Perhaps, the World Bank finds it more congenial to work with military- led governments in Pakistan. It launched more projects during each one of the three military-led regimes than democratic governments of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto combined.

Over the last 55 years since 1952 of its engagement, according to a table posted on the World Bank website, it launched 274 projects in all. Of these 47 were during Ayub’s period, 15 during Z.A. Bhutto’s time, 88 during General Zia’s dark era, 36 in between 1988-98 period shared by the democratic governments of Benazir and Nawaz Sharif and 54 since General Musharraf took over some eight years back. Of the 38 projects launched before the first martial law in the country, 19 were dropped and 19 according to the table were completed.

To assess the complex relationship between Pakistan and this powerful international financial institution based just on number of projects could be misleading. There are many issues like the cost of these projects, the total quantum of lending, the comparative cost and suitability of these projects to local conditions, social costs, issues of corruption, the rate of success of projects, etc. which are no less important.

It was, however, impossible to accommodate all these aspects in one write -up. For now, this article would be limited to one question: Whether or not the lending policy of this supposedly neutral financial global institution is guided by the political preferences of the powerful western governments?

Dr Arif Hasan, a widely respected architect and a political analyst was clear. “It sure does. These international financial institutions have special interest in military establishment of Pakistan. As it is most convenient, compliant and at the same time powerful institution that helped them control a country which has strategic importance for the West”.

The representative of the World Bank strongly contested this view. Yusupha B. Crookes, World Bank Country Director for Pakistan, in a mailed statement from Islamabad said: “The World Bank engages with all legitimate governments of member countries and the criteria of such engagement are clearly laid down in the Bank policies”.

“I think it will not be correct to link such variations in lending programmes to anything other than the borrowing country’s policies and performance on the economic and developmental front”.

“In keeping with the Bank’s mission to fight poverty, its quantum of engagement with any member country is determined by a number of factors including the type of economic and trade policies followed by the government, availability of funding etc”.

Higher ups in the economic ministries of the government were broadly in agreement the World Bank’s view. They felt that the basis of assertion of political inclination of the World Bank was narrow.

“You need to find out the quantum of support extended by IFIs during different phases of history as mere number of projects were not sufficient to draw such strong conclusions”, a senior bureaucrat told Dawn from Islamabad.

“We are represented on the bank’s board of directors that finally approves a project. So, it would be wrong to assume that someone at these lending institutions was actually conspiring against democratic elements in Pakistan. I have attended many meetings and found the decision making systems to be democratic and transparent”, said another senior official who wished to remain anonymous.

The explanation put forward by the representatives of the bank and the senior government officials, however, seem defensive. They gave detailed responses over telephone trying to convince that the bank did what it was supposed to do: extend financial support on request if the borrower is found to be credit worthy. Moreover, it did not flout any procedure nor did it burst its limits under any circumstances.

It is still little difficult to agree that it was a mere accident over a long period of association with the bank that it happened to have sponsored more projects during periods when the country was ruled by men in uniform.

Another officer in Islamabad told Dawn that the bank was more flexible during Mr Mohd Khan Junejo and Mr Shaukat Aziz tenures when a quasi- democratic governments were in place.

Someone sceptical of a democratic order could argue that political governments tend to be financially more irresponsible for they, by their very nature, need to be more responsive to popular demands.

It could very well be so but that hardly changes the stated fact: the World Bank sponsored more projects during military rule than it did when the country was governed in accordance with the Constitution.

This explains to some extent public appeal of apprehensions being expressed by anti- IFI activists and anti- globalisation lobby in countries like Pakistan. It is true that onus of responsibility of decisions taken to engage different global financial institutions rests on the rulers, these organisations must also need to show more pragmatism as an impression that its interests in the country are more closely linked with the constitution violators would be mutually harmful, to put it mildly.