NO nation in the modern world has risen to prosperity and power unless its people have been blessed with three reforms in governance.

First — and it deserves to be repeated — first, when they have been blessed with the liberating powers of reform in the organisation of society, thus breaking the shackles imposed by centuries of mediaeval and, subsequently, colonial structures and creating opportunities for all those who were locked out.

Second, when people are blessed with the enabling powers of widespread education and skills that enhance abilities, give them a competitive edge and gather critical mass for society to take off.

Last, when they are blessed with fair and predictable processes of governance, rather than being made to suffer under a rule characterised by personal arbitrariness; in other words, when they are blessed with the protective powers of the rule of law that provide a level playing field, and ensure that the rights and rewards of the weak are not usurped by the strong.

It took pioneering England, some other European countries and the US several decades to perfect this model and achieve a transformation. Japan used the model and reduced the time span to 50 years while other East Asian nations refined this model further and arrived at the high table within 30 years.

So why haven’t most member countries of the OIC — some endowed with abundant resources — arrived at the high table even after being independent states for 60 to 80 years? The prescriptions dished out by those who control the state apparatus have not helped to cure the ailments that have been afflicting their societies for long.

If anything, the situation is getting worse. The disease of persistent underdevelopment — even when rich in resources — is now spreading and mutating into militant expressions of anger and impatience. The structures of state and society in most OIC countries are no different from those of other developing countries. Likewise, they carry a heavy baggage from their mediaeval and colonial past. The remedy lies — as in success stories in other cultures — in shedding this baggage by reorganising the state and society.

Very little exists by way of serious and objective studies and scholarship that have explored the issues of the decline and fall of Muslim societies over the last 500 years. Without much guidance provided by the rigours of objectivity on the basics of reorganising the state and society in their countries, it has been difficult for most OIC states to achieve even half the success recorded by others within the same time.

Some have preferred to take refuge in the revival of the failed mediaeval model, wishing that the rest of the world would also oblige them by going back to the equation of yesteryear in order to relive their past glories. But no one in the world is going to oblige us and return to the days of yore.

Others are happy to remain busy with superficial labels and the trappings of the modern world. They are hesitant to undertake the needed restructuring of the state and society that would bring the three blessings to their people and put their countries on the path to prosperity and power.Sixty years is a long time in today’s world to change the course of a nation if the instruments of governance are designed to produce such a transformation. But 60 years after independence, large sections of Pakistani society still await the three blessings to transform their lives. True, there have been specific achievements but these are islands surrounded by backwardness, poverty, underdevelopment and the disempowerment of large sections of society as discrepancies keep growing.

The social and economic reforms that liberate people from the shackles of the mediaeval and colonial times, and which usually come with the independence of a state to mark a break with the past, never really materialised for the vast majority of Pakistanis. Their rulers were happy for the colonials to depart for England but were reluctant to change colonial structures once they took control of the state apparatus.

A large part of society in Pakistan, therefore, has been carrying the old baggage — social, economic and political — much beyond independence. This baggage kept them in the mediaeval and colonial times and continues to do so. This is why the ‘trickle-down’ is not trickling down to the masses, and one sees development and disempowerment simultaneously acting on different sections of society and widening the disparities among them.

Of the several examples, let us select one that is often talked about. In 1951, Pakistan and South Korea had about the same level of literacy: 16 per cent for Pakistan and 21 per cent for South Korea. Pakistan had just won independence and Korea had seen the end of Japanese occupation.

While governance in Pakistan did not reform the mediaeval and colonial heritage of the structures of state and society and merely changed the rulers, South Korea changed not only the rulers, it also carried out extensive social and economic reforms that demolished the old baggage and empowered the vast majority of its people.

Consequently, while the South Korean literacy rate went up to about 90 per cent by 1981, in the same 30-year period Pakistan’s literacy rate was struggling at 26 per cent. Even after 60 years, the rate of literacy in Pakistan is still hovering around 50 per cent. The rapid rise in literacy soon translated into an educated and skilled workforce that helped put Korea on its path to industrialisation and prosperity.

There is another indicator. Again we start from the same benchmark. The exports of Pakistan and South Korea in 1951 were of the same order — about $50m each. But triggered by the social and economic reforms that raised the capabilities of a vast majority of its people, South Korean exports by 1981 had gone up to $18bn, while Pakistani exports stood at $2.5bn after the same period. Today, while our exports are around $18bn, South Korean exports have rocketed to nearly $300bn.

The purpose of this article is to remind OIC leaders that these things are doable without having to wait until eternity. Countries from different backgrounds — ethnic, religious and cultural — have used the same prescription of reforming the governance of state and society to bring power and prosperity to their nations. Following old prescriptions is causing bigger problems that need not occur if reform initiatives are undertaken.

The writer is a former head of Board of Investment and federal secretary.

smshah@alum.mit.edu