What’s in store?

It is too early to say that manifesto politics has started gaining traction in Pakistan. But if politics based on manifestos is to gain footing in the country, then analysing these expressions of intentions, principles and policies becomes pertinent.

It is therefore little wonder that many a column across Pakistani media have lately been discussing and analysing manifestos from different social and economic points of view. The Pakistan Business Council also found it apt to evaluate manifestos and rank parties accordingly.

This article, however, does not analyse manifestos. Instead, it talks about two particular criteria or the lens through which manifestos should be analysed. First of these, pertains to a comprehensive, coherent and consistent view of economic development, or perhaps the lack of it.

Pakistan is a strange country. We want a state that allows US-like market economy; at the same time we want a European-styled welfare system; and we also want to develop as fast as the East Asian economies. To top it all off we also want to have state with an economy reminiscent of the Golden Khalifat era, without having a clue as to how it is to be manifested in today’s day and age.

Okay! Agreed. Not everyone wants each of these. But there is a mishmash of some wanting only one of these (and they won’t budge an inch about it) and others wanting a combination of these. Then there are those who want a little bit of everything – as if resurrection of Pakistani economy, or any economy for that matter, is akin to the creation of Power Puff girls: sugar and spice and everything nice.

The point is: that’s not going to happen. We cannot have it all because some of the items on the economic wish list are mutually inconsistent, while others require a certain path dependency with their own set of historical and political drivers.

And if the urban educated ones – who form the intellectual power chord connecting the state, the politicians the businesses and their direct or indirect lobbies – keep on tussling between these contrasting economic views in their simplistic drawing rooms conversations, the only economic style we will end up having is the Gangum style.

This message of ‘we-cannot-have-it-all’ must be put across by all parties – at least to their urban educated constituencies, hoping that it will eventually trickle down to wider population. The media would also do well to pick this theme to help bring clarity of thought in public discourse.

At the same time, next round of analysis of manifestos should be to evaluate whether the manifestos are comprehensive, coherent and consistent, or whether they are a juxtaposition of seemingly nice individual ideas but incoherent and inconsistent at the aggregate level.

The second lens – and this is where it becomes a bit controversial – revolves around the parties’ stance as regards the troika of army-Punjab-bureaucracy. While parties have by and large been quite vocal about their view to keep army out of politics, there seems to be little talk of the troika itself.

Understandably, this is sensitive issue which may be construed as politically incorrect. But few can deny the kind impact this troika has had on Pakistani economy and society at large.

Individually, the army has not ruled Pakistan for nearly half of its existence but also penetrated deeply the country’s civilian bureaucracy while emerging as a dominant player in business and economy, albeit sometimes in the shadows.

Consequently, the Punjab, being historically over represented in the army, gained immensely from this penetration. The province has also long benefited from the inter-provincial revenue distribution NFC Award that was based only on population until 2011, despite calls by other provinces to include other indicators in the distribution formula as well.

And in the meantime, the bureaucracy has been busy providing political patronage to the ruling elite while making hay for the industrial elite by way of ill administrated import-substitution-industrialisation policies.

Part of this ruling troika has started giving up space or otherwise forced to do so. In the last five years of democratic rule, for instance, there were several occasions when analysts thought the army might step it. But the army did not.

Similarly, General Kayani has made statements to the effect of focusing on economic development while recalling servicemen from civil institutions such as bureaucracy and educational institutions. On a related note, due credit should be given to the Punjab for yielding in the finalisation of last revenue distribution award.

Still, much needs to be done, because it takes a while to undo the imbalances caused by historical wrongs. And therefore this troika element has to be kept in mind while analysing manifestos. A party that aims to soften the troika’s grip on Pakistani state and economy will be a party that will be treading dangerous waters, but it is what Pakistan needs.

Bear in mind that this is not just the year of general election. The country’s other top institutions are also expected to see a change of guard in this calendar year. Once the political quarrel ends over who forms the government, a new round of politicking will begin for deciding the fate of the president in September. Followed by that, the army chief Kayani’s extended run will come to an end in November, and a month after, the Supreme Court chief justice will reach his mandatory age of retirement.

2013 is going to be one heck of politically tumultuous year; and the choices we make today can have far reaching implications. Let us get the manifestos and other unwritten party positions in the right perspective and let us make the right choice.

(The writer is a development consultant)