the dialogue retained its politically correct adjective. What we now had was a “multiple-track, multiple-speed” formula.
Evolution of this concept was purely a civilian sector enterprise. However, since it is the military that prides itself in the study and development of strategic wisdom, it may be gratifying to note that a military strategist too would have supported the model. When operating along multiple axes, forces that meet less resistance continue their momentum, thus creating a synergetic effect. In due course, some critical fronts can be reinforced to achieve a breakthrough and capture the main objective — in this case, durable peace in the subcontinent.
Good concepts and sound strategies are indeed not enough. Execution and oversight is the real thing. How the composite dialogue fared on that account will be discussed in subsequent serials.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 5^th, 2010

Reconstruction for economic democracy — II

The writer is distinguished professor of economics at Beaconhouse National University in Lahore

I propose that post-flood reconstruction be used as an opportunity to initiate the reconstruction of our social order for economic democracy.
The institutional structure for economic democracy would provide opportunities to all citizens of Pakistan, rather than a few, to have access to overproductive assets. By bringing the middle class and the poor into the process of investment, there would be a much broader base of investment, competition, efficiency increase and innovation, thereby achieving a sustained and more equitable GDP growth. Three policy initiatives could be considered for initiating a process of sustained economic growth on the basis of economic democracy:
(1) Land for the tiller: a small farmer-based agriculture growth strategy. The government has 2.6 million acres of cultivable state land. It is proposed that this land be distributed amongst current landless tenant farmers, in packages of five acres each. This land for the tiller policy would need to be backed up by establishing what I have called a small farmer development corporation (SFDC) which would provide small farmers with facilities for land development, access over new agriculture technologies (such as tunnel farming, drip irrigation etc.), extension services for developing high value crops, livestock development and production of milk and milk products. The SFDC ought to be owned by small farmers who could buy equity in this corporation through government loans, but would be managed by high quality professionals.
The proposed land for the tiller policy with institutional support of the SFDC would provide small farmers with both the incentive and the ability to increase agriculture productivity. The small farm sector (farms below 25 acres) constitutes a substantial part of the agrarian economy and possesses the greatest potential for productivity increase. Small farms constitute 94 per cent of the total number of farms and 60 per cent of the total farm area. Therefore the proposed land for the tiller policy could enable a shift from the ‘elite farmer strategy’ of the last four decades to a new ‘small farmer strategy’. Small farmers could thus become the subjects of a new trajectory of a faster and more equitable agriculture growth.
(2) For inclusive growth through equity stakes for the poor, the poor can be included in the process of investment and economic growth not merely through micro enterprises, but can be engaged into the mainstream corporate sector as well. The idea here is to establish large corporations, owned by the poor and managed by professionals, in a number of strategic sectors such as milk and milk products, livestock, telecommunications, information technology services, construction and automotive parts production. These corporations could be set up through loans to the poor for purchasing equity stakes in these corporations, and the loans could be returned through dividends earned.
(3) Small scale manufacturing industries require lower capital investment and generate higher employment per unit of output and also have shorter gestation periods compared to the large scale manufacturing sector. Therefore an increased share of investment in this sector could enable a higher GDP growth for given levels of investment as well as higher employment generation for given levels of growth. At the same time if the institutional conditions could be created for enabling small scale industries to move into high value added components for both import substitution in the domestic market and for exports, Pakistan’s balance of payments pressures could be eased. The key strategic issue in accelerating the growth of SSEs is to enable them to shift to the high value added, high growth end of the product market. These SSEs include high value added units in light engineering, automotive parts, moulds, dyes, machine tools and electronics and computer software.
These initiatives for economic democracy constitute a strategy for higher GDP growth through equity. The people would thus become both the subjects as well as the beneficiaries of GDP growth. It would be economic democracy because it would enable growth for the people and by the people. Such an economy could become the basis of sustaining Pakistan’s political democracy for which the people have struggled so long and for which Mohtarama Shaheed Benazir Bhutto gave her life. The best homage to her memory would be to strengthen the foundations of democracy by giving a stake in the country to the poor.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 9^th, 2010.

Reconstruction for economic democracy — I

The writer is distinguished professor of economics at Beaconhouse National University in Lahore

Consider the scale of the destruction resulting from the great flood: over 20 million people affected, homes destroyed, livelihoods lost, canals, barrages, water courses, tube wells and electricity stations damaged, roads and bridges wiped out. My own rough estimate of the reconstruction cost is about $18 billion.
The scale of the required reconstruction effort, while it presents a formidable challenge, also provides a great opportunity. The opportunity is to undertake the structural reforms necessary to place Pakistan’s economy on a new path of sustained and equitable growth. Such a growth process, if achieved, could give a stake in the economy to all of the people rather than a small elite and thereby lay the basis of what in my recent work I have called economic democracy. In this part of the article, I will indicate some of the immediate policy initiatives required, and in the second part, an outline of strategy to achieve economic democracy will be articulated.
For short-term policy imperatives, four immediate economic policy measures may be considered in the context of the reconstruction effort:
1. If the winter (rabi) crop is to be planted and a serious food deficit next summer is averted, immediate measures must be undertaken to provide farmers in the flood affected areas, good quality seed, fertiliser and pesticides together with timely provision of tube well water to enable the planting of wheat in the month ahead.
2. It is time now to consider shifting away from the IMF approach of economic contraction to a new policy of economic stimulation that aims to revive economic growth. Pakistan’s GDP growth has declined sharply to two per cent this year and the per capita income growth has become negative. Not only has this sharply increased poverty and unemployment, it will also result in a slowdown in the growth of government revenues. The former will place further stresses on the fragile democratic structure and the latter will increase the budget deficit. The earlier attempts to cut down the budget deficit (6.3 per cent of GDP this year) through expenditure reduction have failed, and in the years ahead the only viable policy of controlling the budget deficit is by increasing revenues through accelerated GDP growth. Infrastructure projects in the flood affected areas provide an opportunity of doing so.
3. Just before the flood, the food insecure population had been estimated at about 77 per cent, it may now have reached over 85 per cent. There is clearly an urgent need to provide food security to the people of Pakistan in general and in the flood-affected areas of the country in particular, where food insecurity is most intense. In this context the coverage of the social protection measures needs to be enlarged, and the identity and locations of the flood-affected population quickly established so that ATM cards under the Benazir Income Support Programme can be issued as soon as possible.
4. At the same time an employment guarantee scheme in the form of a cash for work programme ought to be launched in the flood-affected areas in the first instance, followed by the rest of the country.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 6^th, 2010

Changing the social order

The writer is distinguished professor of economics at Beaconhouse National University in Lahore

The problem with ongoing discussions in the spheres of economic and political policies is that policy options for change in one sphere are being considered in isolation of the other. Thus issues of corruption, democracy and the rule of law are being divorced from the issues of reviving the economy on a sustainable basis, overcoming poverty and providing basic services to people. When the required changes involve not just tinkering with policy but rather fundamental changes, we must consider an important proposition: Political and economic systems are organically linked within the social order and are subject to what has been called the theory of ‘double balance’: Sustaining fundamental changes in the political system requires changes in the economic sphere and vice versa.
The New Institutional Economics suggests that a social order encompasses the political, economic, cultural, religious, military and educational systems. Therefore, changing the social order involves changes in each of these elements and the relationship between them. There are two kinds of social orders in the contemporary world. The Limited Access Social Order of the undeveloped countries and the Open Access Order of the developed countries. The institutional structure of the former is characterised by a coalition of elite that excludes the majority of the population from the process of governance and growth. On the basis of this exclusion, it generates unearned income for itself, uses its power to structure markets in its favour and creates wide interpersonal and inter regional inequalities. Poverty is endemic in such a social order because it precludes thriving markets and sustained long-term growth. By contrast, the Open Access Social Order exhibits systematic competition in both economic and political spheres, free entry and mobility and hence long-term development.
The policy issue in Pakistan is not merely which sector to select as a ‘driver of growth’, or ending corruption by making an example of a few, but must address the question of why attempts at such policies in the past have failed. Changing the social order is the central challenge for both democracy and development in Pakistan.
The essential feature of this change process, as shown by Douglass C North, John Joseph Wallis and Barry R Weingast (in Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History), is that it initiates “a series of reinforcing changes in institutions, organisations, and individual behaviour such that incremental increases in access are sustained by the existing political and economic systems at each step along the way”.
Let us indicate the doorstep conditions for initiating the process of changing Pakistan’s social order: (1) Rule of law. This involves subordinating individual or party interests to the obligation of maintaining the balance between various organisations of the state as specified in the constitution. The rule of law also requires the development of new norms that can underpin and are consistent with the formal rules specified in the constitution. (2) The military must maintain the integrity of the state by subordinating itself, in actual practice, to elected civil authority as stipulated in the formal rules of the constitution. This change could be facilitated, if elected governments enlarged their space within the power structure, by delivering economic and social justice to the people who are the source of legitimacy. (3) Foreign policy must be driven not by a ‘national security paradigm’ but by Pakistan’s economic interests and the logic of human security. (4) Social and political organisations that align themselves behind the Change Agenda need to develop democratic rules and norms in their organisational structures and should network amongst themselves to create a mutually reinforcing momentum.
In the present critical crisis, creating the basis of a fundamental change in the social order is necessary if state and society are to survive and prosper.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 1^st, 2010.