Future of Pakistan depends on coming months

Pakistan political scenario is looking foggier after Supreme Court announced its decision in the beginning of first quarter 2017.

As anticipated each quarter has its own interpretations for the decision but by and large it has increased more rifts within different sections of our society.

People belonging to all circles particularly retired have become more vocal in appreciating their governments of their likings from Ayub Khan, Yaha Khan, ZiaulHaq and Pervez Musharaf. Apart from few people belonging to main political parties’ population in majority are mostly critical of all their political elites and military governments in the past. However they are mostly confused as there exists no leadership now to help them out from the crisis arising on daily basis.

No doubt everyone likes that history should be narrated what they like to say. But unfortunately history is very cruel. British Government always said and wrote that 1857 uprising of India was a mutiny but that was in fact a war of independence.

In the month of April 2017, an Indian released film ‘Begum Jaan’ in fact portrayed a Centre run by a prostitute named as ‘Begum Jaan’ where all Rajas and government officials used to come. However in 1947 the boundary line between India and Pakistan crossed in between that Centre. ‘Begum Jaan’ refused to vacate the house and when the Centre was attacked and put on fire she and her compatriots preferred to die within that fire. Now 74 years have passed but we are running with the same mindset i.e. to find halal meat by using haraam money.

We all know that corruption is now embedded from top to bottom. We talk of Nawaz Sharif’s wealth and flats in Dubai and London with Benazir and Zardari but what about Ayub’s sons, General AkhtarAbdurRehman’s Sons and ZiaulHaq’s sons who are now billionaires and have flats in Dubai and London. What about Musharraf owning wealth and flats in Dubai and London. No doubt the politicians got wealth through corruption but what about Generals who ruled the country and left with immense wealth. In the same way we can pinpoint lot of people in the judiciary who now owns lot of money. Wherefrom this came nobody knows. So nobody is free from corruption. But we all have a habit to pinpoint others and to say that we are totally clean from all sides. In fact black sheep exist in every institution and to separate them from that institution mean to give strength to that institution.

A discussion may start soon that which system is better, despotic in form of martial laws or democratic. This requires an analysis of both sides in our 70 years’ history.

Pakistan had gone through five martial laws apart from democratic systems from 1947-58, 1971-77, and then from 1999 to 2008. Martial Laws have always been quoted as an interim arrangement but they had not provided any solution neither it was supposed to do so. Military governments were of General Ayub (1957-68), General Yahya (1969-70) General Zia (1978-1987) and of General Musharraf (1999-2008).

As a rule of thumb, martial law governments do not suit any country: specifically those that are federations with different nationalities, languages and cultures. This holds well for Pakistan and in 1970 half of it separated from the main stream Pakistan. With later experiments, the federation went on weakening and weakening.

Another factor that goes against revival of martial law is the ongoing change in the geopolitical situation in the region. Pakistan happens to be the corridor to reach central Asia, Afghanistan and Iran to access energy and minerals. CPEC is now in build-up process to realize this objective. So for these very reasons, world forces want stable Pakistan but to keep Pakistan within some limits.

Apparently democracies always look fragile as compared to despotic regimes in taking stands.

Actually martial laws have always been favored by feudal and middle class mindset in Pakistan. They always supported some stringent action against law breakers and criminals. But factually whenever military came or even in democratic set ups, the law breakers, big wigs remained with the governments and stiff actions always came against 95% of its poor people. The government offices, police stations and courts have never remained in service to its people. One of the reason could be that out of our 74 years history, military rule has been shared by more than half of it and during that time no other institution in Pakistan was allowed to work independently or properly.

In US or UK or even in India, the political setup is corrupt to some extent as politicians everywhere are supported by some mafias but other government set ups, police stations, courts work on merits. In Pakistan this did not happen as these institutions have never been allowed to work with accountability from its people.

People have genuine grievances against the current government that is being reflected through different means.

During 1959-1968 (Ayub regime always presented as an example) growth rate remained within the range of 6.25%. Private sector was encouraged to establish medium and small scale industries. Land, Labor, law and administrative reforms were promulgated. Phase of liberalization and deregulation of economy and flow of resources started from abroad. Liberalization of import policy and introduction of Export Bonus scheme were made to boost export prospects. First Plan 1955-60 brought expansion of economy to Rs 1.96 billion. In Second Plan 1960-65 money supply increased by Rs 2.80 billion. During first and second plan public and private sector expanded by Rs 4.77 billion.

However apart from this while looking back at the economic history of Pakistan, it seems that Pakistan’s economic performance has remained mixed. The business cycles of Pakistan’s economy, since independence, have witnessed more troughs than peaks two upward and three downward, suggesting that the economy moved slowly most of the time. Though per capita income continued to increase on average by 2 percent a year during 1947-2016, but social indicators remained poor during the same period.

Major threats, Pakistan is now facing are: creeping poverty and unemployment, poor literacy rate, high population growth rate, and poor health care facilities along with uprisings of extremists.

Going back to Ayub Khan Era it is regarded as one of the best periods of stability in Pakistan’s history. Real investment reached as high as 21.5 per cent of GDP during 1960-65 and then dropped to 14.6 per cent (due to 1965 war with India) in 1969-70. Increase in investment accelerated the economic growth process. Through good economic management, inflation remained in check and hovered around 3 per cent during the 1960s. GNP and per capita GNP averaged 6.7 cent and 3.8 per cent respectively. However as the despotic regimes move they always end up in frustration and total chaos and this also happened in case of Ayub era. During this period the national savings rate rose significantly from the extremely low level of 2.5 per cent of GDP in 1949-50 to 10.5 per cent in 1964-65. It improved further in the 1980s, rising to a peak of 16 per cent of GDP in 1986-87 as large worker remittances came in. However, by the middle of fiscal year 1995-96, the national savings rate had fallen back to 12 per cent. The above statistics suggest that under the military rule the savings rate remained healthy, on account of healthy remittances though, surprisingly, the highest rate of marginal savings of 20 per cent was recorded during 1960-65 (Ayub era).

Likewise, the economy again picked-up during the General Zia period and average growth rate reached as high as 6.6 percent per annum during 1977-88 period. During this period manufacturing grew by 9.2 per cent, other sectors grew by 7.9 per cent, and moderate growth in agriculture sector was also realized. The agriculture sector recovered from a dismal of 2 per cent in 1972-77 and reached to 4 percent on average during 1977-88. Per capita GNP remained healthy 3.3 per cent during 1977-88.

Unfortunately, like the General Ayub period, Zia’s economic policies succeeded in pushing the economy but failed to address the social issues.

The period after Zia’s death can be marked as a period of uncertainty. The economy most of the time remained almost flat during 1988-96. Old wounds of the economy did not vanish during 1988-96 (democratic regimes), rather counting increased further. The lax successive governments of Junejo, BiBi and Nawaz Sharif did not achieve much success on economic front.

GDP growth rate during 1988-96 averaged 4.9 per cent per annum compared to 6.6 per cent of Zia period and 6.7 per cent of Ayub period respectively. Ironically,

The question is that why Pakistan’s economy did not improve over the years whereas other nations continued tightening their belts. The answer seems to be quite straightforward.

The fact is, Pakistan never got the intelligent leadership with its continuity, which could save the sinking ship. Poor governance is another chapter of this sad story. Moreover, Pakistan has been unable to muster the muscles of its talented people. Add to the injury, ill-educated people have always been brought forward to drive the economy. Last but not least the political instability has also caused a great damage to the health of the economy.

Under pressure from the IMF the elected government of Imran Khan is expected to bring mini budgets time and again increasing miseries of people day by day..