Struggle between state and society

State and society are two distinct institutions. Eroding this distinction opens the doors to state intervention in personal, family and social relations and to loss of individual rights and protection against abuse of power by the state.

The state is a creation of the will of the people and accountable to society which is the mother association; but the relationship between the state and society has not been an easy one. The imbalance between a powerful, unaccountable state and a weak society has caused neglect of human and economic development of the people.

This article tries to capture the essence of the main theme of a book by the same title by this writer to understand the fundamental faultline: why has Pakistan not realised its potential and why has it been falling behind in almost every indicator of empowerment of its citizens?

Historically, society has determined the shape and form as well as the powers and functions of the state and the rights and protection for its members from the abuse of powers given to the state. This was true when ancient Mesopotamians were creating the rudiments of the earliest state 7000 years ago, as also when the leaders of the 13 colonies gathered at the Continental Congress in 1776 to decide the shape and form of the United States of America and the division of powers between the state and society.

The relationship between state and society was also rewritten in the old European and Asian empires where it had deteriorated during centuries of wars, conquests and colonisation, imposing their will upon the conquered societies. But, as society asserted its rights to make the state accountable under a new social contract, the relationship changed in the 18th and 19th centuries through a series of peaceful reforms in England and Japan; while in France, Russia and China it took revolutions to make the state accountable to society.

An unaccountable state sees no reason to allocate resources to anyone it is not dependent upon for acquisition or retention of power. The Mughal emperors of India also knew this. They built large forts, royal gardens and Taj Mahals for themselves or their families; but never a school, a hospital or a library for people’s wellbeing during their reign of over 400 years. Simple. They did not depend on the people to rule over India.

The idea of the ‘development’ of people gained ground only after the idea of a social contract asserted the rights of society and obligation of the state to work for the wellbeing of the people. The result was that, while it took one thousand years for the world GDP to double before, it now doubled within one century (19th ) and has continued to make rapid strides ever since. During the last 40 years, the world GDP increased fourfold since the 1980s.

But before the social contract between the state and the people would trigger similar change here, India was colonised and regained independence from British colonialism in 1947, when it was partitioned into two states of India and Pakistan.

The British colonial state had wrested all power to itself and was unaccountable to Indian society – not unlike Mughal India. As Independence came, efforts were made to shift from a colonial to a democratic relationship between the state and society. In India, a committee under Dr Ambedkar was formed on August 29, 1947 to frame a democratic constitution. Similarly, on August 11, 1947, Quaid-e-Azam announced in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan that the first duty was to frame a democratic constitution to define the new relationship between a democratic state and society, now that the country had become independent.

Unfortunately, no follow-up action was taken. And the independent state of Pakistan continued to be ruled under the same colonial Act of 1935 against which the struggle for independence was supposed to have been launched. Finally, in 1953, when the Constituent Assembly did act upon Quaid-e-Azam’s announcement of August 11, 1947 to frame the constitution of a democratic state which is accountable to society, it was summarily ‘dismissed’ by the then governor general Ghulam Muhammad under the same colonial Act of 1935 and in the same colonial style of pre-1947 days. He refused to be accountable.

When the Sindh High Court declared this act null and void, the federal court under Justice Munir upheld the imperial act of the governor general ‘dismissing’ the constituent assembly representing the will of the people – even after the country gained independence from colonialism.

The foundation was thus laid of a powerful state unaccountable to society, a Leviathan, which refused to submit to the will of the people. It is important to recognise the root cause and how it started to gain momentum. The world knows about our problem even at the level of the heads of governments, although we have not seriously addressed the issue.

“Why has Pakistan not realised its potential despite so many resources”? I asked this to prime minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yew, when as head of the Board of Investment, I had presented a series of projects for Singapore and Pakistan to work together for their mutual benefit. He said: “Look at Singapore. We had no resources of any kind; we don’t even have our own water to drink. But we created assets where none existed”.

So, why has Pakistan – despite several resources – not realised its potential as the fifth largest country and why does it cut a sorry figure in world rankings? It stands at 164 out of 193 in human development, 161/213 in GDP per capita, 152/180 in literacy, among the highest out- of- school children in the world, and the highest infant mortality of 56/1000, twice the global average of 26/1000 and 130/ 143 in dispensation of justice!

The writings in the book are divided into seven chapters: governance, economy, energy, democracy, culture, Muslim world and Asian century to show how this imbalance between a powerful state and a weak society has adversely affected the social, economic and political empowerment of the people. Some of the conclusions in the book are briefly summarised in the available space here.

In democratic governance, the rights of the ruler and the ruled are the same, but the responsibilities of the ruler are higher. In unaccountable governance, this relationship is reversed. Our economy works like a game of snakes and ladders; where the ladders are provided for the privileged few while the snakes are let loose for the rest of society.

Our energy policies are a case study for business schools on how not to make a policy that leads to people suffering the shocks of the most expensive electricity in the world. And our democracy has never taken root because a sword of Damocles is always hanging over its head.

The struggle to make the state accountable to society is most fundamental and its success will help Pakistan realise its potential.

The writer designed the Board of Investment and the First Women Bank. He is the author of ‘Struggle between State & Society’, and can be reached at: smshah@alum.mit.edu