Politics and economics interplay



DR Shahid Javed Burki (article, April 11) is right in emphasising the interplay between politics and economics. However, in treating the history of Pakistan, he seems to have inverted cause and effect. He asserts that political instability was due to repeated economic crises when the fact is that it was the other way round. It was mostly the frequent martial laws and other negative political developments that aggravated economic difficulties, which a developing country inevitably faces.

Of course, this is an oversimplification, since history is a far more complex affair, but to reinforce my view, l give four instances where political mistakes or political events caused a major national setback, with adverse economic, political and social consequences. These were the 1965 war, the separation of East Pakistan, the encouragement of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan and the atomic explosion in 1998.

The Third Five-Year Plan for 1965-1970 envisaged a massive transfer of resources to East Pakistan intended to alleviate the problem of growing economic disparity between the two wings. The Third Plan and the underlying strategy were aborted by the 1965 war. What was the economic compulsion for this misadventure? None. We are too deferential to the military to attempt an assessment of the economic loss sustained by the country because of the 1965 war. In my view, Dr Burki is not right in asserting that disillusionment with economic policies was the main cause of President Ayub’s overthrow. He was forced to abdicate for largely political reasons (Tashkent, denial of democracy, censorship, corruption, loss of confidence of the military brass)

The greatest disaster in Pakistan’s history, the civil war in 1971 and the violent separation of East Pakistan, was entirely a political failure. Even though East Pakistan had many economic grievances, the critical cause of separation was that the rightful share of political power was continuously withheld from the people of that wing because of the repeated promulgations of martial law by which a non-Bengali army was seen as dominating the political processes.

Dr Burki has stated that in 1977 Mr Bhutto ran into difficulties because his economic policy failed to end poverty and various regions were unhappy at the way Islamabad was treating them. It is true of course that big business and persons adversely affected by nationalisation were unhappy about economic policies but the public agitation against the PPP government was based mainly on political demands, i.e, free election and the establishment of ‘Nizam-i-Mustafa’. Economics did not figure prominently either in the themes pursued by the combined opposition parties or in the US displeasure, expressed by Dr Henry Kissinger.

The encouragement of Islamic extremism in Afghanistan, for the political purpose of acquiring strategic depth, was initiated and maintained by the military though the democratic governments acquiesced in it. The damage done by this policy to the political and social infrastructure and economy of the country has been enormous and continues to this day.

Lastly, the crisis of 1998 was due to the explosion of the atomic bomb and the consequent imposition of international sanctions. The country was in economic difficulties but nowhere near a breakdown. The problem was due to a political decision to explode the bomb and the adverse international reaction that followed.

Dr Burki’s article, unintentionally I am sure, helps the propaganda line of the present military government that martial law is essential for salvaging the economy. The government has undertaken a systematic campaign to demonise democracy by exaggerating its economic failures and often falsifying the record.

I hope Dr Burki will forgive me for recalling that when Mr Bhutto came to power at the end of 1971, Dr Burki had greeted him with an article in The Pakistan Times titled ‘GDP dethroned’. This posed a difficulty for some of us who were trying to convince our new socialist bosses that while pursuit of equity was very important, it could not be achieved without growth. It did not help that an eminent economist was stating that GDP (or growth) was a tyrant that was best removed from the economic scene. Since then Dr Burki has had a distinguished career in the World Bank and must have modified his views on growth. This illustrates the interplay between economic postures and political circumstances