essay
The aim of Pakistan
In this land of the pure, democracy has come to signify a government off the people, buy the people and far the people
By Dr Pervez Tahir

Pakistan’s independence was the result of a democratic vote. Its founder had declared, in no uncertain terms: “There are millions and millions of people who hardly get one meal a day. Is this civilization? Is this the aim of Pakistan? …If that is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it.”

The observation was made because democracy is a system of government of the people, by the people and for the people. But in this land of the pure, democracy has been turned on its head. It has come to signify a government off the people, buy the people and far the people. Politicians of all shades and hues had promised that the economic problems of the people would be solved once we say goodbye to military dictatorship and a democratic era ushers in. Five years of an elected government delivered nothing of the sort.

The first two months of a second elected government indicate continuity, itself an achievement in political terms, but not a change as far as the common men and women are concerned.

On the Independence Day, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif declared that the holding of May 11 elections amidst existential threats provided the evidence that the country could rely on the consciousness of the people. For the first time, he promised a progressive rather than an Islamic welfare state. The evening before, his finance minister was on the chat shows painting the worst picture of the state of the economy and the absolute essentiality of the IMF dole. That did not prevent the younger Sharif in Lahore from warning that the country’s very existence would continue to be in jeopardy so long as the Kashkol remained the reason of our fame.

Have the ordinary folks ever figured seriously in the core business of the state? For a basic but dignified existence, the people require food, livelihood, personal security and justice. Sadly, all these went beyond the reach of those at the lowest quintile of income at a time when a party formed in the name of the people ruled the country for good five years. What to speak of actually solving these problems, it seems there was no plan to make life easier for the common man. Presidential immunity and third time premiership were the preoccupations of those charged with the responsibility of delivering governance or hoping to be in that position.

The rulers of the fifties had snatched roti from the poor. Dictators of the sixties took away kapra and makan from the hapless to nurture twenty two families. In the seventies, the party of roti, kapra aur makan emerged with the promise of undoing this historical injustice. Economic conditions of the seventies and present have striking similarities. The first oil price shock contributed to the highest ever rate of inflation of 27 per cent. And yet the party of the people was able to protect the real income of the ordinary people. Poverty declined. There were no queues for atta. Power or gas loadshedding was unknown. After the traumatic partition of the country in 1971, the party of the people picked up the pieces and put them together again.

During the recent rule of the party of the people also, there was again a jump in oil price. Inflation went up to as high as 25 per cent. War on terror, an abiding testimony of the enlightened moderation of the dictator of 2000s, took a heavy toll of life and property. But the experience of the poor was different. Long queues for atta, electricity riots, gas loadshedding and their rising prices, rising poverty and rampant joblessness are only a few facets of an increasingly hard struggle to survive. A large number of earners made less than the lowly minimum wage. While cities experienced increasing homelessness, villages witnessed rising landlessness. Worst of all, any one stepping out of home is not sure of a safe return.

Public sector investment in social is necessary to improve access and quality to the common person. In the post-18th Amendment period, the responsibility as well as resources rest exclusively with the provinces. However, all the failed slogans of the Musharraf decade were adopted by the PPP regime and now by the PML-N regime — uncritically. Without understanding the profound implications of this constitutional change, EDUCATION FOR ALL, HEALTH FOR ALL and DRINKING WATER FOR ALL are touted by the ministers as their preferred programmes. Education ministers promised to take expenditure on education to four per cent of GDP in a few years, oblivious of the fact that it has been under two per cent for over a decade.

The enrolment target for the MDG related to elementary education is likely to be missed by a wide margin in 2015. The largest province, Punjab, has actually reduced the allocation for social sectors in the latest budget. Similarly, the expenditure on health is unlikely to be more than half a per cent of GDP.

In 2015, Pakistan will be among the worst performers in terms of the MDGs regarding infant and maternal mortality. On the basis of figures that no one but the World Bank, trusts, the MDG target of poverty has already been achieved. It seems the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper sponsored by the World Bank was not just on paper. The operation was successful, but the patient died.

Resource mobilisation is the key, but resource utilisation and ensuring outcomes is equally important. The finance minister has promised to raise the tax to GDP ratio by one per cent every year. In an economy failing to grow respectably above the population growth rate, and with the present showing of an under 10 per cent tax to GDP ratio, one need not be a trained economist to see through the wishful thinking involved here. Whatever resources are available, their allocations are poorly planned on an incremental basis, releases are less than allocations and the utilised amounts invariable fail to yield the desired outcomes.

The euphemism for this state of affairs is bad governance. There is no appreciation here of the fact that centralised civil service has become incongruent with the devolution of power under the 18th Amendment. Finally, the non-democratic systems of local governance being legislated by the democratic elected provincial governments of Punjab and Sindh will take us back to the Morley-Minto period.

Should the people despair of the Jamhuriat or democracy? The plain truth is that the alternatives to democracy have been tried four times in our history, each ending with as an unmitigated disaster. The sixties left the people with a widening rich-poor gap and the second partition leading to the formation of the new state of Bangladesh. Social polarisation was accompanied by an economy in tatters. The eighties brought the genie of obscurantism out of the bottle. The chickens came to roost in 2000s, as the war on terror had dire consequences for the economy and society.

The problem with the political regimes has been that these were not democratic enough. Their economic management also left much to be desired. As a matter of fact, the best decade in terms of economic indicators was that of General Ziaul Haq. Economic growth was high, poverty as well as income inequality declined. However, the regime had the worst record of rights poverty. Political regimes, at least, did not leave behind a bleeding state and society. Their poor economic record was explained by their premature termination. Now that a political regime was able to complete its term, we now know that this was not the only factor in the economic failure of political regimes.

What needs to be done is to make Jamhuriat more Awami and to work on a consensus on a charter of economic and social rights. The consensus may be built around the following points, driven by the objective of bringing the people into the economic and political sphere by ending the elite capture of the state. These include:

Full democratisation of local governance.

Reservation of seats for workers, peasants and youth in all elected bodies.

Electorates’ right to recall a representative not performing to their satisfaction.

Decentralisation of economic planning.

Decentralisation of the centralised services such as DMG, PSP, etc.

An autonomous FBR, placed under the CCI, with members from all the provinces.

Provincial sovereignty over their natural resources.

Land reform to end rural poverty, together with crop and livestock insurance.

A fully funded mass programme of demand-driven skill formation to end urban poverty and a minimum employment guarantee.

An unequivocal financial commitment to universal, free, compulsory and quality education up to intermediate level; selective, merit-based and quality higher education.

State-supported universal health insurance as part of a Social Protection Floor.

A medium term strategy to go all out for the indigenous development of solar energy.

Regional peace and mutually beneficial flow of goods, services and people.