i'd just like to reiterate some of what ive already said before while also adding something insightful to the discussion.
im a great believer in contextualising history. for instance the context of the 99 musharraf coup in my opinion is as follows.1994-96:the second bhutto government is sworn in amid great hopes for the future.expectations are high that this bhutto government would have learnt from all the mistakes it made during its first term.two things stand out.one the PPP government opens up the energy market to foreign investors(a good thing) but allows them to charge extremely high prices for thje electicity they produce.a major reason why we have such high electricity bills compared to neighboring countries(bad thing).also whereas mr zardari was popularly referred to as Mr.10% the first time round does even better this time earning himself the title of Mr.30%.whther true or false that was certainly the popular perception amongst many.1997-99:Bhutto government is sworn in the 2nd time around.again its hoped that this govt mustve learnt from not only its own mistakes but from bhutto govt's mistakes as well.well this govt turned out to be the most repressive govt a democracy could possibly see.ehtisab bureau formed where opposition politicians are persecuted to kingdome come.the supreme court is stormed so as to stop tht court from inititating corruption cases against nawaz sharif.a sitting president is impeached.a sitting army chief is made to resign.the daily newspaper The News is forced to print a single page newspaper on recycled toilet paper(ok i dunno how to define that yellow looking sheet of paper) because it dared to criticise the government.najam sethi the TFT editor is picked up from his home in the wee hrrs of the morning and held incommunicado for several months because of what he wrote in his editorials.finally nawaz sharif introduces the 15th ammendment.this ammendment proposed sweeping changes to the constitution whereby nawaz sharif would have become ruler for life and be known as amir-ul-momineen.basically the 15th ammendment was sharia law.why didnt it get passed.well it was supposed to pass in january 2000 when the new senate with a nawaz sharif majority would have met.unfortunatly for nawaz and fortunatly for us he tried to sack the 2nd army chief in less than a year.we all know what happened next.apart from political victimisation,corruption and finally trying to establish a personel dictatorship by the two parties and their respective leadership, the politicians of the 90's brought our nation to the brink of bankruptcy.
So what democracy are we really talikng about here.why is musharraf's violating the constitution so bad?is it ok to give the constituion a total makeover when u have a 2/3rd majority in parliament?our political parties are run like jagirs.why is it tht benazir is chairperson for life for her party.Why could she not allow amin fahim to become the PM instead in 2002.maybe today she could have been back here being the sonia gandhi of Pakistan.no.our politiicans are in love with power and its perks.hence the opposition for the sake of opposition.i can hardly remember the opposition in anytime giving the government credit for anything.so for me the 73 constitution is no sacred document.yes i would ideally have democracy take root in this country but not at the expense of our dignity and well being as a nation.
trickle down theory seems to have people in a bind these days.i see people coming on TV declaring trickle down theories as being failed policies.for one school of thought it certainly is.for the other its the statist model that has failed.what does the last 50 yrs of economic development tell us.
like ive said many times before.equitable distribution cannot take place all of a sudden.what can take place is increased emphasis/spending on education,health and other essential public services such as infrastructure which includes electrification of villages,roads,sanitation water etc.but when it comes to economic development and creating employment its the private sector that needs to be encouraged.
when people talk about budget for the rich and i ask for alternatives the answer i usually get is that since we are an agrarian economy the agriculture should be helped more.and it should but theres a caveat.statistically agriculture employs 42% of our workforce yet only contributes 23% to our GDP.our whole focus of economic development should be on transforming our agrarian/rural economy intoan industrialised/services-oriented/urban economy.thats when the standard of living will really improve.the problem is basic.we have limited resources.i wont get into the debate about defence spending.taking that out of the equation we are left with a limited amount of resources.so balances and sacrifices need to be made.this year the greatest incentives were given to exporters.thats very sound policy.because if we take a look at and ive said this so many times at china,korea etc its export led growth thats led these countries to development.another sector that been focused on is the small and medium sector.this the sector that will become the backbone of our economy.more needs to be done and if the economy continues to grow at rates of 7% or higher each year the state will have more resources to spend then the previous year.then will we start seeing the trickle down effect.
one last point.this government has also decided to employ the one village one product concept.if implemented this would be something that would be done at the grass roots.but realistically villagers cant become entrepreneurs/traders overnight.but encouraging cottage industry is a good first step as well.
finally education and y'all have put alot of stress on it and rightly so,is the key.and its trickle down effects will become visible in 10-15yrs time as well.hopefully the economy will grow at such a place to be able to provide employment to many educated youth coming out of schools and colleges.and its then that democracy will truly take hold.it will sooner but it will become enshrined for a long long time when the populace is literate in all senses of the word.
thank you all for your comments.i had started developing cobwebs in my head but thanks to you guys ive started thinking again.hopefully the discussion will continue,broaden and expand.this is our country and i dont intend on immigrating anywhere.so on this highly emotional note i shall take leave and go attend my cousins birthday
posted by Jerry shah at 6:55 PM
8 Comments:
i forgot to mention some of the things in my post.first accountability.thats a tricky one considering how musharraf is technically unelected.judiciary needs to be reformed.police culture needs to change for the better.will it be done.hopefully.as for governance depending on people.thts exactly right.unfortunatly we r stuck with lousy politicians and a lousier society.so ina way im scared when i say this.but this govt is my last hope.im putting all my eggs in this one basket.if they stick around for another five years we might just see a more enlightened generation of leadership emerging.if musharraf could go on as long as mahathir with the same committment and determination then we should rest easy.but God forbid if something happened to him all bets are off and that would be most unfortunate.
finally musharraf era groth cant be compared to ayub/zia.firstly there was no industry in this country when ayub took over.so opening a couple of industries would take up alot of the weight of the growth.secondly during the zia years most of the growth was due to the massive amount of aid that was given to us.kind of an unproductive foreign investment i'd call it.
u c im no relative of musharraf.its just tht for the first time in my life i see a distant light at the end of the tunnel.pak-india peace,growth etc etc.
7:47 PM
Goodie, jarrar moved the discussion away from one particular symptom of a dysfunctional political system (i.e. fundamentalist politics) to the broader context. At the brass tacks: as repeated ad nauseum fundamentalist politics flourished because the state created a space for it due to the whole crisis of legitimacy it faced (no economic development & so on; I still tend to lean towards believing that electorally, the vote bank, especially in the rural areas is PPP/PML/their factions based. True to history, the support for Islamist politics comes from urban areas where fundamentalism gives moral and psychological support to the rural migrants in the face of relative deprivation as was in the case of FIS in Algeria and MB in Egypt.)
What seems to be the suggestion here is that we should proceed on a form of economic development with shades of the East Asian economy model while simultaneously increasing the emphasis on social infrastructure spending and at some point equitable distribution will naturally follow as the populace becomes educated and prosperous. (Correct me if I’m wrong)
Lots of leaps of faith for me here, but if we focus on the point of origin: state led economic development policies that encourage private sector investment (FDI inclusive) the predictable trouble spot would then be state priorities --> How to ensure that a) revenue generated stays within the country (remember Argentina; for all it’s economic growth the FDI ended up taking out more money than it brought; a fact that hit hard when the crisis occurred) b) that the revenue is spent on social sector development?
How would you ensure that the much touted and researched military-bureaucracy oligarchy has the incentive to get something more out of GDP than just statistical growth? In the typical Westminster and U.S.A based political models, you would get it by making sure that the survival of the state (not debating its form --> it can be military/democratic/whatever) is staked on the provision of services such as employment, education, health etc. Which is basically an issue here: the state as we know it (not the party based governments) has stayed in power whether you provide these services or not. The faces have changed: Ayub, Bhutto, Zia, B.B, Sharif, Musharraf but they come from the same (interlinked) bases whose interests at no point have really aligned with the prosperity of the citizens. The rhetoric is all “roti, kapra, makan” but not much actualization because they could get away with at the basic token measures. And they did.
I’m a big fan of working for change from within the system, but the angle at which I think we need to work from has changed (can't be top down) since the Musharraf regime made some REALLY hot moves i.e. the Balochistan fiasco (made headlines); defamation law (media wise); the bill restricting opposition activity in the national assembly. Yes, the government has made some deviations from the military norm (specifically in one clause of accountability in the decentralization plan) but, you tell me, Musharraf is one man and even if I put faith in his vision, going by precedent it seems that if he ever actually chooses to challenge the status quo, the army will unceremoniously do to him what was done unto Ayub --> make the power base unhappy and you’re cannon fodder.
9:46 PM
i read all of that and i feel like a speck of nothingness for having no opinion and a really big headache :P
1:46 AM
valid points but again context is needed.we live in a post 9/11 shrinking world.pakistan media has been opened up.people have alot more exposure to the world and its events.hence now state is going to become relatively more accountable.we have a highly cynical media.they wont let ppl off easily now.unless someone bans media freedom and cable tv etc.even then not much would be achieved cos of the internet.so im fairly optimistic that the state right now is strategically pursuing economic development.
musharraf seems stable to me.a case in point as far as musharraf changing the status quo is his u-turn on taliban,kashmir jihad policies etc.sure there is disgruntlement abt this amongst his constituency but more or less jihad is no longer going to be tolerated by america etc.secondly the military has reocgnised the dire need for economic growth to ensure our survival.simple reason being the tremendous growth being experienced by india.in a few yrs if we had continued on our merry ways we would have been gobbled up by india.why and how is for another time.
the argentina example is a good one but if i remember correctly there were very speciic reasons for what happened there.obviously foreign investors will take money out.but we as a third world country which has just started to grow is a huge 150million and growing market.opportunities are immense.
finally if you look at the budget theyve allocated the biggest chunk of money for social development in our history.300 billion rupees for the coming year compared to 206billion rupees last year.our main problem will be actually implementing and spending the money.thts where devolution/provinces/bureacracy etc come in.again another issue tht should be discussed.
5:02 PM
hey arooj thx for visiting.sorry for the headache.i just have to vent stuff and this is so far the best way to do it for me.:P
11:02 PM
hey jarrar ive been blog hopping and came across this. i agree with most of what you say about economic development, but no body's really looking into the root of the problem, or one of the roots at least. Pakistan's irrigation system is its largest asset to date, and worth billions. we need 75 mhz of storage capacity and we have 16. if tarbela clogs up, half our gdp falls, because there goes our water supply, our agricultural sustainence, our power generation, and with it consumption. then, there's investment. wapda is going bankrupt, they want to bring in even more expensive energy into pakistan. already energy is worth, roughly id say 12- 15 cents per unit. private sector investment? who the fuck is ever going to want to set up an industry in the country with electrical and power generation costs so high? and water shortages? the way things are going, with the kind of water shortage and power generation costs the country is facing, industrialization doesnt seem to enter the general sphere of my thinking just now. musharaff, before the coup, was a strong advocate of the kalabagh dam. now, since every ones so damn scared of wali khan and his goons, no ones making that move. even if started TODAY kalabagh will take fifteen years to become functional. we've already lost the race for dams. india's way ahead of us. already, the lower riperians are blaming the upper riperians. sindh blames the punjab, punjab blames india for stealing water, balochistan hates sindh and nwfp hates everybody. when our economy is primarily agricultural, and needs to go up from there, we need the one critical raw material: water. we dont have it. no water, no sanity, no stability. the fight for water between the provinces has already begun. if the government does nothing now, we could see the country dissolving as a federation in 10 years. thats a statistic i would hate to make up.
5:36 PM
sorry thats MAF (million acre feet) not MHz. too many M's
5:56 PM
very true amal.water is the key.i mean even if we resolve kashmir we'll probably be at odds with india over water.ure totally right.but there are alternatives.nuclear energy,natural gas etc.but incentives need to be given to investors.the opportunities for investors are immense cos we are a huge country population wise.but for agricultural purposes kalabagh basha and the rest need to get started now if they are to be functional within the coming decade.thx for the comments.
7:47 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home