One has to make a distinction between political economics and the dictatorial economics in developing countries. The conceptual frame is entirely different and the consequences that flow out of it are different. Not only is economics of the common man threatened but also the integrity of the state. The equilibrium that a democratic state brings to a country is totally different.
In other words, if the assumptions are that governance is by reason, then the lost likelihood of governance is through a democratic system of reasoning and debate. Not sham democracy as one witnesses in some of the Western-led democratic institutions that were set up in the developing countries. Democracy has some unchallengeable aspects that must be respected and implemented. If that is not done, it is only a matter of time before the entire democratic edifice comes down and the forces that were, or are responsible, for the set-up seem flabbergasted at the turn of events.
Egypt is a strong case in point where the regime of Hosni Mubarak was in power for long. That is another world and one is concerned with one's own country. Decades of tyrannical rule has made this country what it is today and its dismemberment was the subject of many theories and debates and the only judicial commission - The Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission report. Part of it was released, but one saw the proceedings that took place on a day-to-day basis. It is difficult to learn the lessons of history and it is especially difficult for those that cling to power as the loss of political power is linked to the loss of economic power. When out of power in developing countries, the ousted is painted as Satan and then a huge can of worms are put out by the very agencies that were willing and able to do their bidding at the drop of a hat. The politician has very little elbow room given this kind of culture that persists.
Under such circumstances can state intervention be useful and beneficial to the ordinary people? The answers are not easy. One of the failures of democracy is that reason has flown out of the window. This is rather sweeping but is it not a fact that the works of the preceding regime have been nullified by the incoming regime. The state is helpless and the citizens are helpless. The loss is not accounted for and the helpless taxpayer looks on and is disillusioned. The politics of favouritism comes into play and the asset formation that follows the take-over of power is reflected in the tensions that are and become a part of the society at large. A few players on either side carry on a diatribe against the few players that constitute the governance aspect. Not the institutions of democracy for they are there by name only. Debate that was to be reasonable is not visible and the media does not play its part in the sense that it is either partisan or hypes all tensions by encouraging statements that are not meant to stabilise the state but encourages tensions and conflicts.
Can the state intervene under such circumstances? Is the state reasonable in its approach to the various governance issues that must be a part of the economic system that is put on place? The Ayub regime (1960 onwards...) put into place a high profile Planning Commission but subsequently it has lost its utility. Why? The Planning commission is no longer a planning commission it is best to call it a dictation commission. Zia-Musharraf regimes (almost 20 years in power) used this commission to send directives to follow. These directives were not and could not be reasonable but not one of these directives was ever sent back to the dictators saying that these were not in public interest. In fact, scarce financial resources were used for bolstering personal benefits of a particular group or favourites. It is no surprise that one has insurgencies in North and South Waziristan and the Federally Administered areas (Fata) not to speak of other areas. The loss of East Pakistan was based on inconsequential decision-making in the economic field. No one bothered to understand what we did to our countrymen.
These are not digging graveyards but trying to understand the consequences of stupidity brought about by the 'yes' men to the power structure. They are prevalent in all kinds of governance systems for they only change dress and colour. It takes a person of skill to understand what sycophancy is and how to deal with it; day in and day out if one is lavished by praise then that becomes acceptable to the recipient. Ego-enhancement is difficult to counter by sane policies. Remember that the bureaucracy that was supposed to have countered unreasonable polices was brought to its knees by successive governments, politicians and the modern 'free' but irresponsible state media.
The absence of institutions that support democracy and its furtherance is missing in states such as ours. It takes much to be able to govern well within a state and at the same time be part of an international connection. It is not easy as Pakistan is finding out. Money may buy you some time, but eventually it is knowledge that will be the basis of good governance. The ethical part has been lost and the result is that the equilibrium in society is missing. It's the extremes that matter and the extremist that matter. Politics of hate and deceit have a flip side. That is canine loyalty. To the masses that means that either you have it on the basis of loyalty or you have nothing. That is the message that is going out. And that for knowledge-based governance system is disastrous.
Are these the necessary pangs of democracy? Can something be done to remove these anomalies, these difficulties? The furtherance in the economic field has not been helped by our 'friends' wherever and whoever they may be, for they have their own agenda. Why should they be pushed whether Pakistan is doing well or not? Theirs is a case of even more sordid behaviour in the economic field and I have often referred to it in these columns. The economic aspects have become so complex that it may be difficult to determine easy and simplified solutions. The nature and gravity of the issues have been so created that it may be difficult to do anything meaningful.
In the current governments only Turkey seems to have pulled off a sincere effort and they have been doing their bit for the people despite natural calamities. Governance is first and foremost ethical and character has to be there for the political person[s] and parties to survive. There is nothing wrong with political economics provided the consequences are understood. Otherwise the country would be busy in doing anything but economic governance. Democracy does not make enemies of the other parties and the matter has to be debated to come to some reasonable decision. Unfortunately debate is of a very personalised nature and not of the kind that we seek to inform the public. There are too many skeletons in each political party's closet.
The agricultural sector is beset by many problems not insurmountable but requiring deft and resourceful decisions. Can there be another institution that takes care of the economic policies and can these be bi-or tri-partisan? The arrangements of the past are now over and done with. There are no more respectable theories or such corporate action that can build the nation state. Just what Adam Smith laid down as rule - anything that is mean and rapacious - must go. He left the solutions to the sagacity of the local governing systems. Can Pakistan measure up or will we be found wanting and be the butt of the rest of the world. Our nation has to come to terms with the political-economic-social-and cultural aspects that constitute nationhood. Character building is not made easy and is a function of how well we develop and build our future generations. It is not about building assets at whatever costs because at the end of the day anything that has been usurped by the powerful will be brought down.
The lessons of Bolshevik-French Revolution and the recent Arab uprising are clear. Each one of us thinks that they are above the law and above societal norms and nothing can go wrong. Please do not delude yourself. Power-oriented organisations are as good as one allows them to be. The yardstick for these are not what they will do when one in power but what will they do when one is not in power and not in authority. Try and be reasonable in a police station? For not only is a policeman a law unto himself but all those in authority are SHOs. Try any organisation - all of them are full of themselves. All alienate the countrymen.
So it is going to be a long haul. The dangers of alienation are not to be ignored. Try and give of yourself to the country instead of filling one's own coffers. Imported humans cannot deliver. For now and forever depend on your locals they are not going to go anywhere for they are the ones with the roots intact and firmly in the soil of their motherland. Advice by the pennies from foreigners will be forthcoming? Have you run out of salt that you cannot do it by yourself?