STRAIGHT TALK by Hafeez Khan
Polarization has never run so deep in our politics. It reminds of my farming days in Kasur. Before moving my family to Canada in the late nineties, I would regularly travel to our farm near Ganga Post. It required turning south from Dipalpur road at Theng Mor, pass through Mandi Usman and few other villages. In one of the villages en route, a bloody family feud had erupted spanning nearly a decade. Exchange of firing would last for days and seven murders had been committed between cousins. Each time we passed that village, my guards would insist I lie low on the back seat while they rode shotgun. The fear was getting caught in the crossfire!
That is what I see happening in our political discourse each day on our print media, TV and YouTube channels. There are hardly any dispassionate and objective discussions. The participants are so deeply entrenched in their partisan positions, that there is no room for any objective analysis. National Security Policy requires that. It is not partisan; rather it sets the direction for the entire nation for decades to come.
In Part 1 of this series I gave a historic perspective of our national psyche of insecurity and dependence. To break out of that mould there has to be a paradigm shift to pivot away from the present downward trajectory. We suffered being part of “Camp Politics” surrendering our National Interest to further the cause of others. It requires a reality check to determine our national priorities that revolve around economic security at its core.
It is easier said than done. It requires a quantum jump in economic activities. That would translate into increasing our economic pie leading to increased employment, improved healthcare and education for citizens. It would also lead to debt reduction and disposable income to shore up our defense, human security and invest in educating citizens on benefits of population control. Ambitious agenda; however if don’t aspire for lofty goals you cannot progress.
Based on the steps taken to reach these conclusions it appears there is an agreement between the defense establishment and political government. Inputs were taken from the provincial governments and other forums dealing with strategic national issues. A monthly progress monitoring mechanism is in place; with a provision of annual review.
In broad brushes what does this policy entail? It is clearly a bold statement of intent. It recognizes the fact that we are a deeply indebted nation. Beggars can’t be choosers. We have to fight our way out of this quagmire through robust economic development. We will abandon our traditional role as Camp Followers and act in our own national interest.
On the international scene we will maintain and build our relationships with USA and other Western Powers. We will continue to grow our co-operation with China and other regional powers like Russia, Central Asian States, Turkey, the Gulf Countries, and Iran. Afghanistan needs support to survive. Pakistan will assist in sensitizing global conscience on the importance of preventing Afghanis turning into a failed state. India’s breakaway from a secular state to Hinduvita could lead to genocide. The persecution of minorities especially in Kashmir is unacceptable. Based on the new doctrine all the relationships will be leveraged to pursue the goals of Geo Economic development of Pakistan.
Internally the starting point is 127 billion in debt, rising unemployment and 40% of population on the verge of the poverty line. All the efforts are focused on achieving economic stability. Economic indicators at the macro level are positive. It is a slow and time taking process after decades of abuse. The policy revolves around using our strengths of providing connectivity in the region. Maintaining progress through moving to Phase 2 of CPEC is a focal point of increasing industrialization. It aims to increase hydel power production, training youth in technology, improving agricultural production, and exploiting mineral assets. The objective is a sharp increase in exports.
Emphasis has been placed on internal security, defense of borders, creating a framework of joint efforts of defense establishment and civil government. The are many detractors both internally and externally. They claim it is old wine in a new bottle. It is an attempt by defense establishment to control resources, consolidate power over governance of all organs and civil society. Lack of consultation with the opposition and abandonment of Kashmiris is another charge. It is upto the proponents of the Policy to offer a spirited defense. As an analyst I believe it is an effort to create a cohesive policy based on consensus that can give hope for a better future.
The real question is the implementation of such a policy in the present polarized political environment. I have serious reservations about the ability of our parliamentarians to rise above partisan strife and take bold measures that can initiate a reboot of national priorities. They are a product of status quo and refuse to get out of their comfort zones.
The system needs an overhaul. Compare our governance with any of the countries that have broken the shackles of economic bondage. China, South Korea, Malaysia, and Turkey all had unified command structures that triggered economic juggernauts. We require something similar. A centralized, unobstructed central command structure not bogged down by petty squabbling is the only way forward. I believe a presidential system maybe the best option.
