Present democratic setup encourages flawed economic policies
Written by: Shahid Afandi
Pakistan right after its birth opted Westminster
system of parliamentary democracy, with tenure set at five years for each
elected government. Democratic governments struggled to complete their tenures
until very recently. Tenure completion by elected governments should have
resulted in economic development, but with each passing day and with a new
government in place, the country’s economy seemed to be getting worse. This
raises questions on effectiveness of present democratic structure to achieve
economic goals.
Eminent economist and former ambassador John Kenneth
Galbraith has divided economic development in to three types. A) Symbolic
modernization (here development is focused on nominal projects capital city
with impressive buildings, airports etc. B) Maximized economic growth (it’s a
development over a period of time resulting in increase in overall output of
state and economic wellbeing of people). C) Selective economic growth (Here the
neediest section of society is focused).
It’s no brainer to realize the fact that to lift an
economy and achieve maximized economic growth long term policies are critical,
while on the other hand governments tend to focus on symbolic modernization and
selective growth. Islamabad, being one of the most beautiful and modernized
capitals of the world, when compared with other cities depicts a story of
inequality. If we look through the width and breadth of country the disparity
among cities and towns shows the true face of country with hunger and poverty
at its heart.
Selective and symbolic growth is prioritized over
maximized economic growth, which has resulted in underdevelopment of economy.
This type of policy might not suit the economic wellbeing of people, but it
certainly suits the socio-politick of our society. Governments tend to adopt
short term polities like Benazir income support program (selective growth) and
Metro Stations (Symbolic modernizations), as they have electoral value. In return
society is content with this sort of development and votes on it; the circle of
ignorance repeats itself again and again.
Current form of democracy doesn’t offer the needed security
and time to devise and exercise a long term economic plan for the state,
resulting in flawed policy. In recent weeks a debate on democratic structure of
country has initiated, with suggestions for replacement of current system with
presidential form. In my opinion this doesn’t solves the basic problem. If we
look back at the history Ayub’s era stands out in terms of economic development.
This perhaps shows the superiority of presidential form of government, but I
suppose it delivered because it had freedom to take a long term initiative and
build on it, and if current setup is exposed to such level of freedom and
security things would probably get better.
About Writer
Studying
Msc Internatinal Relations at Karakarum International Univeristy Gilgit
Feedback
& suggestions: afandimail@gmail.com
