6
SOME months ago, Dr Muzaffar A. Issani, writing to this paper, had taken a critical view of how land rights are understood.
While his take on feudalism might have been debatable, as a representative of a political party (PML-N) his interest in the issue was encouraging.
The demand for land rights, a minimum asset base; and social security, a minimum income for decent living is an important protection for citizens provided by states committed to equity.
Article 38A of our constitution outlines the state’s responsibility to provide “social security by compulsory social insurance or other means; provide basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical relief, for all such citizens”.
The existing level of inequality in Pakistan is too outrageous to assume that economic growth will suffice to eradicate mass impoverishment.
The rural household that comprises a significant proportion of the population is largely landless, with those in the agriculture sector earning around Rs5,000-6,000 per month, much less than the government-fixed minimum wage. The urban poor struggle for shelter, with almost half housed in slums.
Twenty-five million children are denied schools, and a dilapidated public health sector fails as a healthcare option for the majority. Seventy per cent of the labour force is informally employed and remains unprotected by labour laws. Malnutrition is a stark reality while the social security system covers merely five per cent workers and 3.9 million recipients of the Benazir Income Support Programme.
This state of inequitable access to basic amenities, vulnerable livelihood and denial of social justice represents a disempowered citizenship. It also leads to a compromised public participation and representation in the political system, unaffordable for a country struggling to cultivate its democratic roots.
In this backdrop, a fundamental question that our policymakers and public representatives need to answer is: how do they look at the vast numbers of impoverished, deprived and excluded?
Are they merely a constituency that ought to be supported, just enough to manage economic risks but not enough to act as an independent force? Do conditions of abject poverty not symbolise public representatives’ and the state’s failure to protect the citizens’ wellbeing? An honest introspection would help.
The second question relates to the means to address poverty. A choice has to be made between supervising a permanent poverty trap with varying degrees of deprivation, and supporting a system where the poor are participants in the growth process, equipped with the capacity to pursue a better living; and engage, influence and transform a discriminatory system.
It is with these conditions in mind that land rights are presented as necessary to address a disempowered citizenship. The tendency to describe land as a factor of agricultural production overlooks its significance as a political, social and economic asset.
Land represents prospects for political and social progress, and empowerment that comes from a secure economic base. This includes shelter, income, access to credit, and access to natural resources, among others.
Denial of this security translates into denial of opportunities that a sustainable asset base could offer. The result is chronic poverty since the poor remain unable to invest in health, education and environmental conservation.
Likewise, land’s link with malnourishment is deep. In a recent Woodrow Wilson Centre study on food security, we are reminded of China’s relatively more egalitarian land distribution pattern that resulted in better-nourished households than in India.
Along similar lines, Dr Aly Ercelan of the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research focusing on Sindh, linked rural poverty with lack of access to decent wages. This in turn makes minimum nutritional standards unaffordable.
One cannot disagree that agrarian reforms could boost productivity and may even lead to improved wages and living conditions. However, a stronger case for agrarian reforms can only be made when there is a better equitable asset distribution order for the participants in production. The earlier Green Revolution is an example.
An unequal landscape for production where land, a key factor, remained acutely concentrated resulted in an unequal access to advanced technology. The majority of Pakistani farmers, with their modest means, were unable to benefit from the “revolutionary” technology.
The landed political leadership often complains that the proponents of land rights ignore urban deprivation. They vaguely suggest distribution of industrial assets as a solution; an impossible proposition.
Admittedly a relatively more diverse urban economy has failed to address poverty and absence of an asset base. Urban poverty needs tackling too, through access to assets, shelter, food and basic services, income-generation opportunities and social protection. Industries must also better their contribution towards taxes and ensure minimum wages for an equitable income distribution regime.
Some also argue that small landholdings compromise agriculture productivity. In fact, numerous studies support small land holdings for sustainable agriculture production.
Large land holdings, with disputed economies of scale, have a tendency to restrict crop range while also resulting in undue market power leading to further imbalances. This is evident in Pakistan where a limited variety of food and fibre crops dominate 80 per cent of the production area.
Poverty, as a strong reality in everyday Pakistan, is not merely an economic problem; its political repercussions are much deeper. The elected government’s inability to address growing inequality is leading to resentment against democracy as a system of governance.
It is widely agreed that the future of Pakistan lies in a democratic, egalitarian, pluralistic social arrangement. If democracy is rejected for its governance and policymaking failures, our public representatives will have no institution to blame this time in their campaign for the upcoming elections.
The writer works for the Pakistan Institute of Labour Education and Research.
