Political discourse in Pakistan is punctuated with allegations and counter allegations without a formal study of the economic implications of the various decisions that have been rocking the country from as early as 1950s. The series of posts in this thread of “At What Cost”
is attempt to build a framework for researchers to explore the economic costs of each of these decisions. The title of this series is based on my extensive discussions with late Mr Fazle Hasan of IBA in 1986-87. My later reflections on the lessons that he was trying to convey and which I vehemently disagreed with at that time, but have now come to appreciate only recently have been put down as the first post in this “At What Cost!” series: At What Cost! Fazle Hasan of IBA and our Computation of Economic Costs
The type of economic computation that is required can be seen from the computation of economic costs of joining War on Terror
. Researcher may look at other models of computing the economic costs and can then do a similar analysis of the decisions that I have listed in the different tenures of people who have been ruling our country.
The despondency that we see in our people where they have started questioning the wisdom of our founding fathers on the basis of disastrous decisions by the successors is not a solution. Actually, it is foolish to blame our fathers for our behaviors. Blaming the Founding Fathers for Our Mistakes: Case of Pakistan
analyzes this psychology. It also highlights that the existence of our country now depends upon a ruthless examination of all the costs of our political decisions, whether taken by sham democracies or by well meaning dictatorships.
I think the point from where to start is Chief Justice Munir’s disastrous decision on Doctrine of Necessity
that can be termed as the mother of all evils that has been afflicting our country. His decisions effectively condones the right of the might and has been responsible for all our compromises that were made with disastrous consequences. Our entire culture is now shaped by the operationalization of this doctrine of necessity in the form of “muk-muka” and “matti-pao” ethos that permeates all the communities and the workings of our organizations. Everyone would just like to “matti-pao” the history, regularize the wrongs and move on after a mutually beneficial “muk-muka”.
The first beneficiary of this might is right doctrine of necessity was General Ayub Khan. The disastrous decisions that his violation of rule of constitution brought upon our country are mentioned in Costs of General Ayub’s Dicatatorship
, and relate one hand to separation of East Pakistan through his blue eyed General Yahya and on the other hand to nationalization by ZAB, who used to call Gen Ayub his daddy.
Gen Ayub’s decision to violate his own constitution and handing over the power to General Yahya Khan, instead of the constitutionally mandated office of speaker, brought us the ignominy of the secession of half of our country. This is another example of the cost of Justice Munir’s doctrine of necessity. There is of course a need to identify the disastrous implication of not following on the Justic Hamoodur Rehman Commission report and we are left crumbs of some fond memories of East Pakistan and the great loss that it represented.
General Yahya’s disastrous decision to give power to ZAB in 1971 as CMLA led to the development of a dynastic rule of sham democracies. The costs of sham democracies in Pakistan
are being compiled. Their decisions related to Nationalization and Privatization all need to be analyzed separately.
In comes Genereal Zia’s with his11-year rule, and again on the shoulder of Justice Munir’s Doctrine of Necessity. His disastrous autocratic decisions had long running economic implications for Pakistan and even today we are suffering from those disastrous decisions. Costs of General Zia’s Dictatorship
outline some of these decisions. The Afghan adventure through Jehadis may have given us some crumbs from USA, but have ended up making Pakistan a security state that is now vulnerable from every side.
Yet another dictator General Musharraf comes on horseback fluttering the flag of Justic Munir’s disastrous doctrine of necessity. His decision to make u-turn under the pressure of USA again submerges us in the quagmire from which we are still trying to extricate. Costs of General Musharraf’s Dictatorship
lists those disastrous decisions.
A deeper look at these dictatorial interventions and a continuous series of destabilization efforts during civilian rules indicate that this kind of destabilization is present in all the developing countries and is part of post-colonialism exploitation by the world superpowers, this has been named as neo-colonialism. My post on narratives designed to dishonor popular choice and support neocolonialism
explains how neocolonialism spreads destructive narratives in developing countries which are taken up by vested interests and un-elected elites. These narratives are used to dishonor the will of the people, and justify the takeover by un-elected elites. This seems to be the history of post-colonialism in developing countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and on and on through out all the old colonies of the imperial powers. This is how they are kept perpetually destabilized and hence “perpetually developing”.
Doctrine of Necessity from CJ Munir to Judge Khosa: Role of Judiciary in the Service of Neocolonialism describes this intervention of judiciary. I think despite the protestations to the contrary by the supreme court that they have buried it, doctrine of necessity is alive and kicking.
It is time to understand that rule of civilians, however much contemptuous, is better than dictatorial rule if we have to safeguard our independence. This can be seen from Why Dictator Generals are Weaker than Civilians Rulers in Withstanding External Pressure. This is also established by analyzing the evidence that Why Dictatorships are Weaker in Accountability than Constitutional Governments.
The neo-colonialism narratives can also be seen in the justification of the umpteenth removal of prime ministers. None of the prime ministers of Pakistan, 16 of them, have ever been able to complete their tenure. Premature removal is the fear of the stability that may arrive if a few of them are allowed to complete their tenures in succesion which will spoil the game plan of neocolonialism. Why no PM of Pakistan has ever completed his/her tenure provides a context of these issues.
[to be extended]