What is national interest?

The most abused of all expressions in Pakistan has been 'in the national interest'. The three pillars of state - the executive, the judiciary and the legislature - have used this term mercilessly over decades sometimes in the public interest but mainly, critics allege, to serve their own personal or institutional interests. Army generals - representing a pillar of state in itself in Pakistan - have also cited national interest as one of their major reason for justifying coup d'etats.
The question is: do we as a nation define national interest objectively? Or do we allow individuals to define national interest subjectively (individuals holding specific office, be he/she the chief of army staff or a party chairperson); or as put succinctly by Hans Morgenthau, an American political scientist of note, is national interest a "constantly changing pluralistic set of subjective references." However, Morgenthau in common with most other political analysts defines national interest in the context of foreign policy: "the statesman must think in terms of the national interest, conceived as power among other powers. The popular mind, unaware of the fine distinctions of the statesman's thinking, reasons more often than not in the simple moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good and absolute evil."
Foreign policy was not always the sole determinant of national interest. At one time national interest was defined by religion or morality that dictated it. The caliphate expansionist wars were largely premised on religion as were the crusades launched by the Christian nations against political Islam. The two world wars gave rise to different definitions of national interest: post-World War-I collective security enshrined in the newly-established League of Nations was considered as serving individual country's national interest. The Second World War provided conclusive proof, not that any was needed given that the US did not join the League, that the League had failed to provide collective security and countries turned to the concept of 'realism' defined as a balancing act whereby power between states was to be balanced. That too has failed with the emergence of the US as the sole superpower - a power that its detractors argue is being chipped away with its continuing economic crisis and its emerging debtor status to key trading blocs as well as China.
In the late 19th and the first quarter of the 20th century, national interest began to be defined on the basis of economic interest, which no doubt has undergone and continues to undergo a definition change - from colonial economic interests to trade interests to present day concerns related to globalisation. But the context has largely been in terms of economic relations with other nations.
In marked contrast in Pakistan national interest has invariably been invoked for 'enemies within' rather than in terms of other countries. Pakistan's history is replete with examples of our chief executives - be he/she democratically elected or some one who installs himself through a coup d'etat - citing national interest as the reason behind all controversial decisions. Musharraf was as quick to invoke national interest in his speeches while defending his coup d'etat against Nawaz Sharif's government as was the civilian President Ghulam Ishaq Khan when he dissolved parliament headed by Nawaz Sharif as well as Benazir Bhutto. The three reasons cited by Ishaq Khan as with all other Pakistani presidents, civilian and military alike responsible for dismissing governments were corruption, nepotism and subversion defined as the opposite of national interest.
Our present day rulers cite national interest when referring to the policy of reconciliation that has implied a large cabinet that the country's economy simply cannot sustain. The recent expansion of four new ministries/divisions by the Prime Minister epitomises the prevalence of domestic politics over economics while defining national interest.
Pakistani head of government/state, depending on where real power is devolved at that point in our history, has invariably emphasised national security (instead of national interest) in dealings with the rest of the world. This has allowed the army to play a major role in determining the nature and extent of relations with other countries, especially those important in our context. Thus relations with the United States, India, China and more recently Afghanistan have been determined primarily by the Pakistani armed forces. Additionally, the army also twins the term national security with national interest to strengthen its control over foreign policy with key countries. While one may understand this twinning given the more than a decade-old war on terror and Pakistan's history of conflict with India yet what must be a source of serious concern to the general public is the failure of successive governments/establishment to look at related areas of relations with other countries where national interest is being compromised by focusing on a policy that has not evolved over time and therefore does not keep pace with changing regional realities.
The first such compromise is in terms of water issues that are assuming alarming proportions in this country, issues that are rooted in India as an upper riparian country building dams and barrages in violation of the World Bank brokered treaty on the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum and Chenab). Water issues have either been largely ignored by our establishment or simply not given due importance as indicated by the slow reaction time of the government to the construction of Baglihar dam which led to a decision in favour of India as no arbitrator will support a roll back if the dam construction has gone beyond a certain point.
Another foreign policy-related issue is Pakistan's trade within the region. The US has been pressurising Pakistan (there is evidence of capitulation in the Afghan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement) to allow road trade between Afghanistan and India. The benefit to Pakistan as envisaged is restricted to its trade with Central Asia and does not extend to India opening its own borders for road trade between Pakistan and Nepal or Pakistan and Bangladesh. True that one set relates to the treaty with Afghanistan and the other to a Saarc treaty (South Asian Association of Regional Co-operation) but the government of Pakistan has failed to form linkages between the two treaties to maximise our trade advantage. This is not to argue that allowing Afghan-India road trade would not benefit us but to emphasise that national interest requires more far-reaching and vigorous negotiations.
Given successive Pakistani government's penchant for borrowing for 'national interest' relations with bilaterals have also been defined by aid inflow. In this context, the US has always trumped China and accounts for the US administration being only mildly irritated with China's support for Pakistan. Flouting public procurement rules with respect to imports (civilian or military) if deemed in the national interest is by now regarded as giving a clean bill of health to extending unfair advantage to one company/country over another in return for what a commission.
Democracy, many argue, provides the basis for determining national interest collectively in parliament. One must at this point acknowledge some existing lacunas in our parliament and strive to deal with them over time. These among others include: (i) the refusal of our wealthy parliamentarians to levy income tax on farm income at the same rate as that levied on salaried people - a fact evident given that more than a year long multiparty constitutional amendment deliberations did not include an amendment to this clause; (ii) the defection clause in the 18th Amendment that appears to override the amendment conferring the chief executiveship of the country to the Prime Minister in our current political context; (iii) the preponderance of political considerations over those of the needs of the common man for example in terms of senior appointments as well as overstaffing in state-owned entities (SOEs) that have led to large bailout packages due to rising losses in SOEs leading to burgeoning budget deficits and inflation; and (iv) deliberate failure, as repeatedly brought to the notice of the courts, to proactively investigate matters relating to corruption of influentials - be they politicians, bureaucrats or army generals.
To conclude, there is an emergent need to identify when national interest can be invoked and by who and how much latitude is to be given to anyone who defines national interest subjectively - be it by an individual, a party leader, or the head of an institution.