Some say 11 years of sole control and unconstitutional and at times inhumane political conduct led Pakistan into its dismal and precarious economic conditions today. The fact that the Pakistani Rupee has approximately declined by 26.67% in just the last three months shows most of the picture. Where some challenge General Musharaf’s dictatorial rule as the prime cause of this situation, others compliment it, saying it not only made them feel secure, but also stimulated the economy. If we measure the strength of an economy by looking at its GDP, then Pakistan has recorded her highest GDPs during 3 decades of dictatorship: During the 1960s rule of General Ayub, the 1980s with General Zia and from 2001 to 2008 with General Musharaf. Some would argue it is more a matter of social welfare, and high GDPs especially in dictatorial regimes mean social inequity.
Jawalaia is a small village an hour away from Islamabad (Pakistan’s Capital). Members of this village earn their living through hard labor, cultivating land for growing oranges maize and wheat. The inhabitants of this village complain about high prices. They accuse the new democratic government for this condition and say they had it easier with the dictator. They talk about General Musharaf’s policies of using the army to control prices in the flour industry. They accuse the new government of not taking any such steps. There may be truth to most of this story. Pakistan’s CPI alone saw an increase of 24.33 % in July 2008 over a period from July 2007. There is a lot more to this story and I am interested to see what all people have to say about it.
2 comments:
You pose an interesting question. I think the beginning of your first sentence makes a very strong argument for a dictatorship not being better for the Pakistani economy – or the country in general. Pakistan’s strong economic growth does not appear to be supported by strong economic development (as it is affected by political instability, allegations of corruption towards Musharraf, a high deficit, and lack of infrastructure in the rural areas). This makes me question the sustainability of such economic growth in the long run, if a dictatorship were to continue.
GDP may be high, but so is inflation, which was a problem long before Musharraf stepped down. Does the unemployment rate of a little over 7.5% also justify such rapid growth?
While villages like Jawalaia may initially struggle with higher prices, a reduced military influence on political and economic affairs could actually benefit them. First off, it’s not the military’s job to dictate economic policy. Second, less or no price controls could mean that prices could reach what they normally would, and the resources used for that excess flour could be used more efficiently elsewhere. Also, part of the village’s difficulty in meeting such prices could be due to the previous government’s concentration on urban development at the expense of rural areas, rather than a problem that began with the new government.
The question of whether or not a dictatorship is better for the Pakistani economy depends heavily on the actions and intents of the new government, which aims to be more democratic. Don’t know about anyone else but I tend to like democracies more than dictatorships – a more transparent economy, use of public watchdogs and greater economic freedom can promote stability and thus attract local and foreign investment.
But if the government does not harden its stance against corruption, begin to act as a unified entity, address economic development, and/or implement contractionary policies to curb inflation (assuming that GDP will still remain strong despite Musharraf’s departure, which is very likely considering it will take more than that for GDP rates to crumble), then maybe they’d give cause for Musharraf to dance around and gloat in his new mansion. Otherwise, maybe the country’s better off.
Bea,
Your points are no doubt very conclusive and logicaly correct, personally, i am not a pro Musharaf citizen and am all for a free and fair system, economic system and political watchdogs. There is no doubt that military influence on economic affairs let alone politics is bad for just about any country, however, democracy itself has not been pakistan's ideal political system. It is not that democracy in principle is wrong, as a system it has done exceptionaly well. The problem, in my view, with regard to Pakistan is the practicality of the democratic system. Inflation has been a problem before the democratic party took over, but unfortunately was a problem for democratic governments before the musharad era as well. Today the biggest hinderence to foreign investment in the country is the lack of a free and fair judicial system. Niether musharaf or the present gov seem to be interested in that matter. Pakistan may be called a democracy, but its democracy still reflects a feudal landlord structure as far as politics go. This political system makes it very hard to bring about the economic watchdogs you mentioned earlier. Some believe it may just as well take a dedicated dictator to fix this system and push the country in the right direction, in an ideal world, i would want this dictator to free the media, free the judiciary, hold free and fair elections and leave....unfortunately, this is very very improbable,
Anyhow, the purpose of the blog to stimulate thinking, and ur response was very well articulated...
Post a Comment