WE face many big threats today that may result in future doom. They include nuclear, extremist or ethnic wars; economic contraction, hyperinflation and the collapse of the rupee. We may actually be just months away from the tipping point on the last two.

It is easy to list remedies for each as their broad contours are so well known. Economically, it means increasing taxes and exports to cut our fiscal and external deficits, that often lead to crises; reforming the power and water sectors; and increasing social and economic investment and productivity in order to ensure sustainable and equitable growth. Politically, it means devolution; police, judicial and bureaucracy reforms; peace with Baloch rebels and the end of TTP terrorism. Externally, it means peace with India and good ties with all key allies, including the West, the Gulf states and China. Socially, it means ending extremism and full rights for women, minorities and other weak groups. Experts offer detailed blueprints for each one.

But the issue is getting the state to adopt them. Despite the rapidly growing threats, the state is paralysed on all these fronts, as taking action would mean undermining the interests of powerful elites. The latter include politicians linked to the sugar industry; real estate mafias; military elites who thwart peace deals with Baloch groups and India, and oppose cuts to their big budget; and many among the bureaucrats and the clergy, etc. Can major change emerge fast enough from this paralysed labyrinth of elite politics to avert doom?

There are three paths to consider. The first is a dose of doom, jolting our elites into action. We have seen this already. The only time in recent decades our state took concerted action to end a major threat very successfully was in 2015, when thousands of deaths, terrorism in major cities and the loss of large areas jolted our elites into almost eliminating militancy. But terrorism is now growing as elite interests, instead of resorting to full action, took to futile peace talks with the TTP.

Taking action to rescue Pakistan means jettisoning elite interests.

A mix of hyperinflation, currency collapse and default is a serious risk in the next couple of years. Would it jolt the elites into taking action? The key worries are the high human costs and unclarity on whether we would be able to end the crisis. Many states have overcome such crises, like Israel and the Asian Tigers. Among the weak ones, Zimbabwe was mired in such a crisis for years and still is badly misruled and so, prone to a relapse. We face far more complex problems, including ethnic and extremism issues, a badly divided polity and hostile ties with our neighbours. Such an economic crisis may morph into a political and security Armageddon for us.

Pre-emptive action constitutes the second and third paths. In the first, the establishment, which has usually ignored its own role in creating problems and blamed the latter on politicians, has often triggered discussions of a technocracy as a solution. This path is not likely to work. Few realise that technocrats lack popular support to carry out major political reforms; moreover, they are often seen as timid, uncreative and as having a tunnel vision. Technocracies do not have a successful track record globally. True, we badly need more merit and technical input in policy decisions but not by displacing politics fully by using narrow technical lenses.

The third path is for society to organise better to force elites to change. Professional, farmer, labour, business, civil society and other groups must coalesce to push reforms. They must not be fooled by empty populism about ending slavery and corruption or illusory ideas about presidentialism, political terms, more provinces etc. One must prefer ideas that are backed by actual global evidence and involve the least disruption to current political structures.

Oddly, success in very similar states, such as India, Bangladesh and Indonesia, has come from the wombs of corrupt and dynastic systems rather than illusory ideas. In India, Congress appointed able prime ministers, who have not been from the leading political dynasty, although the Nehru family ran the party. The PPP and PML-N too have during their tenures appointed prime ministers outside their respective ruling families.

Thus, the focus of advocacy must be on getting the current parliamentary system and the two major parties — the PDM and PTI — to deliver, while keeping Pindi out of politics. Among the two, the PDM clearly seems better fitted to deliver, especially if it adopts the Congress model. But as often in life, this best third path may have the least chance of happening.

The writer is a political economist with a PhD from the University of California, Berkeley.

murtazaniaz@yahoo.com

Twitter:@NiazMurtaza2

Published in Dawn, December 27th, 2022