Can it be concluded on the basis of the top ten scorers that there is a positive correlation between favourable scores on the GPI and development as gauged by the high HDI? The relationship between peacefulness and the wealth of nations is put to test if we look at the bottom ten countries or even at the United States that occupies 96th place not too distant from Iraq at 121 or Pakistan at 115.
The least peaceful bottom ten countries are a mix of high, medium, and low HDI values. These include Israel with a high HDI value at 0.927 (ibid); Lebanon, Pakistan, Colombia, Russia, and Sudan that are all medium HDI value countries; and Angola and Nigeria that are low HDI value countries as well as Iraq whose decline is difficult to capture in a HDI value at the moment. This bottom cluster does not quite indicate a correlation between peacefulness and a country’s level of development.
There is, therefore, more to peacefulness than mere development. As may be deduced from the top ten most peaceful countries, development may contribute to peace as these most peaceful countries also score high on human development. Because the bottom ten countries on the peace index indicate a lack of correlation between peace and human development, development may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition for peace.
However, since development is a key determinant of peace as indicated theoretically as well as empirically by the top ten most peaceful countries, major actors in the development arena should be making a conscious attempt to make a tangible and visible contribution to peace. Let us see who these actors are and how might they contribute to peace.
The role of government is always under study with regards to promoting socio-economic development. The NGOs have tried but have been unable to fill the gaps that remain despite government attempts—sincere or otherwise. According to Steve Killelea of the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), “…..business has a key role to play in peace” because of “a link between peacefulness and the wealth of nations.” It would be of interest to examine the role that business might play in promoting peace.
If wealth of nations contributes to peace and if peace is a function of the level of satisfaction of various population segments, business must first ensure equitous distribution of the resources it generates to keep the level of discontent low as discontent feeds into societal unrest. This view is enshrined in the concept of corporate social responsibility. That is, business must maximise the wealth of all the stakeholders from whom the business draws its inputs. If business gives good output to the input providers, it will thus enhance the quality of the inputs and the business will then enter into a virtuous cycle with the stakeholders thus adding to the wealth of the stakeholders and thereby of the business and of the nation. This is also the open-systems view according to which business is an open system that stands to gain from the trickle-up from the stakeholders whose return to business is a function of what the business gives to them.
This trickle-up outlook stands in contrast with the trickle-down approach whose proponents are of the view that input providers may wait indefinitely for their trickle of benefits that will first accumulate with the asset-owners before they start trickling down. Business development as explained, is actually not possible not until benefits are shared equitably as soon as they are generated and a virtuous cycle struck from the beginning.
It is this kind of development that feeds into the development of units, segments, sectors, and the economy as well as the satisfaction of individuals which would in turn lead to lowering the level of discontent and thereby promoting peacefulness. Income disparities need to be controlled at their very source before they snowball into resentment that may prove to be destabilsing over time.
Business may contribute to peace in some other ways also. These include promotion of inter-ethnic cooperation and track two diplomacy. Inter-ethnic cooperation needs to be promoted consciously in locations such as Hub Industrial Estate and the upcoming Gwadar port.
Local populations there are already restive as they are experiencing/anticipating discrimination and exploitation. These concerns may be dealt with by businesses also if they are prepared to voluntarily address ethnic sensitivities in their policy outlook pertaining to human resource training and development.
Ethnic tensions are a major contributory factor to lower levels of peacefulness of some of the bottom ten countries. These countries include Lebanon, Pakistan, Sudan, and Iraq. Excluding Sudan, business in three of these four countries may be able to play a role in ethnic/sectarian integration.
Track-two diplomacy was probably done by American business operating in Pakistan and India after the 1998 nuclear blasts when the US government may have desired to severe business ties in the region. It is speculated that American business may have played a role in influencing US government decisions favourably as is done by American wheat exporters who are able to export despite estranged bilateral economic ties.
American business is also trying to campaign against economic sanctions by demonstrating how ineffective economic sanctions have been in the attainment of diplomatic goals. On the same lines, business in the region can play a role in promoting peace in the region by demonstrating the favourable impact of economic cooperation. Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project is a step towards promoting regional peace and political harmony through economic cooperation.
The above is, however, not to displace the role of the government in socio-economic uplift and removing economic disparities. In fact, countries that are scoring high on conventional economic indicators such as GDP growth and per capita income growth need to take positive steps towards equitable income and asset distribution as increase in per capita income growth may be highly skewed in favour of upper income groups and GDP growth may not be broad-based. In addition to improving the income shares and the Gini coefficient, poverty levels must be reduced actually and not just on paper.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, a long distance needs to be traversed towards decreasing not just income and consumption poverty but also asset poverty. Poverty is also a key factor feeding into militancy of all kinds and unrest in the country. End of the day poverty is also gauged by the extent of dignity and autonomy enjoyed by the people.
Curtailment of personal freedoms is to add to the dignity- and autonomy-deficit already suffered by the people. While our progress on income and consumption poverty is yet to be felt, there is regression also on poverty experienced from a dearth of freedoms. All of this amounts to movement away from instead of towards development and peace.
High GDP growth rates notwithstanding, peace will remain elusive for as long as scores remain low on other key economic and political indicators.