High cost of the conflict

ECONOMIC costs associated with the pestering Kashmir conflict and the resultant slowdown in the rate of economic growth can be estimated by using counterfactual analyses of the type described in a previous article. This can be done by estimating the cost of the conflict and likely benefits that would have resulted had relations between the two countries been more amicable.

We can distinguish among four different costs of the conflict and than estimate the benefits that would have accrued to the economy and to the society had India and Pakistan been on better terms with each other. The four areas of likely benefit include reduced military expenditures; increase in intra-regional trade, in particular trade between India and Pakistan; a larger flow of foreign direct investment; and an investor-friendly domestic environment.

There is no doubt that in the absence of the Kashmir dispute, military expenditure as a proportion of GDP would have been lower in the case of Pakistan than for India. Small countries in the neighbourhood of large states tend to spend less on defence if relations among them are cordial. In 2002, Argentina, for instance, spent only 1.1 per cent of its GDP on defence compared to 1.6 per cent for Brazil. For Canada, the proportion was only 1.1 per cent compared to 3.4 per cent for the United States.

Even Bangladesh, that now has uneasy relations with India, the country’s much larger neighbour, spent only 1.1 per cent on defence. If Pakistan had spent 2.5 per cent on defence — a proportion roughly equivalent to that of India — it could have saved as much as three per cent of GDP a year. Compounded over this period, the amount saved is equivalent to four times the country’s gross domestic product.

What would have been the consequence if this entire amount had been invested in the economy? Assuming that the rate of return would have been the same as that realized from investments in the past, additional capital flows into the economy would have significantly added to the rate of growth of the economy. Put another way, military expenditure maintained at a level of 2.5 per cent a year with savings utilized at an incremental capital ratio of four — which means that investment equal to four per cent of GDP raises the rate of GDP growth by one per cent — would have increased the long-term GDP growth rate by as much as 0.75 per cent a year. This addition to the rate of GDP growth compounded over a period of 55 years would have meant an increase of more than 50 per cent in the size of the gross domestic product.

While a smaller amount committed to military expenditure would have directly contributed to increasing GDP growth, conflict with India also hurt Pakistan by reducing trade as a proportion of its economy. India’s initial antipathy towards Pakistan was not the result of the Kashmir dispute. The first generation of Indian leaders — in particular Jawaharlal Nehru, the country’s prime minister and Sardar Vallahbhai Patel, the powerful interior minister in the first Indian cabinet — were angry at Mohammad Ali Jinnah, and his political associates.

Jinnah and his colleagues stood in the way of the realization of the Hindu leadership’s dream of a united India. The Indian leaders were also convinced that they could get Pakistan to return to the Indian fold by increasing the economic cost of separation. It was this reason and not because of Kashmir that India launched its first trade war against Pakistan. However, Kashmir later worsened relations between the two countries and progressively loosened the strong economic links that had existed between the two parts of British India before they became independent states.

Had the two countries continued to trade at the level of the exchanges that occurred before independence, the rate of increase in international trade in the case of Pakistan would have been of the order of eight to 10 per cent a year, rather than the average six per cent achieved over the last quarter of a century. This, too, would have contributed to increasing the growth in GDP.

The World Bank maintains that growth in trade leads to an increase in GDP by a perceptible amount. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that by maintaining trade with India at the levels of the late 1940s Pakistan would have added another one-third to half a percentage point to its GDP increase. This would have meant an additional one-third increase in the current level of GDP.

The other important outcome of good relations with India would have been greater flow of foreign direct investment into the country. The contribution large FDI flows have made to the development and modernization of the economies of East Asia is now well recognized. South Asia has not benefited from the increased availability of these flows in large part because of the security problems associated with the Kashmir conflict.

There were other reasons as well, among them the less open economic policies followed by the countries in South Asia for nearly four decades. However, even when these policies were abandoned in favour of greater openness — and they were in the early 1990s — foreign capital still did not become an important component of investment for the South Asian region. This was particularly the case for Pakistan. Better relations with India and greater amounts of intra-regional trade would have brought in additional foreign direct investment into the country, adding significantly to the relatively low level of domestic savings and domestic investments. In 2002, Pakistan received $823 million FDI compared to $3 billion for India. Both countries did poorly in that area compared to those in East Asia. For instance, Malaysia received $3.2 billion, Thailand $2.4 billion, South Korea $2.0 billion, and the Philippines $1.1 billion.

Foreign investors stayed away partly because of the less open economies of the region but also because of the virtual absence of intra-regional trade and a deep concern about security. If these concerns were not there, both India and Pakistan would have attracted amounts of capital on the order of perhaps $10 billion for the former and $2 billion a year for the latter. Two billion dollars of foreign flows would be equivalent to three per cent of Pakistan’s GDP.

Pakistan has had a long history of poor domestic savings rates which translate into low rates of investment unless foreign capital is available. In the 1990s while domestic savings increased from 11 to 13 per cent — from 1990 to 2002 — gross capital formation declined by four percentage points, from 19 to 15 per cent of gross domestic product. The eight per cent savings-investment gap was covered by foreign flows in 1990; the decline in foreign flows brought investment closer to domestic savings by 2002.

Had foreign private capital been available in 2002 to the extent suggested above — in the neighbourhood of $2 billion a year — this would have brought investment back to the levels of the late 1980s. Foreign flows amounting to about three per cent of GDP would have added about 0.75 per cent to the rate of economic growth.

A serious investment gap emerged between Pakistan and India in the 1990s at the height of the insurgency in Kashmir. According to a study carried out by Ijaz Nabi and his associates at the World Bank, private investment in India and Pakistan was about the same in 1982-1991. However in 1992-2001, private investment in Pakistan was six percentage points lower than in India. A part of this gap — say about 75 per cent — can be attributed to the deterioration of the investment climate in Pakistan caused by the rise of Islamic militancy in the country which in turn was associated with the Kashmir problem.

These factors lowered investment rates in Pakistan by 4.5 percentage points compared to that in India. This implies loss in growth of at least one percentage point of GDP. Stable relations with India would have brought economic and perhaps also economic stability to Pakistan. This would have produced better investment climate in the country and contributed to higher levels of domestic savings and investment. This would have also contributed to increasing the rate of GDP growth.

By aggregating the four positive consequences for the Pakistani economy if the country had not gotten embroiled in the Kashmir dispute, it would appear that the country’s long-term growth rate could have been some two to two and a half percentage points higher than that actually achieved. A higher rate of growth of this magnitude, sustained over a period of half a century, would have increased the gross product by a factor of between 3.4 and 4.4. Pakistan’s gross domestic product could have been three and a half times larger than that in 2003-04 — $330 billion rather than $95 billion — and its income per capita would have been $2200 rather than $630 had the country been at peace with India.

This estimate, of course, is a very rough order of magnitude. It is based on a series of heroic assumptions about the efficient use of resources diverted from military to development expenditure; about a significant increase in trade with India and higher level of trade contributing to economic growth; about Pakistan becoming an attractive area for foreign direct investment; and about domestic savings and investment increasing with the presence of tranquillity in the region. Even if half of the benefits estimated above had been actually realized, they are sizable and they would have changed the economic, political and social complexion of Pakistan.

In sum a good case can be made that Pakistan, in particular, has paid a very heavy economic, social and political cost for continuing to keep the Kashmir case on the front burner. This is a good time to take a very hard look at the cost-benefit calculus of the position the country has adopted in the past over the dispute in Kashmir. The situation has begun to change largely because of the promise of peace between India and Pakistan. New investments have begun to flow into the country in particular from the Arab world; Pakistan’s own private sector has become active; the rate of economic growth has picked up perceptibly; the incidence of poverty has begun to decline; Pakistan now seems ready to join other fast growing Asian economies. It would be a pity if Kashmir is allowed to intervene once again in the form of a dispute that attracts extremist elements in both countries. They will try to derail the process on which India and Pakistan are currently engaged. Both Delhi and Islamabad must resist these attempts.

Pakistan’s wasted years

FEW nations have within their territory all the requirements for industrial development. As one of the few, Pakistan, with its vast human and natural resources, should have been transformed into a modern, industrialized nation and its people should have been enjoying a quality of life equal to that of the people of the developed nations.

After all, this was the vision of its founding fathers and its raison d’etre as well. Yet, even after 58 years, it remains what it was at birth — an underdeveloped state.

On the other hand, those nations over whom Pakistan had a head start, have overtaken it and are now poised to join the ranks of the developed nations. These include South Korea, destroyed by war, Malaysia, crippled by insurgency, and China, devastated by opium and civil wars. Take Japan, already advanced industrially long before the birth of Pakistan, but destroyed by nuclear strikes, recovered to become one of the world’s leading economies. The absence of natural resources did not deter South Korea and Japan; they converted their population into their greatest resource.

These nations had the most important asset that Pakistan has lacked since the elimination of its first prime minister — quality leadership. Volumes have been written on Pakistan’s crisis of leadership. Here it would suffice to say that just because he or she is a politician doesn’t mean that he or she will make a good leader too. By the same token, just because he is a general doesn’t mean that he’s a good leader too. Had this not been so, political stability should have been achieved, economic backwardness should have been overcome and wars that were lost should have been won.

Leadership is art in motion. It transcends all other things in beauty and is the best gift that can be given to a people. Whether leaders are born or made is an endless debate. Like all other arts leadership too can be learned but only by those who are willing to experience the joys of learning and benefit from it. The learning of leadership never ends; it’s a lifelong development process. All great leaders were good learners. It is the all-knowing types who think that learning is something that ended in school, who are anathema to good leadership.

The great leaders start by articulating a vision that inspires the nation, then developing a plan to achieve it. They create an environment where performance and commitment predominate, not mediocrity and flattery, where decisions taken are based on principles, not expediency, where the focus is on achieving breakthroughs, not incremental change, and where the complex is translated into simple concepts or propositions. They earn respect, not demand it. According to George Bernard Shaw, “Titles distinguish the mediocre, embarrass the superior, and are disgraced by the inferior.”

If, by a quirk of fate, one such leader had blessed Pakistan, its history would have been embellished by stories of success, not tainted by failure. Instead, what it got were leaders whose thought was distinguished, only by stunning mediocrity and whose actions reflected lack of acumen and wisdom. Therefore, it’s not surprising that they proved unequal to the responsibilities placed on them and the challenges that confronted them.

The result was that the country lost 58 years in time and 114,000 square kilometres in space, while the challenges have assumed massive proportions: the country’s population has grown at one of the highest rates in the world. So has the number of people living below the poverty line so too has illiteracy and the problems that inevitably arise from it — ignorance, obscurantism, bigotry, prejudice and sectarianism.

But the greatest challenge that has faced Pakistan since its birth is feudalism and tribalism. They have put a stranglehold on the state, enslaved millions of people and institutionalized mediocrity. Predisposed to status quo, they resist any call for reform. Since enlightenment of the people is anathema to them, modernization and moderation, which stem from it, cannot be achieved.

In the same way, democracy, which is the antithesis of feudal/tribal system, can never take root in their presence. Their products and protagonists (from selfish motives) have dominated political power from the start, to he exclusion of some of the finest minds in the country who, when given a chance, turned Pakistan into a nuclear capable state, both at the strategic and tactical levels, but who will keep languishing on the sidelines while the feudal/tribal domination lasts.

Acquiring power is fine. But it must than be used to improve the quality of life of the people. Retaining power is also fine, but only when it is earned on the basis of performance. In Pakistan, however, to retain it, the leadership must be willing to sacrifice national interests, aims and institutions.

It was this willingness that led to the creation of Bangladesh, to the attack on the Supreme Court, to the decline of higher judiciary, to the vilification of the army through ‘rogue army’ ads placed in US newspapers, to the parochial slogan of ‘jaag Punjab jaag’, etc. In the years that followed the country’s break-up, the remaining Pakistan had been reduced to a sorry state. Yet, instead of showing remorse, the failed leadership has the temerity to clamour for power as if it is their birthright.

It is not Pakistan’s nuclear power but its industrial growth that will determine its emergence as a great power. For this to happen, its capacity for utilizing natural resources and its manufacturing output will have to enhanced.

This will entail creating the required infrastructure and developing the population into an educated, trained, skilled, motivated and productive human resource.

But the problem is that Pakistan’s human development index is one of the lowest in the world, its water and power sector has almost collapsed, and the feudal/tribal structure does not allow population development.

What is it that has given rise to the crisis of leadership in Pakistan? Is it climate, which affects people’s vigour and general outlook on life? Is it the environment, the sum of external conditions and factors, which affects people? Is it feudalism and tribalism? Or is it something else?

The challenges facing the present leadership are awesome. Is it willing to take them on? If so, it will have to demolish the existing structure, lay new foundations and start building a new Pakistan. Better late than never. Until then, the legacies of the past will continue to haunt the country, and its people will keep living in the ruins of history.

Bad case for a fight

AS a journalist, I’m angry that Judith Miller of the New York Times is in jail today for trying to protect a confidential source. But I am also angry that the press has allowed itself to be dragged into a no-win case that will weaken our ability to protect true whistle-blowers and thereby serve the public.

With the Valerie Plame leak investigation, the press has planted its flag on the least favourable ground to fight the larger battle for confidentiality. This is a case in which the sources weren’t disclosing wrongdoing by others but were allegedly doing wrong themselves by blowing the cover of a CIA officer.

The journalists’ position became even more awkward after special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald compelled sworn testimony from senior White House officials who were the likely leakers. If one of them had confessed, the case would be over. But what seems possible is that one or more White House officials who leaked information has denied under oath being the source. If so, this is now an investigation of perjury or obstruction of justice.

For months it has been clear that this case was likely to make bad law: appellate rulings that would erode journalists’ ability to protect their sources. That’s one reason why some prominent reporters — including ones with The Post and NBC News — let their lawyers work out arrangements that would provide Fitzgerald with information he wanted, without compromising the confidentiality agreements the reporters had made with their sources. These negotiations were delicate, involving sources’ consent that reporters testify about their conversations. But they allowed both sides to preserve the essential points of principle — and avoid the train wreck that obviously lay ahead.

The New York Times and Miller decided not to try to finesse the issue. Instead, they opted for what the Times editorially has described as an act of “civil disobedience,” in which Miller refused to comply with a grand jury subpoena even after the issue had been litigated to the US Supreme Court. The Times has been a crusader, but the paper admitted in an editorial yesterday: “To be frank, this is far from an ideal case. We would not have wanted our reporter to give up her liberty over a situation whose details are so complicated and muddy.”

So the train wreck happened. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, in affirming the district court’s finding that Miller was in contempt, bluntly rejected the idea that journalists have any privilege that allows them to ignore grand jury subpoenas. That appeared to narrow slightly the scope of journalists’ privilege that developed after the Supreme Court’s 1972 decision in Branzburg v. Hayes , and last month the high court let this narrower opinion stand.

So what should the press do now? Journalists must applaud Miller’s courageous willingness to go to jail. But the real task for the profession is to think more clearly about the basics of reporter-source privilege, so that in the future we’ll have firmer ground on which to take a principled stand.

We should begin by agreeing that the reporter-source privilege isn’t absolute — any more than attorney-client privilege or doctor-patient privilege. The American Bar Association’s code of ethics recognizes, for example, that the confidentiality of conversations between an attorney and client is limited by what’s known as the “crime fraud exception.” The privilege can be breached if the attorney learns his client is planning to commit a crime or if the attorney is himself participating in a crime or fraud.

For reporters, the confidentiality of conversations with sources is (and always has been) subject to such a balancing test in court. At issue is whether the public interest is served by the reporter-source privilege. That’s what makes the Plame case so vexing: It’s hard to see the larger principle in this particular set of facts.

The scariest part — not just for journalists but for our readers who want the truth — is that we’re now likely to see an open season on reporters and sources. The Plame case is a big neon sign advertising our vulnerability, and prosecutors and defence lawyers are likely to try to take advantage of the court’s emphatic new denial of our claims of special privilege.

The way out of this mess is to enact a federal shield law to protect reporters’ conversations with their sources. But while waiting for a media-friendly Congress (which could be quite a while), the press needs to pick its fights wisely. We are not asking for a different category of citizenship from other people, only a chance to do our jobs in a way that serves the public interest. —Dawn/Washington Post Service

I’m sorry

THIS period in history will be known as the “Age of Non-Apology.” Politics means never having to say you are sorry.

Schools are making non-apology part of their curriculum. Professor Henry Sorrowful, at Misspoken University, has just written a book titled “Unfair and Unsubstantiated Charges of the First Degree.”

“Professor Sorrowful,” I said. “I read your book. Why is never apologizing more important now than ever before?”

He said, “Because politics is getting nastier and nastier. Americans don’t care what they say because they know they don’t have to apologize for it later.”

“But Sen. Durbin said he was sorry he compared Guantanamo with the Nazi concentration camps and the Soviet gulags.”

Sorrowful explained, “The senator said it, but at the same time, when he said he was sorry, he was able to repeat the charges. The Republicans were happy because the demand for the apology took people’s minds off what kind of prison the Pentagon is running.”

I said, “Karl Rove never apologized for saying liberals look at Sept. 11 much differently from conservatives.”

Sorrowful said, “That was an old Sen. Joe McCarthy trick. You tell a blooper enough times and people will believe it.”

“If I were a liberal, I would be very hurt,” I said.

“Possibly, but liberals used it to show what a rotten administration is running the country. If Rove apologized, it would be a sign of Bush’s weakness.”

I said, “There’s more to saying you’re sorry than people might think.”

The professor agreed, “Both sides have raised the bar of hostility. Mud-slinging is more in demand than ever before. Truth is out of the window. Today’s speechwriters are given their orders: Attack, attack, attack.”

“Is this because name-calling helps raise money?” I asked.

“It’s essential. Even if you say something untruthful about a person, it can sell books. If the lie is in print, the public will buy it.”

Sorrowful continued, “For example, the conservatives are backing Edward Klein’s book about Hillary Clinton. They hope to hurt her chances of running for president in 2008. So far it has backfired on them because there are few facts to back Klein up. People who didn’t care one way or another have become sympathetic to Hillary.” I said, “At the same time, if Klein apologized, he wouldn’t sell any books. If Hitler had apologized for what he wrote in “Mein Kampf,” we might have avoided World War II. But you don’t have to be a politician to never say you’re sorry. I notice on talk shows people say things that they will never apologize for.”

The professor said, “I did a paper on Tom Cruise for the ‘Psycho Journal.’ It wasn’t about his love for Katie Holmes or his latest film, “War of the Worlds.” It concerned why he attacked Brooke Shields for using antidepressants to help get her out of the postpartum blues.”

“He’s not a doctor, is he?” I asked.

“No, he’s a Scientologist. When a person believes something as deeply as Tom does, you can’t expect him to tell Brooke Shields that medicine will help her feel better. It’s against his religion.”

“He’s not depressed, is he?”

“No. When I saw him on the Oprah Show jumping all over the furniture, I knew he was manic.” —Dawn/Tribune Media Services

Changing scenario in Egypt

A WIND of change is blowing across the Middle East. It may soon develop into a hurricane, even a political tsunami for the entire region. There are straws in the wind that suggest that the changes may radically transform the political landscape, with un-intended consequences. The factors are both indigenous and international.

Middle East societies have generally remained stable in the last few decades. The masses have acquiesced in the existing political order with the result that monarchs, despots and dictators have held sway, without any significant challenge to their authority. The major powers also remained indifferent to political repression or the absence of mass participation in the governance as their interests were focused on strategic economic dominance.

The events of 9/11 have radically altered this. The fact that the terrorists who blew up the World Trade Centre were all Arabs, mainly from pro-US countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt was a rude shock to policy planners in Washington. Among other measures, the US administration, in compliance with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, decided to engage in a campaign to win the hearts and minds of Muslims, and prevail upon their governments to introduce political reforms.

President Bush launched the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) in Dec 2002 with a budget of $100 million a year to promote political, educational and economic reforms and build a bridge between civil society and the government.

In his State of the Union address last January President Bush unfurled his doctrine of democracy. “It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture. Spreading freedom’s blessings is the calling of our times and when democracy and freedom take root in the Middle East, America and the world would be safer and more peaceful.”

Bush believed that the region bred terror, as it had developed dysfunctions caused by years of repression and total lack of political, economic and social modernization, and hence the absolute need for political reforms and a democratic political order. From the US point of view the initiative has led to significant advances. The elections in Iraq, occupied Palestine, Gaza and Lebanon and municipal elections in Saudi Arabia are cited as positive signs of the Middle East marching towards freedom and democracy. The Bush doctrine, even if a genuine attempt to weaken the appeal of terrorism by introducing participatory democracy, is still looked upon with suspicion. Anti-US sentiments are rife in the region and the masses are highly suspicious of and sensitive to US-introduced ideas and ideals. The Arab leaders also interpret the move as destabilizing and weakening of the existing government’s grip on power and disruptive of system. No wonder, the initiative has been given a cool reception even from traditional allies like Saudi Arabia, Oman and Egypt. Bush has asked Egypt to take the lead.

Egypt is not only a major US ally in the region, but also the most important developed Muslim country with 70 million people and a GDP exceeding $ 75 billion. Egypt has been pivotal to US policies in the Middle East. Its strategic location has endowed it with enormous political weight, particularly in the context of the Palestinian struggle and policies towards Israel.

President Hosni Mubarak who has been in power for almost a quarter of a century has been an important player in the Middle East peace process and stifled any opposition to his rule or anti-US sentiments. To demonstrate his commitment to democracy, Bush has publicly urged Mubarak that the forthcoming presidential elections “should allow multiple candidates, proceed with international monitors and with rules that allow for a real campaign.”

During a recent tour of the region US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice echoed the Bush doctrine of democracy and warned Arab leaders that “for 60 years, the US pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East, and we achieved neither. Now we are taking a different course.”

Ms Rice rejected Mubarak’s contention that radical reforms would destabilize Egypt and hurt US interests in the region. “Throughout the Middle East the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty. It is time to abandon the excuses that are made to avoid the hard work of democracy,” was her riposte.

The Egyptian constitution provides for a presidential system with most powers vested in the president who can appoint one or more vice-presidents, a prime minister and a cabinet. The president’s term runs for six years and Mubarak has already completed three terms of office. Egypt’s legislative body, the People’s Assembly has 454 members elected for five years, but can be dismissed by the president. There also is a 264-member Shura Council with 174 elected members and 88 nominated by the President.

There are significant restrictions on political parties. Besides the ruling National Democratic Party, there are 16 other legally recognized parties, but given the restrictive and repressive political process and provisions, these parties have no real say or representation. The country has remained under emergency for 25 years seriously curtailing fundamental rights. The media is totally under state control. The chief editors of major newspapers are appointed by the government and are required to reflect the government’s point of view and endorse its policies.

The presidential elections are due in September. Under US pressure, Mubarak proposed quite a few changes to the constitution to enable the political opposition to express itself. The amendments were put to referendum on May 25 and approved by 82 per cent of the voters. The opposition parties, however, boycotted the referendum saying that the proposed amendments did not allow for political discourse or dissent. The presidential candidates can only come from recognized political parties, which are almost moribund. Any independent candidate will have to obtain 250 signatures from the current members of parliament and counsellors. Egypt’s largest opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, remains excluded form the political mainstream.

The political scene, however, is changing fast. Opposition groups are getting organized and are campaigning for human rights and political multiplicity under an umbrella organization — the kifaya movement — which has provided a common platform to political and human rights activists ranging from the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood to Coptic Christians and secularists. The Kifaya movement has been encouraged by US advocacy for political reforms and an open democratic society. During her recent visit, Condoleezza Rice advised that credible elections must include “freedom of assembly, multiple candidates, free access of candidate to media and the right to form parties.”

The challenge to Mubarak’s rule is gaining momentum, attracting popular appeal and support reflecting widespread discontent and unrest. They are also campaigning for the suspension of the emergency laws imposed since Mubarak’s assumption of power and which bar public demonstrations. The charter of demands include public financing for elections campaigns, a non-party authority to conduct elections and to let international observers monitor the elections.

Mubarak has so far resisted the US proposed reforms. The opposition rallies have been broken, their supporters and leaders have been harassed and arrested including Ayman Noor, leader of Teggamo; the most credible opposition candidate for presidency. The president has unsuccessfully played on the fears of Americans and argued that a dramatic change or radical reforms would destabilize Egypt and also hurt US interests and hence the need for caution and a restrained push towards democracy.

Ms Rice told Mubarak that “throughout the Middle East the fear of free choices can no longer justify the denial of liberty. It is time to abandon the excuses that are made to avoid the hard work on democracy.” Egypt’s economy under Mubarak has made rapid strides, thanks to the US largesse of $2 billion, annually, since the signing of Camp David accords. Paradoxically, however, the economic boom has also made Egyptians restive and intolerant of the existing political order. The passion for change is gaining momentum.

Observers agree that constitutional changes permitting multiparty presidential elections do not provide much political space to Mubarak’s opponents and truly independent parties to participate. The re-election of Mubarak for yet another term is, therefore, almost certain. Mubarak’ re-election for a fifth term, however, could be viewed as rigged and manipulated.

Even if there is no immediate violent reaction to Mubarak’s re-election, he would be a weak president unable to govern and control.

There is a close parallel to the situation in Indonesia in 1997. Suharto managed to win another term, but public distrust and discontent led to frequent protests and violence in Jakarta, soon spreading to other regions. The country faced a state of anarchy and civil war. The economic meltdown led to a catastrophic fall in the value of the Indonesian currency.

After decades of repression and denial, the Egyptians are tasting the fruits of free speech, rights to assembly and freedom to choose their leaders. They will not be content with status quo. Only time will prove the validity of Ms Rice’s remarks that “there are those who say democracy leads to chaos, conflict and terror. In fact, the opposite is true.”

The writer is a former ambassador.