Capital suggestion

Dr Farrukh Saleem

Justification of a modern government rests on three pillars: security, economic development and dispute resolution. Some ten thousand years ago, hunter-gatherers, small and mobile communities, didn’t need a government. Then came the first Agricultural Revolution whereby hunter-gatherers began settling down. Settled communities gave rise to roving bandits; ‘uncoordinated, competitive theft’ whereby individual action was constrained by two things: outside resistance and individual conscience.
Some five thousand years ago, two types of state structures began to rise: predatory and contractual states. In the predatory state structure, a single bandit eliminated competition, monopolised theft and transformed into a ‘stationary bandit’ (read: dictator). Within the predatory state there were four major developments. One, rewards of political power were extremely high. Two, there was an underinvestment in human capital as well as infrastructure. Three, public policy was to benefit the ‘stationary bandit’. Four, taxation was merely legitimisation of theft.
At the other end of the spectrum, rose a contractual state; citizen-voters electing from within themselves leaders, whereby there were two parties to a contract referred to as the ‘social contract’. The social contract determined three things. One, who will have to pay taxes. Two, how much will they pay. Three, most importantly, how will those taxes be spent.
Under the predatory state paradigm, there are four visible phenomena. One, human life is “poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Two, citizens live in fear of each other. Three, individuals are free to “harm all who threaten their own self-preservation”. Four, there is an “endless war of all against all (Thomas Hobbes).”
In a contractual state, there are at least three visible phenomena. One, the ‘general will’ “decides what is good for society as a whole.” Two, a “neutral judge protects the lives, liberty and property of those who live within it (John Locke).” Three, individuals, “including the administrative head of state, who could be a monarch, must bow to the general will, or be forced to bow to it (Jean-Jacques Rousseau).”
Is Pakistan closer to a predatory or a contractual state? Here’s what is most visible in Pakistan. One, three out of four Pakistanis make Rs170 per day or less, plus life is ‘nasty, brutish, and short’. Two, citizens live in fear of each other. Three, individuals are free to “harm all who threaten their own self-preservation.” Four, there exists a ‘general will’ in the form of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Five, there exists a class, “including the administrative head of state” that does not bow to the ‘general will’.
In Pakistan, we agree to vote for our leaders in exchange for promises of ‘security, economic development and dispute resolution’. John Locke, the Enlightenment philosopher, stands for the “right of rebellion in case of the contract leading to tyranny.” Philip Pettit, the Irish political theorist, says that “the absence of an effective rebellion against the contract is the only legitimacy of it.”
A government of men or a government of laws? As far as we Pakistanis can remember ‘fire, water and government know nothing of mercy’.