Development is for the people: Part - I

Every government in Pakistan has made tall claims about development and delivering wonderful benefits to the people in its name; and yet Pakistan continues to occupy lowly positions in world rankings of every indicator of human and economic development.

We are a country that is the fifth largest in the world, ranks at 161 in the development of its human resources, 123 in acquisition of knowledge by its people, 129 in establishing rule of law and dispensing justice to its citizens, and 157 in GDP per capita.

One thing that stands out from these low rankings is that investment in the people of Pakistan to enhance their knowledge, skills and abilities or protect their rights with rule of law, has never been a policy priority. This has landed the country with a huge mass of disempowered people, unable to create value for themselves or the country.

Development has become one of those popular words like ‘democracy’, frequently uttered in public pronouncements but often used as a shield to cover up personal agendas of vested interests, with little benefits flowing out to the people of Pakistan.

It is important to clear our minds about what development really means, so that the energies and resources of a poor country do not continue to be wasted, otherwise we will be groping around in the dark like those blind men touching different parts of the elephant and mistaking its parts to be the animal itself.

Development is an all-encompassing, multi-disciplinary process, which touches the lives of people at individual and collective levels and adds to their social, cultural, economic and political wellbeing. It is not a catalogue of construction projects, and it is much more than economic growth.

If development were synonymous with construction, then no bigger development has taken place in history than the construction of the pyramids of Egypt – but these were constructed by the Pharaohs to project their power and create comfortable conditions for their afterlife, not to improve the social, cultural, economic or political wellbeing of the Egyptian people.

So, development is ‘of the people and for the people’. In other words, development means empowerment of the people. That is the first characteristic of ‘development’.

And the litmus test to measure the empowerment of people is not by how many billions are allocated for this programme or that project. That figure may be of interest to those who are given the contract or the wheelers and dealers to calculate their cuts and commissions, but it has no meaning for the people.

What is important for the people is to tell them how many new jobs and business opportunities are created through these programmes/ projects and what tools of empowerment – the new knowledge, skills, technologies, abilities – are imparted to the people through these projects to enable them to add value for themselves and for society. And how these add to the safety, security and dignity of the citizens and protect them so that their rights, rewards and opportunities are not usurped by the high and mighty.

Any programmes or projects – and the money spent behind these – that run counter to this litmus test may be projecting anyone’s pomp and power, but do not qualify to be called ‘development’ for the country.

We learn from history that development has not been a continuous, consistent or sustainable process in any country. Even as all kinds of things were going on in the world – wars, conquests, invasions, settlements or the rule of this or that king or conqueror, tons of money spent and life going on as it may be – there has been no development to upgrade the life of the people living in these countries, even for centuries.

It is noteworthy to recall that it took 1000 years for the world’s GDP to double before the 18th century, because the environment for the development or empowerment of the people did not exist for centuries.

Let us look closely at home. When India started to become colonized after the Battle of Plassey (1757) it was contributing 25 per cent of the world GDP. About 200 years later during which all kinds of things – and governments by this or that local or foreign rulers – were going on, the country continued to be pauperised and its people disempowered socially, culturally, economically and politically. When it was finally decolonized in 1947, it had been pauperized by colonial governance to such an extent that its contribution had fallen to a mere 3.0 per cent of the world GDP.

Again, a little more than 100 years ago, at the beginning of the 20th century, Argentina was among the five most developed and richest countries of the world. Today, it has slumped down to the 30th position, its people suffering from 100 per cent inflation. Argentina, like Pakistan, is among the biggest debtors to the IMF with $46 billion of outstanding debt, and an unending begging bowl before the IFIs of the world.

That is the second lesson to learn from history: that development has not been a continuous, consistent or sustainable process in the history of any country. That decades, even centuries, can go by without that society or country seeing any addition to the wellbeing or empowerment of its people.

The third lesson to learn from history is that development is not an autonomous or independent process. It does not happen by itself. It is a dependent process – a byproduct of an environment or culture that believes in empowering people and enabling them to take the processes of development forward.

This is where we often make the mistake of putting the cart before the horse and complaining why the cart is not moving forward (that is development is not taking place). Our deceptive talk of development without a thought to creating the enabling environment for it has wasted 75 years and caused despondency among the people of Pakistan. Can there be a bigger vote of No-Confidence in the policy choices made for ruling this country than shown by the exodus of the people, leaving the country in droves and even risking their lives in the waters of the Mediterranean?

The point to note is that the enabling culture that encourages empowerment of the people is the foundation upon which the processes of development can move forward. If the ingredients of that enabling culture are put in place, development would automatically happen, as one of the byproducts of that environment – not the other way around.

To cut a long story short: development of a country and disempowerment of its people do not go together. Without investing in people and empowering them, we would again be wasting years without developing the country. No country can claim to be developed while its people remain disempowered.

That the people have the right to development and the state has a duty to provide an enabling environment will be discussed in part two of the article.

To be continued

The writer designed the Board of Investment and the First Women’s Bank. He can be reached at: smshah@alum.mit.edu