An alliance with West Asia

FOR most of its history, Pakistan managed to remain geo-politically and geo-economically of great interest to the West, in particular to the United States. For a number of years its northern border ran along the line the Americans drew to stop the advance of the Soviet Union towards South Asia and the Indian Ocean. America’s first war in Afghanistan — fought in the eighties following the entry of the Soviet troops into that country — would not have had a successful conclusion if Pakistan had not fought on Washington’s side.

Pakistan aided in many different ways the American effort against the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan. Some of what Pakistan did then — including the training and providing a sanctuary to the Afghan Mujahideen battling the Soviet forces — ultimately proved to be a very costly political and economic enterprise for the country.

Pakistan is now involved with America once again in Afghanistan. It is a critical ally in Washington’s second war in Afghanistan, fought against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. There have been some short-term benefits to Pakistan of its recent involvement. It has had some reduction in the burden of external debt it was carrying. It has received additional assistance for economic development. The State Bank has added substantially to its reserves. The textile industry has a better access to the markets of the European Union. But what about the long term? Will Pakistan manage to turn its regained geo-political advantage into an economic benefit that could be sustained for a long time? Before answering that question let me say a word also about the country’s geo-economic situation.

Pakistan’s geo-economic role in the region in the past had much to do with its proximity to the oil rich countries of the Middle East. The oil boom of the seventies and eighties fuelled an almost insatiable demand for all kinds of manpower in the oil exporting countries of the Middle East. They needed large numbers of unskilled, semi-skilled and highly skilled workers. Pakistan supplied them all. Without this flow of manpower from Pakistan to the Gulf states, their extraordinary economic performance would have been considerably less impressive.

Over time, however, Pakistan lost some of this access to the Middle East. For a number of reasons — some of them related to Pakistan’s deep involvement with radical Islam — the Gulf states began to favour nationals from other countries to those from Pakistan. Could Pakistan regain that access once again? I will answer that question a little later. For a little bit longer, I will stay with our recent history.

The decade of the nineties was the only period when Pakistan was not sought out as a partner in some political or economic enterprise. It was shunned by the West, ignored by the Middle East, and suspected by India and the countries of Central Asia. Only China could be counted upon to provide help during moments of extreme distress. The nineties saw Pakistan isolated. It was also the period during which Pakistan’s economic performance was exceedingly poor as the country moved from one crisis to another.

It would not be wrong to draw the conclusion, therefore, that Pakistan does well when it is a partner with other countries involved in some project or other. Now as the global economy moves into a new phase where regional associations become increasingly important, Pakistan will have to seek a place for itself. Where should it go in search of partners?

Pakistan is a large country with a reasonably large economy. It has now 140 million people. Its gross domestic product, measured in conventional terms, is estimated at $64 billion. Measured in terms of purchasing power parity, the GDP is much larger, about $245 billion. Pakistan also has a fairly large middle class with a reasonably large per capita income. If we count the middle class as the top one-fifth of the population on the income distribution scale, its size is 28 million with an average income in terms of the purchasing power parity of $3,600. If we lower the dividing line to include the top 40 per cent of the population on the income distribution scale, then there are 56 million people in this category with an average income of $2,700. In either case, the number is large with significant purchasing power.

Nonetheless, Pakistan is small compared to its two giant neighbours, China and India. As I suggested in these columns in the last couple of weeks, Pakistan is becoming smaller compared to China and India since it has not been able to match their rates of growth. These two elephant economies have already become dominant players in the global system. Pakistan, by contrast, is increasingly in the danger of being marginalized.

Why should this matter? It matters since in today’s world it is the size of the economy and the size of the middle class that attracts foreign capital. Without foreign capital a country in Pakistan’s situation with a relatively low savings rate will not be able to improve on its anaemic growth performance. How can Pakistan overcome the disadvantage of being a relatively small economy compared to its big neighbours?

The most obvious way is to develop strong links with India and other countries of South Asia. It was with this objective in view that Pakistan became an enthusiastic member of the South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation (SAARC) when it was founded back in 1985. A preferential trading arrangement was agreed in 1995, but the volume of goods and services moving among SAARC’s seven countries remained small. India’s exports to the other countries of SAARC amounted to only 4 per cent of the total. The share of the SAARC region in Pakistan’s total exports was even tinier — only 3 per cent. A more ambitious trade agreement to create a common market for the entire SAARC region was to be worked out at this year’s summit but the India-Pakistan conflict took up most of the time of the summiteers. The leaders have now set 2007 as the date when such an agreement is planned to be concluded.

In the meantime, SAARC has achieved little for its members. As a recent issue of The Economist suggested in its report from Kathmandu, Nepal, the site of the latest summit of the organization, “some observers have naturally enough started to question whether SAARC has any value at all, and to wonder whether it should be put out of its misery.”

If SAARC does not work — and it does not seem that it will — Pakistan could attach itself to China the way Mexico linked itself to the United States when it became a part of the North American Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA has brought Mexico into the orbit of the much larger American economy. The arrangement has worked well for Mexico. It is because of the country’s membership in NAFTA that it has escaped the problems so many other Latin American countries continue to face. With the help of NAFTA, the Mexicans have avoided the Latin American malaise.

A NAFTA-type of organization with China at its centre could become a possibility one day. China has been active in bringing some of its western neighbours into its orbit. It has formed the Shanghai group with the Central Asian republics, but the purpose behind it was not economics. The objective was to secure the country’s western border against the spreading influence of Islamic militancy. By linking itself with the former Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union, which were also threatened by radical Islam, China wanted a common front against a force that was gaining some strength in and around its western parts. Some day in the future, the Shanghai group could become the centre of an economic and trading bloc.

Whether Pakistan will gain entry into such an organization will depend upon the success it achieves in handling the forces of Islamic militancy within its own borders. It is probably because Pakistan was coming increasingly under the influence of militant Islam that China did not invite it to become a member of the Shanghai group. That may change as a result of the initiatives taken by the administration of General Pervez Musharraf. A third approach Pakistan could follow is to reactivate the Regional Cooperation for Development, an association formed decades ago by Iran, Pakistan and Turkey. The RCD never developed beyond an organization for exchanging visits among the officials of the three member countries. After the departure of president Ayub Khan from the Pakistani political scene, the organization became moribund. Ayub was the main architect of the RCD. No other leader was prepared to put life into it once he was gone.

This leaves the fourth option — Pakistan’s membership in an association much larger than SAARC, the Shanghai group or the RCD. The Pakistani leadership could take the initiative of assembling the Muslim countries of West Asia into an economic and trading bloc.

As I suggested in an earlier article (Dawn: “West Asia: New Great Game,” December 11, 2001), my definition of West Asia includes all Muslim countries from Morocco to Pakistan and includes not only the Arab states of the Middle East but also Iran, Turkey, the Central Asian “stans” and Afghanistan. The region stretches over a wide landmass, has a population of nearly 600 million and a combined gross domestic product of $864 billion. It is rich in natural resources. The regional per capita income is close to $1,500, which places it in the World Bank’s category of middle-income countries. It has three large reservoirs of oil and gas, a well-developed agricultural system, a fairly robust industrial base, and a young population that can be educated and trained to provide workers for the new knowledge-based industries.

Geographically, the West Asian region is well placed to become an important part of the global economy. It borders on the European Union, China and India — three of the world’s largest economies. It is well positioned to meet the resource requirements of China and India which, by 2025, will be very large economies but with serious shortages of energy and a number of agricultural products. The large textile industries of China and India could be fed by the cotton surpluses of Pakistan and Central Asia, and the emerging food deficit of China could be catered to by the vast irrigated lands in various parts of West Asia. The West Asian region has good ports, is strategically located on a number of airline routes, and could develop a good land-based communication system by integrating its road and railway networks.

However, a great deal of work will have to be done before West Asia could be turned into a well-integrated economic and trading zone. Pakistan could perhaps take the lead in turning this prospect into a reality.

Every bit helps

THERE are other worthwhile activities than waging war. Like waging peace and it is a lot less costly. But war is an industry and great fortunes are made out of it.

If the military budgets of all the countries of the world, the richest and the poorest, were to be added up, the sum would be astronomical. Not only that, more money is being spent on research on better and more sophisticated weapons, more effective ways of killing people than is being spent on research to find a cure for cancer. It must say something for our ingenuity that the atom bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are considered toy-bombs compared to what we have now. The neutron bomb, I understand, can kill all the people of a city without damaging any of the buildings. I don’t know if this is true but I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it was.

But another kind of war is being talked about and this is a war on poverty. This war seems to be a non-starter, primarily because there is no profit in it and large fortunes are not likely to be made out of it. Besides, I cannot visualise rich countries making the sort of sacrifices that will be required if the war on poverty is to be won. And this is a war that will have to be fought by the poor countries themselves who have neither the money nor the will to get their people out of the poverty trap. Is there any point in making the effort?

Individuals can hardly make a difference but if we were to scale down the massive effort to a token contribution that a caring person can make, who knows the trickle can become a flood. Thus there is Edhi in our country and there is Imran Khan with his Cancer Hospital and scores of others involved in social work, admittedly a microscopic number in a population of 140 million, but in their own way, answering the call of their conscience.

I know many people who would like to do something but don’t know how to proceed. The answer to this is that one has to be innovative and create the opportunity. There has to be a commitment and a clear distinction made between helping lame dogs over stiles (charity) and a sustained social programme.

I am involved in a titular sort of way with, the Nike Cricket Nursery, having come up with the idea and oversee it, though I find I am giving it more time than I had intended though I am happy for that.

As the name suggests, it is a nursery and not a coaching clinic. Sponsored by Nike and with the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) as full partner, the nursery is a non-profit, community-project for boys between the ages of 7 and 9 years old. At present, the nursery has 200 children and the number will be upped to 400 in the next few weeks. It has children from private and government schools.

A token fee is charged from the private schools while the government schools are not only not charged anything but they are provided free transportation from their schools to the National Stadium where the nursery is located. The equipment is imported, special bats and balls made for children of these ages and which eliminates any chances of injuries.

The boys are provided with special uniforms so that it is impossible to distinguish which boy comes from a private school and which from a government school. Thus creating a social oneness. There are 6 trainers and their job is to get the boys to play, not necessarily in an organized manner but just to play, hit ball, bowl it, catch it, run after it. In other words, have fun in a healthy environment, so different from the streets, the alley-ways where most of them would otherwise have played. The children are often accompanied by a parent and if it is a male parent, he is encouraged to join in.

Last week, the PCB Chairman, Lt.-General Tauqir Zia, visited the nursery and he told me that he could not believe his eyes. There was a carnival-like mood and the sight of so many children romping about, playing cricket, or their version of it, must have made him feel that his job as PCB Chairman, so full of controversies, was worthwhile. This was, literally, cricket at a grass-roots level.

The idea behind the nursery is not to produce test cricketers, and if it should do so, it would be a bonus. Without ramming it down their throats, the idea is to teach the basic skills of the game and to teach too how to interact with other children and have a ball in the process.

I go to the National Stadium once in a while, to watch the nursery kids play. The game of cricket has given me much and it’s a good feeling to be able to give a little of that back. But in a sense, I’m still getting something from cricket. I end up enjoying myself but I don’t feel guilty about it. But I don’t feel righteous. It’s not going to change much. About that, there is nothing I can do. Nor anyone else for that matter, it would appear. The world is too busy devising ways and means of destroying itself.

High maintenance

THE Hidden Valley Gas and Energy Co. was on the defensive. Having lost $300 billion dollars, they decided to hire a public relations consultant to improve their image.

Artie Marconi, the noted spin doctor, told Omar bin Lay, the CEO, “We’ve got to expose your wife, Leora, to the media to prove you did no wrong.”

“What’s the angle?”

“Have her tell her story in her own words on ‘The Jerry Springer Show.’ We’ll have Leora on one side of the stage and busted Hidden Valley employees on the other.”

“Sounds good. I’ll call her. She’s at the Golden Door now getting ready for the Houston Symphony Ball.”

Leora flew back in her private jet with a new hairdo.

Artie had told her to dress down, so she wore a simple black Chanel dress, a Bulgari necklace and a Van Cleef emerald bracelet.

She opened up tearfully on the show. “We’ve lost everything. The only thing we have left is several million shares of Microsoft, our home in Acapulco, the ski lift in Aspen, the yacht in Saint Tropez, diamond mines in South Africa, the exclusive drilling rights to the Grand Canyon, and the Empire State Building. We’re dirt poor, except for Omar’s severance pay of $60,000,000.”

“How did you get so poor?” Springer asked her.

“Omar’s employees stole him blind. Every time he went out to play tennis they bought another worthless company. Things are so bad for us now that we order all our food from the Chinese carryout shop down the street.”

One of Hidden Valley’s employees who faced Leora on the panel said, “Don’t you own the biggest home in Houston?”

“Yes, but it was paid for with cereal box tops from Safeway.” She burst into tears. “We have had to sell everything, including Boardwalk and Park Place.”

Another Hidden Valley employee, who was wiped out, was very hostile to Leora and said, “Don’t tell us that you didn’t make billions of dollars while the rest of us went bankrupt.”

Leora said, “Why would I lie to you?”

The employee got out of her chair and tried to take a swing at Leora. Three bouncers intervened and made the employee sit down.

Jerry Springer said, “Leora, so far your story holds up. You people had a little bad luck but you admitted it. That’s more than any of us could ask.”

Leora sniffled and said, “When all the facts are out, we’ll blame it on our accountants.”

After the show Artie Marconi said, “Now we’ll go over to ‘Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?’ Regis Philbin pitches nothing but softballs to his guests.”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

Lengthening the nuclear fuse

THE India-Pakistan military stand-off continues. The fact that it has not escalated into a full-scale war is being seen as a success of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence.

Some are also inclined to see it as the Indians having called our bluff. Neither Kargil nor the present crisis, the only two since India and Pakistan became overt nuclear weapons powers, were predicted by analysts or even by the ‘responding’ side. Just as Kargil was not an extemporaneous development, the Indian military build-up in the way it has unfolded as part of the Indian response to the December 13 terrorist attack on New Delhi’s parliament building, too, need not necessarily be treated as an unpremeditated move.

It may be plausible to admit that analysts, despite their expertise of war-gaming and strategic training, end up covering a whole spectrum just short of what really happens. Another point to be noted is that one side is quite capable of making a hostile move without being forced into it by a provocation from the other side. Kargil certainly did not happen overnight.

If all of what India says about the December 13 attack on its parliament building and onwards, cannot be taken at face value, then it can well be that the whole scenario now being played out in the border regions and along the Line of Control in Kashmir is part of a calculated move by the Indian military with the December 13 episode being used as a convenient cover.

With its recently acquired war-gaming software, the Strategic Plans Division at GHQ can play to its heart’s content, only to realize months and years down the road that Indo-Pakistan war scenarios in real life are usually different. They are neither close to Humphrey Hawskley fiction on the same subject, nor do they have much to do with the data that these softwares yield after being fed into certain co-ordinates. The collateral damage, the direction and the velocity of winds, etc, fed in along with all available variables may yield mathematically correct data on the amount of damage, casualties, etc, but it is hardly relevant to actually winning a war or preventing one, including a nuclear exchange.

Similarly, some analysts (newly inducted into the Pugwash gang, a respectable nuclear disarmament international group) heading for Beijing and New Delhi, have managed to convince themselves that their theories and calculations are not only a reliable astute assessment of the current scenario but also an apt prognosis for the future. It needs to be realized that Indo-Pakistan military crises are dicey affairs ranging from ‘unpredictable’ to ‘deliberately unpredictable’. This often makes the assessments and predictions made by the so-called analysts and think tanks wide off the mark.

Even in the cold war scenario, Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko had admitted (July 10, 1969) that “...systems of command and control are becoming, if one may put it this way, more and more autonomous of the people who create them ... decisions made by man in the final analysis depend upon conclusions provided to him by computers”. Few people recall that the first SALT agreement was not the ABM Treaty or Interim Agreement on offensive arms, but an agreement on measures to reduce the risk of outbreak of nuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union.

Placed as India and Pakistan are amidst a lot of uncertainties and a heavy veil of mistrust, it would be safe to assume that even the best combination of forecasts and precautions on either or both sides is bound to prove inadequate in dealing with all future security scenarios. We adopt the jargon, the dialectics and even the mannerisms of the cold warriors, yet we have established points of difference, both known and unknown, that leave us in a precarious state in dealing with security problems.

One significant peace-setting measure which both India and Pakistan have ignored is the early recognition by the US and the USSR that nuclear risk reduction (NRR) was of utmost importance at the governmental level, and agreements prompted by this realization.

It would indeed be a great achievement if India and Pakistan could do the same officially. Once it is accepted that neither government can be all-knowing and capable of handling all kinds of military crises that come their way, they would know what to do in terms of agreed safeguards and mechanisms for risk reduction.

A sequel to that could be substantive talks on the most pragmatic or least intrusive nuclear risk reduction measures. ‘Lengthening the fuse’ is one such measure, which has already been proposed at the Track-2 level talks. Some credence is lent to it by the fact that India has not rejected it so far. The second positive aspect is that this concept is not antithetical to the idea of “minimum” deterrent imposing no limitations on the quality or quantity of a nuclear arsenal (a licence which the Indians want to preserve in the face of a “survivable” arsenal mentioned in the Draft Doctrine). Some verification methods now being explored at the international level may provide a mechanism whereby it would be possible to do verification without necessarily revealing the precise location of the warheads and launchers.

Though these are positive aspects of a possible nuclear risk reduction arrangement, there still remain major downsides to this proposition that may make it neither foolproof, nor mutually acceptable. This being so, the idea of ‘lengthening the fuse’ would seem more practical and acceptable to both India and Pakistan. As the interaction on this score revives again this spring, it needs to be checked out whether this particular NRR proposal is still on the table for India.

Theoretically, this would only involve some agreement on paper, not to cross certain nuclear thresholds. But, specific questions such as fixing the strategic warning time (the time taken between the threat perception and the decision to launch and the launch itself) at 30 minutes as was suggested to the two side in previous discussions need to be taken up and discussed. These would then simultaneously need to be taken up internationally for provision of verification technologies. Pakistan needs to broach this subject officially as soon as temperatures become relatively normal.

Future democratic structure

IN his very first broadcast to the nation after having assumed power in October 1999 as Chief Executive, General Pervez Musharraf, criticized what he called “sham democracy”, as was being practised in the country. Since that time, he has been giving his ideas about a democratic system that might not be “sham”.

During his recent official visit to the United States, while confirming his plans to hold elections on time, the president also elaborated his vision of Pakistan. He said that Pakistan was going to be a dynamic, progressive, liberal, democratic Islamic state.

With the promised election dates approaching, one comes across with a variety of views on the subject. While I for one would not go along with the negative quip of “the brains of two hundred donkeys” proffered by Allama Iqbal against democracy, I would start by saying somewhat in the same vein, although in a different sense, that let it not be “democrazy”.

In contemporary world, democracy can be fully sustained by ensuring accountability of all related institutions. The meaning and place of democratic politics have to be reconsidered in relation to a series of overlapping processes. The process of economic, political, legal, military and cultural interactions is changing the nature, scope and capacity of the government, as its regulatory ability is challenged and reduced in some spheres. In a representative and accountable political system, the boundaries of the systems of accountability need to be recast, expanded and brought under democratic scrutiny.

Without going into the details of the institutional/organizational elements of such a “cosmopolitan” democracy, I would like to stress that the elements of civil society be pressed into service in articulating and adopting structure of rules and principles compatible with those of democracy, as we confront new challenges. For peace and progress, democracy has to ensure greater coordination and accountability of those forces which determine the use of the national resources and which set the rules governing public life. Protection of human rights and fundamental freedom, reciprocal recognition of political and religious identities are essential to a cosmopolitan democratic community.

Moreover, a cosmopolitan democratic community does not require political and cultural integration hammered out in the form of a uniliner consensus on a wide range of beliefs, values and norms. For, part of the importance of democracy lies in its emphasis on the primacy of those political references generated by people themselves on the public settlement of differences, without coercion or hegemony. The only basis for nurturing cultural pluralism and a diversity of identities is within a structure of mutual tolerance and accountability. Most democracies are now a mosaic of different cultural and ethnic groups but the homogenizing myths of a country mean that only some of these groups will feel that they are full members of the political community.

A commitment to this structure is a commitment to a form of life which each person could find equally good grounds to honour. All this involves is a discourse which respects — indeed celebrates — differences, adopts a developmental paradigm which underscores a non-violent, non-instrumentalist rationality and which, above all, keeps up a relentless struggle against extremist ideology. This discourse unites the language of critique with the language of possibility in a way that makes despair unconvincing and hope practical. Here, we cannot afford to rely on initiative by the government alone. We have seen that in the past government interventions have generated renewed tensions and problems.

There are people who highlight the shortcomings of a representative democracy, the way in which the political elites’ opinion is forced upon the electorate. When individual voting preferences are combined, the result is one which the majority may not want, even though the process of combining these preferences involves the use of majority voting rule. We should very carefully scrutinize and bring about changes in our electoral system to overcome some of these practical difficulties. It is significant that neither education, nor health or welfare figure as significant issues in the electoral debates in any meaningful way. There is an urgent need for the political parties to review their election manifestos.

In the past, the governments have allowed their complicity with extremist forces for short-term gains. Consequently, these extremist forces got out of hand. So we need to turn to people’s movements whose areas of autonomy and sheer creativity can help resist violence. We need to know what religion is before we can decide what it is not. One has to be able to distinguish between faith and its perversion and discuss those critical junctures when religion ceases to be religion and becomes something politically volatile. We need to be educated about the boundaries of religion before we can enhance our vigilance of its political misuse.

Unfortunately, we have had the problem of unnecessary conflict between various sects of Islam. We have in the past sought political solutions to sectarian, even religious controversies through ordinances and sometimes through civil codes. In this respect, more abiding channels have to be explored. The solution lies only in the process of confronting specific groups, customs and taboos that continue to have significance to certain segments of our society. If these contradict larger democratic norms, a process of negotiation could be initiated and continued.

We need to ask how codes can evolve through a process born of conscience instead of state imposition.

We need to re-assert the need for tolerance in relation to faith. Today, more than ever before, we need to stimulate faith which is being constantly denuded and betrayed by manipulation in our political system. Yet, what makes this a difficult task is that in our country, faith is a reality that touches millions of people in comprehensible and at times exuberant ways and has been exploited by the extremists and politicians alike.

How does one then resist the tendency to equate faith with fundamentalism? Then, there is this tendency to believe that advocates of secularism are non-believers. But the question of faith is infinitely more complex than that of secularism versus fundamentalism.

We have adopted universal suffrage as the basis of our electoral system. The dilemma however lies in the continuing exclusions from substantial citizenship and the problems associated with equality in the context of innate differences. For example, it is noted that women can vote on official parity with men, but that this has only mildly dented the masculine political dominance. It is heartening to note that the present government has increased the number of women seats in the National Assembly, while women can also participate in election for the general seats to the parliament. Would it be too much to expect the political parties to nominate a substantial number of women to contest elections on general seats?

As stated by the founding father of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, minorities are integral part of Pakistan’s society. They cannot develop an allegiance to the common political and social culture, if they feel it is an imposition. They are entitled to have a say in shaping the future development of Pakistan. Our minorities have played and continue to play a constructive role in the development and progress of Pakistan for which they are at par with the majority. We must not forget that the treatment of minorities in our society tends to have repercussions around the world and affects the understanding of tolerant principles of Islam and Pakistan as an Islamic state. Solidarity can only be achieved within a structure of mutual tolerance and accountability. We must adopt a notion of citizenship where minorities are not alienated.

The volatility of civic life in our country is largely based on the alienation of the ever-growing numbers of its people from decision making process, a sense of helplessness or victimization a the hands of unpredictable, most often unscrupulous, elite. In their impatience to become effective captains of their own destiny, thee marginalized groups become easily manipulated by those who can give them the illusion of power. In this context the religious symbols or ideologies become potent rallying points — both in reinforcing self-validation in stereotyping the adversary and even in rationalizing subversion against the opponents. It is significant that the exhortations to save the religion from ostensible threats, invariably translate into acts of senseless and unmitigated violence.

Now a few words about national security. A nation’s security flows from an appropriate blend of its political resilience and maturity, human resources, economic structure and capacity, technological competence, industrial capacity and availability of natural resources and finally its military might, all orchestrated into a cohesive national policy. Security strategy cannot be centralized on purely military establishment.

Thus, a successful democratic system for the country would require a framework in which the various interests, often seeming to be at cross purposes, are mediated and reconciled in a manner that an overall sense of national good is positively promoted. Development, mass literacy, better health facilities and a strong economy should be the pillars of the future democratic structure. The need for building a strong democratic ethos in our society as a prelude to heralding an era of peace and progress has never been so acute before.

The writer is a retired major-general of Pakistan army.