Keeping in view the limitations of a national security state; states where the centrality of a narrative is necessary for the rationale of an ‘exclusive’ state as against an ‘inclusive’ one; It is imperative to realize the handicaps associated with singular emphasis on ‘national security’. In the modern evolving nation states, the importance of growth of the society with the economic development has been accorded importance by the ‘independent-minded academics’ as against the ‘compromised’ ones, who can be found advocating stale economic growth rates to justify socio-political controls.
The period under discussion, generally referred to as post-WW2 and the Cold War, has been characterized by the very simple notion that all a developing country needs are loads of FDI or foreign direct investment; preferably in consumables, where the foreign investor and its local partners are able to reap a quick profit. The proponent of that development model; regretfully the ace Pakistani economist Dr Mahbub ul Haque; whose name has been identified with two extra constitutional dispensations in the history of Pakistan; advocated ‘a capital surplus’ whose preservation demands banning of collective bargaining activity. In other words; a civil system and polity; where the public is proverbially divided into ’worker bees’ and ‘consumer bees’. To keep the consuming and the worker bees at rest, it was imperative that the inflation and exchange rate be kept at bay.
Ironically, the stable exchange rate regimes are za story of the past; especially the previous extraconstitutional periods; punctuated with the Cold War, Afghan Jihad and War on Terror. The last period degenerated into hybrid experiments, where a sort of invisible line wwas drawn while apparently the 1973 constitution was enforced!
As things stand; the current economic reality means that the exchange rates are expected to be volatile and so is inflation; whether it is defined as demand-pull by the central bank or is perceived to be cost-push by the industry in general. In such a scenario; the best policy is to enable economic activity without too many questions asked as well as greater participation of the private sector, SME and the knowledge-based cream of the society; instead of ‘Ayub Khan’-style development models. Pakistan now cannot have the likes of PIDC, PICIC, IDBP or even ADBP. The exclusive financing domains of the organizations listed are dealt by mainstream commercial banking. What is needed is for the private sector, the investor, and the financial system to flow freely into the space and find good matches for economic opportunity.
Taking the private sector-led discourse further; it is important that the development models give the private sector a leading role and not the auxiliary role as has been witnessed in similar setups the world over. Indonesia for that matter under Suharto also developed an ‘Incorporated’ image around its military infrastructure for production; but the world knew the mechanics at work. The products churned out of that defence industry were one- time; with no research and development witnessed, as it was not led by the private sector like French aviation model Dassault, the company that produced Mirages and now is known for Rafaele combat jets.
Talking of the private sector, the Indian example can shed some light on the desired path. Indian democracy and commerce havwe flourished without any political surgeries and engineering. Practically the political forces have been allowed the space in the Indian scene, as are the market forces. Except for the infamous ‘Emergency of 1975’ when political activity was stalled; the Indian nation state has consciously avoided the occurrence again in its 76 years of democratic existence.
That political process without any extra-constitutional intervention, naked or hybrid, has allowed the system continuation of the democratic culture. There are no doubt exceptions to that even. However, the political process ensured few benefits, which need to be taken note of by observers of political science in the context of the recipes of economic growth.
The stakes for the marginalized masses are still the same, debated many times; they need to be themselves and be “on the scene”. Being exploited by this or that elite club (read political opportunist groups) might not change the scene of despair. Invariably the Creator does not change the plight of people (read Pakistani masses), if they are not interested in that either.
Firstly, the policy continuation was not the domain of any state institution or a political party. The policy allowed equal opportunity for the central and the provincial set-ups to enhance their investment potential. In India, investments have been tolerated whether they landed in the right-of- centre-governed states or in the Communist Party-led governments in West Bengal or Kerala. The nonpolitical forces neither had any influence on these as witnessed in pro-Pentagon states the world over, nor was it their business in the first place.
Finally taking on the headline phrase; ‘development without growth’; in its entirety, independent social scientists believe that a society’s development paradigm does not rest on Dollar stability, inflow of FDI, as it is generally perceived by political systems which are ‘exclusive’ in nature. The proponents of the ‘exclusive’ system feel that with no freedom of expression or debate, all that the population at large needs are big flashy transport vehicles, constant supply of food items, and so on… These proponents feel that a police state, which feeds its subjects well, is all a nation state structure in the Middle East, West Asia or North Africa needs. They fail to realize that the common man needs an enabling environment more than the invasive police state wresting away his right to free movement and speech. Readers might well recall that the Tunisian intifada in December 2010 was triggered by a fruit vendor who was pressured by a police officer from the then police state of Tunisian capital for a bribe. The vendor opted to immolate himself. These instances of police state and similar high handedness are more than evident in today’s world of facts travelling from person to person in a state of fear; through the famously proverbial Seena gazette (rumour mill).
Independent social scientists’ contention that development and growth complement each other is regretfully absent in the 2023 nation-state model professed by the systems at work here. The FDI models followed are outdated and have boomeranged in highly regimented and armed-to-the-teeth setups in Kemalist Turkey and monarchical Iran. In Turkey after 2002, the state slowly ceded its space to the trend, which it hated all along as part of its gospel; it means the secular state defeated by Islamist trends in politics. In Iran of 1979, the FDI evaporated when the market where they came to sell their products rebelled against the very system which facilitated the FDI. In both cases, not much space was left for the common person, but to face the LEA and Intel sleuths over a benign expression of ideas by the old regimes, Kemalist and Pahlavi. What these two countries are now is the current history. Though no nation state can be perfect to the core, however Pakistan’s former colleagues in the RCD have been receptive to the winds of change; while Pakistan; elite as well as the masses; has opted to follow the beaten track.
For the proponents of a national security state, it is important to realize that the silence enforced through force is temporary calm. An expression of dissent within the system ensures its endurance better than the NSS referred to above. For a stalemate like Pakistan, riddled with internal infighting, stalled political process and rule of force against the rule of law, these steps in isolation might not change much. The systems at work have alienated the people at large, with the elite fighting amongst itself for the control of resources.
The stakes for the marginalized masses are still the same, debated many times; they need to be themselves and be “on the scene”. Being exploited by this or that elite club (read political opportunist groups) might not change the scene of despair. Invariably the Creator does not change the plight of people (read Pakistani masses), if they are not interested in that either.
