THE question persistently asked in Pakistan these days is whether the common has made any gains from the high economic growth which was 8.4 per cent last year. And will he be better off in the years to come if this high growth pattern persists?

The government has been insisting that the common man is the beneficiary of this growth phenomenon. But the critics of the official policy argue the common man and the under-privileged class remains unbenefited and the rich are the larger gainers.

The President of the Asian Development Bank Harohiko Kuroda on his first visit to Pakistan says: “The current state of poverty in Pakistan is serious and is the concern of the Asian Development Bank.” He said a good deal had been done, but a lot more remains to be accomplished.

The outcome of a long awaited survey of the conditions of living of the rural and urban people of Pakistan shows that the conditions of 51.5 per cent has not changed within a year and of the 23.9 per cent has become worse, or much worse, while 24.2 per cent are better or much better. The Pakistan Social and Living Standards Measurement Survey 2004-2005 prepared by the Federal Bureau of Statistics, covered 76,520 households in the rural/urban areas of Pakistan, and probed the access to education and health services as well as evaluated the household satisfaction. The outcome of the last survey is in line with the earlier surveys which showed that two per cent of the people had 50 per cent of the incomes and wealth of the country. That pattern has not changed but has rather stabilized.

The conditions of living of the poor and the pattern of income distribution is Pakistan are more like those in Egypt after 24 years of authoritarian rule by Hosni Mubarak. The high growth of the 1990s has been resumed in Egypt, and last year the growth rate was 6 per cent. And yet it has been officially admitted that the rate of unemployment is 10 per cent.

Egypt’s poor have become worse for the apparent prosperity of the country. The exports are booming, the stock exchange index is soaring, but the poor among its 80 million people are the worse for it all.

As part of the economic reforms privatization has been resumed; but the new owners of such enterprises are sacking thousands of workers, adding to the unemployment. Egypt needs 700,000 persons to be employed each year for many years for the poor to get a better deal. The argument that a strong-arm rule is essential in developing countries to develop a strong economy does not hold good in Egypt after 24 years of Hosni Mobarak’s rule. He is contesting the elections again.

In Pakistan the Adviser to finance ministry, Salman Shah says the high price of oil would not affect the economic growth rate. But other experts say it would. Among them is the chief of the IMF. Anyway the global economic growth will be four per cent this year, he says.

The government after a pause of several fortnights has increased the domestic price of POL. The petrol price has jumped by Rs. 3.67 a litre to Rs. 52.61 litre. We are often told that petrol prices in India are much higher than in Pakistan. The Financial Times, London, says petrol price in India now is Rs40 a litre, while it is Rs52.51 in Pakistan.

Since the Congress government in India came to power world oil price has risen by 72 per cent but India has increased its price only by 20 per cent. It is asking the oil companies with their large profits to absorb as much of the losses as possible from the price rise but they are finding that tough as the world oil price keeps on soaring or fluctuating around 70 dollars a barrel. But the government in Pakistan has a generous policy towards all the companies and enables them make large profits and distribute them among its shareholders. Hence, the shares of oil and gas companies in Pakistan command high prices on the stock exchanges.

The government continues to act on the energy front. It has decided to increase the output of gas in the country. We are told the country has large enough gas reserves to last for 20 to 25 years. Meanwhile, industries in the country are to be authorised to use gas for power production.

The government has also decided to set up two 900 mw thermal power plants in the Wapda system and provide 300 MW of power to the KESC by the year 2007. But after the impending privatization of the KESC it would be for the new management to decide from where to get additional power. Meanwhile, the deal between the Privatization Commission and Hasan Associates for the sale of KESC appears to have been completed after the first buyer had opted out.

While Pakistan has not been lucky enough to find any off-shore oil or gas, India has struck gas in the Bay of Bengal after having discovered oil at Hombay Heights. Maybe, Pakistan has not done enough exploration off-shore. Despite Pakistan’s oil reserves it would go ahead with the efforts to get gas through a large enough pipeline that will carry oil from Iran to India via Pakistan.

The ADB chief says that of the gas available for us in Qatar, Turkmenistan and Iran the Asian Development Bank would support one project. It is up to the Pakistan government to decide which pipeline it prefers. The pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan is to cost 7.4 billion dollars which is a large sum.

The ADB chief has indicated that 3.7 billion dollars could be available for Pakistan as loans during the next three years, beginning with 1.4 billion dollars next year. That follows the commitment of the World Bank president on his recent first visit to Pakistan of providing three billion dollars within three years.

What has been obvious for long is that enough aid would be available for major projects particularly for the infrastructure development. But the capacity of Pakistan to use them well and in time is limited. Hence some of the aid gets withdrawn.

Mr Kuroda has dealt with the issue in detail. Getting aid does not seem to be as much a problem as using that well and to the satisfaction of the donors. Even training in capacity-building does not seem to improve our performance much.

The government is acting more vigorously on the consumer front. To bring down the cement price it has permitted the import of cement and made it duty-free. It is importing 50,000 tonnes of sugar and also releasing some from stocks held by the Trading Corporation of Pakistan of about 300,000 tonnes. But the import of such commodities in large quantities seem to bring down the prices of such items by small amounts. In the case of cement it is reported to have come down by only Rs 2 a bag.

The government wants to act on the consumer front tactfully as that is the only option it has while it does not want to have a crackdown on hoarders of sugar or cement, but co-exist with them. The businessmen know that very well, hence while trying for the control of the imported items, they reduce their own prices marginally.

Now the government is reported to be allowing duty free import of chicken to bring down the high chicken prices. What is apparent is that if the government wants to bring down the prices kept up often through a strong cartel system, it should try to promote an alternative distribution system. That should not be an official machinery but another private sector system. Which believes in competition and practices that actively.

Instead prime minister Shaukat Aziz believes in creating a glut of the items in short supply or which are high priced to bring down the prices. Anyway, it is a tactic worth trying to force down the prices by increasing the available supply of goods.

Shaukat Aziz has valid reason for trying such tactics. If earlier he did that in view of the local bodies’ elections which the government wanted to win through its proxies, now it has the general elections of 2007 in mind, as Gen Musharraf would also be contesting the election for the presidency. Hence his promise of safe drinking water and electricity in every home by the year 2007 which is also reaffirmed by him. But they may not be able to make enough progress in the areas of abolishing poverty in which a third of the people of Pakistan live.

How can poverty be reduced if the Sindh Zakat Council can’t meet the target of distributing Rs2 billion as Zakat. The persons concerned were busy politicking or engaged otherwise pre-occupied to be able to complete the task. If available money could not be distributed it should be more difficult to raise larger funds.

All major visitors, particularly the donors, give the government a lecture on the urgency for rapidly reducing poverty. The government agrees in principle, but not enough is one by the officials concerned. And no one is punished as the culprits involved are too many and it is a routine occurrence. In the country as the poor have no political clout in a country marked for stuffed ballot boxes during the elections.

The people hardly ever had a chance to throw out a government or instal a government of their choice. That is often the task of the army chiefs. As a result we often get a government marked for its poor governance, corruption and the red tape which make matters worse. And that invites stern lectures from the donors who speak in the name of the poor and the deprived in the country.

An ADB report says there were 671 million poor people in the world in 2004. Fifty million of them should be Pakistanis. China and India have reduced the number of their poor, although India has still a large number of the poor despite the concept of “India shining.” We have to make determined efforts to reduce the poverty instead of lowering the tape for measuring poverty.

Meanwhile, failure of the government in the US to cope with the hurricane Katrina in which about 10,000 reportedly died will be used as a pretext by governments of developing countries around the world to justify their own failure in such calamities. They may ask how can they succeed when the richest government failed? What ha happened in the US is a multiple tragedy.

I HAPPENED to watch Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s interview on CNN the other day. He said that he was the chief executive of the country and had a completely free hand and full authority to run the affairs of the government. He then added that he had a very good working relationship with the president, whose advice and guidance he sought in matters of national importance.

A friend watching the programme with me immediately recalled the old joke about a man who had displayed a large portrait of his in the house with the prominent caption, “I am the master of the House”. The very small print underneath said, “With the permission of my wife, of course.”

Be that as it may, the prime minister acquitted himself with credit during this interview and projected the country very well, also quite deftly covering up the weaknesses and shortcomings of the government set-up and our society in general. He was articulate, spoke softly and sounded sincere and convincing, something that had been clearly beyond our prime ministers for many years.

Some people continue to allege that Shaukat Aziz is an import and not home-grown. If a man is good enough to distinguish himself at the international level for an extended period, surely this is no reason why he should not be made use of at home. Yes, he lacks political experience, but then we have scores of others, of all hues and varying quality, to make a noise and fill this turbulent and shady arena.

Surely we also need someone to ensure that we do not become a basket case. True, poverty alleviation schemes have not so far made a visible dent and inflation is galloping along, but we must also give him credit for bailing out the country from the edge of bankruptcy, thus giving us some breathing space and an opportunity to formulate and implement sound economic policies.

Yes, corruption at the working level in all segments continues unhindered to the great detriment of us all, and drastic measures are certainly needed to stem this ravaging tide. But some slight solace can perhaps be had from the assurance that most of those who currently sit at or near the top, have not followed in the footsteps of so-called genuine political bigwigs of the recent past. It is believed that such improvement is also in evidence in most of the top ranks of the armed forces that had, not so long ago, been guilty of bringing all three services into disrepute through their massive corruption.

Those of the armed forces guilty of this reprehensible crime, dead or alive, deserve the severest possible castigation, including the confiscation of their entire assets. This is perhaps a digression but it needs to be said from every possible platform that the wealth stolen by the fathers should not be allowed to become a stepping stone for their progeny to climb to important positions in the structure of the state.

And now a few words about national security. The first point I would like to make is that national security has many elements and tiers, of which the armed forces are just one component, albeit a very important one. Having said that, allow me to emphasize that firm and long-term security of the state is not possible without providing its citizens with at least basic subsistence, education and health care.

For much too long have we neglected these basic ingredients of national security and failed to allocate them adequate resources.

This must be remedied at the earliest if we are not to continue marching forward on a path that cannot but lead to the state’s failure and collapse.

Our leaders have for decades together continued to promise a better tomorrow, but we are fooling ourselves if we think that this is possible without a very substantial reduction in both the birth rate and what we spend on defence. Just imagine how far we would have advanced during the last half century if our population had not grown so alarmingly, and we had not had to cater for meeting the threat of a war with India.

Some South Asian countries that were way behind us in every sphere fifty years ago, have shot past us while we wallow in our poverty, illiteracy and deprivation of every kind. Surely, this is a massive failure of leadership and our national ethos. We should have seen to it that our disputes with India were resolved expeditiously and we did not have to bear the back-breaking burden of maintaining oversized armed forces at a prohibitive cost.

Is it not a shame that no country in our part of the world spends nearly as much of its national resources as we do on defence, and as little as we do on education, the bedrock of all advancement and prosperity? Better late than never, these crippling imbalances must be redressed at the earliest if we are not to seal our continuing decline and eventual collapse.

Surely, this country was not created to perpetuate our poverty and backwardness while others advance and prosper and we can’t even provide safe drinking water to our people.

And now to touch on what is regarded a sensitive issue in our society. There is no denying that it is an incontrovertible verity that it is individuals who possess and proclaim religious faith, not a piece of real estate that defines the geographical boundaries of a state. History is overflowing with examples to prove that a collusion of religion and politics has unfailingly undermined national unity and led to strife, violence, persecution and decline in every national sphere.

To cite just one example, Europe began to advance and prosper only after it freed itself from the shackles of the Church. Religion is indeed a very important element of one’s make-up, but when it is thrown into the rough and tumble of the political arena, it is not only disfigured and corrupted but also becomes a tool of oppression, and promotes insidious divisions to the detriment of the security of the state.

That is why the Quaid-i-Azam had admonished the framers of the constitution that religion, caste or creed have nothing to do with the business of the state — a lesson we have neglected and violated, landing ourselves in a treacherous quicksand; and now herculean efforts are required to claw back to terra firma.

Let me also add that the safety of the lives and property of its people is the first and the foremost duty of a state worth its name. Tolerating the existence of armed militias under any garb, and the spread of lethal weapons among the populace, are a sure recipe for disaster and collective suicide. It is idle to talk of national security in such a volatile and explosive scenario, and if the army cannot correct this situation and excise this spreading cancer, who else can? Let this be the first and foremost task of the Generals and the hordes of troops they command.

Much is said about our nuclear capability having provided us inviolable security. This is not a correct assumption. Nuclear weapons can never be used against a nuclear adversary by any responsible state as their use would be tantamount to committing mutual suicide. The only situation where they might possibly be used would be by a powerful state against a non-nuclear state far away from its borders.

The only value of nuclear weapons in our situation is an insurance against their use by an adversary in our neighbourhood. They do not constitute a defence against an attack employing any other means.

On the debit side, their possession poses the problem of their firm control, and confronts one with the danger of their falling into the hands of unauthorized elements who would have no compunction about throwing them on those they imagine to be their enemies. God forbid that such a situation should ever arise, for it would not only be the end of everything we value and cherish but will also sound the death-knell of us all.

In the end, may I say that we must give up the idle pretence that the whole world is conspiring against us and all our troubles can be blamed on a “foreign hand”. The prime minister would do well to put his entire weight behind setting our own house in order, thereby dispelling the belief in several important countries that Pakistan is an exporter of terrorism and is involved in selling nuclear weapon technology.

The consequences of a failure in this regard are too horrible to comprehend fully. It is to be hoped that all concerned authorities are fully aware of the enormity of the stakes involved.

The writer is a retired air marshal of Pakistan Air Force.

IT’S safe to say that if George W Bush was in his first term, he would now be heading for defeat. Safe, because we will never know: he’s in his second term and will never face the voters again.

That quirk in the US system, with its strict two-term rule, makes it hard to read the impact Hurricane Katrina will have on the Bush presidency. Nor is it much easier to tell how the disaster that drowned one of America’s best-loved cities will change the country itself. But both questions matter — especially for a wider world that has come to learn that what happens in the US affects everyone.

Start with Bush himself. Weekend polls suggested 50-50 America has once again split down the middle, with Bush opponents disapproving of his abysmal non-performance last week while Bush-supporters stay loyal. That’s heartened Republicans who were bracing themselves for much worse numbers.

They find further cheer in their belief that Bush bounces back in a crisis. Attacked for his immediate response to 9/11, he turned that calamity into the defining moment of his first term.

Privately, conservatives also wonder how much sympathy white, suburban America — the crucial middle ground all politicians covet — will feel for Katrina’s victims.

One close-up observer describes what he suspects is a widely-held — if rarely articulated — view of those left behind in New Orleans: “They lived in a silly place, they didn’t get out when they should, they stole, they shot at each other and they shot at rescue workers.” If that’s the view, then Bush won’t suffer too badly.

Pessimistic Bushites see things differently. They reckon the sight of so many black Americans left destitute or dying while Washington idled will embarrass those same white suburban voters who, they say, feel uncomfortable at even a hint of racism.

They also believe Bush and chief strategist Karl Rove can consign to the trash-can their long-term dream of peeling at least some African-American voters away from the Democrats. Bush had scored some small successes in that direction: now he can forget it.

More directly, the charge of incompetence is deadly when applied to the White House: it could instantly diminish Bush, reducing him to a lame duck nearly two years ahead of schedule.

The most immediate test will be in his nominations for what are now two vacancies on the supreme court. He has made one choice already; if he feels obliged to nominate a liberal or centrist as his second, rather than the red-meat conservative he would have preferred, that will be proof that Katrina has hobbled him.

What of America itself? Since the country’s founding, the US has oscillated between international engagement and isolationism. Sometimes it wants to look outward, sometimes in. The hurricane may well put Americans in the latter mood.

As they look at pictures of US troops toiling away in Iraq, many will surely think: what the hell are we doing there, when we have so much work to do right here at home?

Adrian Wooldridge, co-author with John Micklethwait of an excellent study of conservative America, The Right Nation, anticipates just such a sentiment. “The big losers among Republicans will be the neocons,” he says.

“The hubris of thinking America could reshape the world, creating a democracy in hostile territory, when it can’t even keep order in an American city — that hubris has just been punctured in a big way.” Now it will be images of Katrina which are foremost in the public mind, replacing the four-year-old memories of 9/11. The “global war on terror” could well lose its place as the all-consuming, number-one priority.

Indeed, all previous assumptions are now up for grabs. Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, conservatives have won the argument for a shrunken state, one that taxes and spends less. That neoliberal model — with its emphasis on privatisation and deregulation — has spread across the world, often imposed on countries that did not want it. It continues to split the European Union, with France and others insisting that their own social model is superior.

Katrina has reopened that debate in neoliberalism’s motherland. Suddenly progressive Americans detect an opening, a chance to speak up for active government, even for taxing and spending.

The hurricane has made their case immediate and simple: you can only neglect the public realm for so long. Do so for a generation and the levees will break - and an entire city will be washed away.

Still, it’s not obvious that the progressives will prevail. For one thing, Bush is not quite the no-spend conservative we imagine. The US government has actually expanded more under Bush than it did under Bill Clinton. It’s not just defence and homeland security: Bush has spent billions in traditional areas, including education — much to the ire of hardcore Reaganites.

Some of that cash has gone on building projects, usually in the pork-barrel schemes beloved of senators and congressmen keen to show they can bring home the federal bacon. The result, says Micklethwait, is that most of the country’s infrastructural needs have been catered for, if only “accidentally”. Louisiana may have suffered because its representatives did not have their snouts deep enough into the federal trough. Advocates of government action have other problems.

After 9/11, Democrats made a similar demand and won the new Department for Homeland Security as a result. That is the department now blamed for handling Katrina so badly. The only success story of the last week has been the characteristic American outpouring of generosity from individuals, churches and others keen to help the needy. That has enabled the right to argue that it’s these voluntary “armies of compassion” that get the job done, not central government.

The left has another impediment, one that has dogged its opposition to the Iraq war: a lack of leadership. There are few Democrats bold enough to step forward and make the post-Katrina case for an active, caring government. That’s partly tactical — Democrats reckon it’s smarter to let Bush hang himself — and partly because the party remains split, divided into modernising and traditionalist camps.

The most likely result is that America won’t rethink the size of the state so much as its efficiency. Simple competence could become the key political virtue. Step forward Rudy Giuliani, whose post 9/11 record contrasts so starkly with Bush’s errors last week. His chances of winning the Republican presidential nomination for 2008 look better than ever.

There could also be a change in tone, with conservatives obliged to cool down the anti-government, low-tax rhetoric of old. Yesterday the Senate was due to debate a cut in inheritance tax that would have delighted the super-wealthy: mindful of the new mood, the Republicans quietly put it on ice.

Hurricanes toss everything into the air; how things settle afterwards is up to the people on the ground. A new political settlement will not come about by a simple act of nature — it has to be fought for and won. And that process is just beginning. —Dawn/Guardian Service