The Real development transforms people’s lives not just reflect the economic statistics meant to impress the public that Government has undertaken various development projects to improve the living standards, but it would make no sense if human Development Index paints a dismal picture since Countries Like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are seen well ahead of Us in HDI rankings calling for gigantic Steps on war footing basis to improve our HDI, Economic and Social Development Indicators.
As per Statistics of United Nations Development Program (UNDP), Pakistan ranks 150 as per statistics of the last year 2017, whereas India and Bangladesh retain their upward trends since Pakistan slipped down from the Rank # 117 in 1994 and ranked at the bottom 150. This is really terrible as, despite the passage of 71 Years of Independence, our policies have failed miserably to boost the human development indicators and socio-economic uplift in our country.
Each year, billions of rupees are allocated for the development projects as proposed by the legislators at Provincial and National level, yet these development projects have so far failed to enhance the country’s human development outlook since these development projects are targeted towards benefitting the big fish rather than bringing any change in the downtrodden masses as real development means more than that, not just economic number game .
Most of the developing countries focus on education, health, Rule of Law and Peace since these are the driving forces to change the troubling figures of HDI and contribute largely to the sustainable development where people are ready to accept change and sustain it for the long run.
The failed policies of development are the main causes that led to stagnant development as, before the launch of any new product or service, a company or firm trains the staff to learn the complexities and then launch it for the mass public through its marketing force.
The developed means to tap or harness the resources to bring in a social economic and political change that boosts the economy and brings prosperity to the country. Real Development also means that if you believe that any community needs anything from the Government; it must be provided to them given the circumstances. The timely provision will stop the issue from further aggravation but in case of delay, it may lead to anti-government sentiments and the government may start losing its hold over the public affairs.
We have been habitual or have become used to the idea that getting foreign development aid or grants will help develop our poverty-ridden areas especially the rural areas and the slums in urban cities but real development starts with self-development, self-reliance, education and health. The state can provide the infrastructure such as roads, electrification, water supply Healthcare, schools, colleges and universities but to use all these resources we have to focus on our self-development goals and tap the resources as per the desired requirements.
Suppose, if we want to educate our children then we should send our children to school to get education and training. Inversely, if we are reluctant to send our children to school and prefer sending them to work as child labour then we cannot blame the government for this since our way of thinking has not changed though, the infrastructure has changed and the Government has fulfilled its promise of providing basic facilities to its people at their convenience and on need-based policy.
The modern development entails four major aspects these are Equality, participation, Empowerment and sustainability. It means that whatever the development initiatives are undertaken, these must make sure that these are carried on equality basis by promoting participatory development approaches and empowering people to have their say socially, economically and politically that may create the basis of sustainability of such endeavours.
The development and economic experts are of the view that genuine advancement should change the individual living standards and it should not be limited to have simple monetary benefits.
Pakistan has carried out some socio-economic initiatives such as BISP, Pakistan Baitul Maal and other poverty reduction initiatives but these programs and projects are aimed at providing the fish rather than the hook it is a rather flawed strategy.
The monetary grants will never serve as solutions for poverty reduction strategies rather make the poor community dependent on these cash grants that will ultimately destroy their abilities. The Government should impart some technical skills and fund their small enterprises through which the have-nots may generate income and change their financial ability that may raise their economic level to self-reliance.
The socio-economic programs should not be aimed at creating beggary or mockery or greed for money violating cultural norms but these should be directed to income generation and skill development.
To bring real development, we need to study various development models of various nations to know that how these countries transformed the lives of people and brought lasting change by implementing effective development policies. In this regard, we can use the development or advancement models of China, Malaysia and Sri Lanka to find out the workable and feasible trends suiting Pakistan’ Development strategies given the current circumstances.
Besides advancements, we can also study these models to explore their strategies which helped increase the literacy rate and education standards in these countries.
The formative development policies must be people-centric devoid of other political reasons. The development policies must be comprehensive to attract people’s attention and transform their social-economic living standards.
The Government in this regard should come up with clear policy by taking all the stakeholders i.e NGOs, INGOs including UNDP and World Bank Experts, development and economic Experts, legislators and policy think tanks such as Sustainable development Policy Institute (SDPI), Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), Prime Institute, SPDC, PIDE, IDEAS-LUMS, NSPP, PITAD and IPRI for policy advice and suggesting strategies that may help Pakistan get out of the crisis.
The International Development organizations, Policy Think Tanks and Planning bodies such as Planning Commission of Pakistan may work out on the plan and may help government devise sustainable Development policy that works for many reasons as in past the flawed policies have dragged the country into the quagmire of Socio-Economic issues causing economic crisis and increasing the debt burden over GDP.
It is high time that we need to address these issues on time, else the circumstances will further aggravate the already dismal situation; Then, it will be beyond our control to find out a remedy or solution for it. The Experts may be taken on board at the national, provincial and District level to form socio-economic development strategies that may bring the real development in the country and the may reap the benefits of the economic boom.
The real development index (RDI)and the Human Development Index (HDI) rankings will only improve if the government and people be on the same page. The people and opinion leaders must identify the gaps through their voice and write-ups so that the same may be filled to fuel the development planning strategies with sustainable initiatives to raise our bottom rankings to higher scales of development.
We have to mull over the Socio-economic models of the countries that have achieved tremendous advancement in Poverty Reduction Strategies, human and economic development rankings.
In this regard, Chinese model may be ideal to get rid of poverty monster and raise the income levels of people so that a lasting change should be brought by tapping the existing resources and providing the basic facilities that may become the hallmark of change and development and setting examples for those who follow these footsteps.
Parliamentary System vs Presidential System: What’s Better for Pakistan?
The failure of the parliamentary system in the country has raised concerns regarding its effectiveness. The populace is divided between the pros and cons of transitioning to a presidential form of governance yet again after the pathetic display of the politicians in the Parliament over the budget proposals. The overarching concern, in either case, is for the delivery of democracy and good governance to the grassroots level.
Bad governance has been construed as a seminal issue in Pakistan. So much so that the country’s populace has been deliberating over Pakistan’s parliamentary system vs a possible presidential system. The country, through history, has experienced different kinds of governments; from democracy to military dictatorship, to civilian martial law by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
Pakistan inherited its current government system, the parliamentary form of government, from its former colonial rulers, the British. Ironically, while the parliamentary system has been successful for governance in the latter, the case for Pakistan is on the contrary.
The failure of the parliamentary system in the country has raised many reservations. Does a single solution of a parliamentary form of government resolve all problems? Considering the varying demography, culture, and history of both countries, how can one size be fit for all? Recently, a debate on transitioning to the presidential system has surfaced on social media. The population is divided between the pros and cons of each form of the governing system.
However, in either case, the overarching concern is for the delivery of democracy and good governance to the grass-root level. Both schools of thought are, hence, unanimous regarding their concern for a strong government. The question, however, remains as to which of the governing systems can deliver upon these values effectively.
Pakistan has experienced both forms of governments, yet a large number of the population is unaware of the merits and demerits of either; an essential understanding is lacking about the deep-seated problems vested within the governmental structure of Pakistan. One of the major reasons for this downfall is the perennial tug of war for power.
Understanding the Presidential and Parliamentary Systems
Many in the country believe that the presidential system is synonymous with dictatorship as it is a ‘one-man’ rule. The main cause behind this perception is that some leading analysts and media persons continue to protect the parliamentary system that has bogged the nation down. To clear such fallacies, one must understand the true meanings and merits of the presidential system.
It is erroneous to tantamount the presidential system with dictatorship as those are two different notions. Moreover, the presidential system is a form of the democratic system; many countries which are perceived as the torchbearers of democracy are under this form of governance. The champions of democracy must realize that the presidential system fuels the argument for effective democracy and is not undemocratic.
In the presidential system, the president is elected by the people directly which makes the power concentrated in his office. This makes the perception of a one-man rule somehow true yet it also leads to a strong government. It preserves the head of the government from the fear of being ousted by the opposition which leads to focus on public development and service delivery.
This lack of fear also entails the depoliticization of administration; talented and skilled manpower is sought to ensure efficient service delivery as the president must maintain his/her popularity with the masses. Moreover, the coercion for compromises inflicted by opposition parties is not there. It provides irrevocable fixed terms to legislators and executives.
As far as the question of one-man rule is concerned, the president can be impeached but by the approval of both houses; the process of impeachment is quite intricate as compared to the parliamentary system. This provides the government with enough strength to deliver favourable services to the common citizens of the nation.
The presidential system engages talented people and paves the way for good governance by limiting the legislature to focus on governance and delivery. In the presidential system, unlike the parliamentary system, the budgetary allocations and spending are delegated to the people at the grass-root level in union councils with checks and rudimentary transparency. The presidential system ensures the separation of power between legislative and executive branches.
It is relevant to mention here that the presidential system ensues the peril of becoming a dictatorship in some cases if the president starts to victimize its political rivals; it becomes complicated to halt his/her activities through impeachment due to the complexity of the system. It can further augment the notion of being discriminating amongst minorities or those factions which are not averse to the president on an ethnic or lingual basis.
On the other hand, the parliamentary system is much weaker in terms of strength as compared to the presidential system. Impeaching a prime minister is easier in the parliamentary system than doing so in the presidential system. The government thus remains perplexed about its stability as there is no irrevocable fixed term of the executive and legislatures in the parliamentary system.
This forces the governments to make inevitable compromises and compensations to the opposition parties to keep the government intact. These compromises result in a friendly opposition and can hamper a check on the government because the former often seems eager to jump on the bandwagon of the latter to protect its vested interest – which is not about the public service delivery in most of the cases.
The advocates of the parliamentary system posit that it provides equal representation and voice to all the people of the state without discrimination. A major demerit of the parliamentary system is that it does not separate the power between the executive and legislative branches of the government which leads to the politicization of the administration of the country. This politicization then stimulates the culture of patronage, corruption, and decline in the reliance upon professionalism.
Successful Presidential Systems in the World
The United States is exemplary for a successful presidential system. In the US, the presidential system has been deployed since the inception of the country. The United States is a cauldron of different cultures making it a heterogeneous society. The success of the presidential system in the US is no secret; it was its governmental structure that made it a superpower in the world despite being a former colony of Britain which is a parliamentary democracy.
One of the salient features of the United States’ governmental structure is its system of checks and balances of the legislature, judiciary, and executive which ensures the functioning of the three branches constitutionally and in favor of the public interest.
The country has made unprecedented progress in history due to its strong government which may not be the case in the parliamentary system. The system hampers the president to victimize his political rivals thus negates the notion that it can lead to dictatorship. Furthermore, the powers concentrated in the office of the president enable him/her to make crucial decisions that are in favor of the country without compromising with the opposition to secure his/her term.
The presidential form of democracy and its performance in the country amply denote that this form of government can produce exemplary impact, particularly in cases where the parliamentary system has failed – Turkey is one such example.
One cannot disagree with the sharp rise in the soft power among the Muslim countries and progress of Turkey in the recent past which was not possible erstwhile. For this purpose, Turkey revoked its parliamentary system and adopted the presidential system. Incumbent President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – the former prime minister of the country – has changed the system of the government in the country to ensure strong governance, allowing him to take prompt decisions for the good of the country.
The powers are now separate in the country. Legislative powers are vested in the Grand National Assembly while executive powers are exercised by the Council of Ministers which is directly appointed and headed by the president. The rationale behind the change in the structure of government in Turkey was to have a strong government that could make bold and efficient decisions without facing hindrances from the opposition.
The example of China and Russia would be pertinent to cite here as the governmental structure in both these countries concentrates powers in the office of the president. Some might oppose these examples as they are not democratic countries, however, these countries comprise strong and stable federal governments which along with many other factors have contributed to the rise of both these nations in the 21st century.
Parliamentary System vs Presidential System in Pakistan
Good governance has been the core issue of the country. Pakistan has experienced both forms of government in history: the presidential form under the military rules and also during the civilian martial law of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, and the parliamentary system during the democratic regimes. If we look at the facts and figures of the progress and prosperity of the country, it is easily understandable that the country was doing well in terms of improving living standards, education, health, and development during the three military regimes when the presidential system was in effect.
The local body system was also endorsed in its true spirit as stated by Ishrat Hussain, Advisor for Institutional Reforms and Austerity of Pakistan, in his book Governing the Ungovernable: Institutional Reforms for Democratic Governance in Pakistan. Although the presidential form of the government was experienced under the non-democratic military rule yet the progress made during the military rule by no means justifies the intervention of non-democratic forces in the democratic process.
Pakistan comprises of heterogeneous society and all the segments of the society must get equal representation in the government which is only possible in the parliamentary system. This argument is used by the advocates of the parliamentary system in the country but the question is that has this equal representation resolved the issues of the people that are being represented? The answer is a big no.
The plight of the people of Baluchistan, Sindh, and FATA is an utter substantiation of the bad performance of the parliamentary system. Most of the politicians in the country are averse to the debate on the change of the governmental structure arguing that the presidential system is dictatorial. In reality, the presidential system is not undemocratic instead it is one of the forms of the democratic systems imposed in many countries of the world.
The presidential system is not perilous for the democracy but, in reality, it is a threat to the vested interest of the corrupt political elite of the country. Many argue that the parliamentary system is working well in Britain, Canada, and many other countries but the reality is that the literacy level in these countries is much higher than that of Pakistan.
Most of the politicians in the latter country are feudal lords who lack the essential knowledge regarding the functioning of the democracy and parliamentary system, and also the competence to rule the country effectively. It is a common perception in the country that most of the politicians are corrupt and they participate in politics to serve their interests.
Pakistan inherited the parliamentary system from its former colonial ruler. The structure bequeathed by the British to the subcontinent was deliberately designed to centralize the monopolistic control through political mafias as the former were least concerned about their colonial subjects.
The populace of Pakistan needs service delivery to the grassroots level. For this purpose, a country needs strong, well-structured, and agile local governments which are fully accountable to the people and can also eliminate the notion that resources are not allocated equally in every region which is possible in the presidential system as has been experienced in previous such governments in the country.
The agile local governments can also be used to curb the sentiment of being dealt unfairly by the central government. If the parliamentary system was able to do so then the plight of Baluchistan would have been different which delineates the failure of the parliamentary system in Pakistan.
The wealthy elite, through the parliamentary system, succeeds to reach the apex ministries in Pakistan based on its influence while being incompetent. The history of the country is replete with such instances. Unfortunately, the country’s politicians who are seen to be the torchbearers of the democracy manifest such undemocratic attitudes.
One such example is the statement of the Minister of Railway after the recent accident when he refused to resign from his office. If a similar incident would have happened in Britain or any other parliamentary country, the situation would have been otherwise. Hence, keeping the undemocratic attitude of the people and politicians of the country in mind, it is unjust to compare the country with Western countries where the parliamentary system is performing best.
In Pakistan, a fresh debate of the parliamentary system vs the presidential system must be launched by the political scientists and leading think tanks to assess which form of government is most effective for the country’s performance. Pakistan severely needs strong governance and political stability in light of its declining condition under the parliamentary system.
This failure, by no means, advocates the military’s intervention in the country. Nevertheless, the political elite must become actualized of their corruption and incompetency which paves the way for non-democratic forces to intervene.
A change of system or at the very minimum, a healthy and lucrative debate on this subject is crucially needed for the continuity of democracy in the country, and further to remove the resentments of the minority factions and destitute of the country. The essential concern must remain the amelioration of the plight of the people and not merely an adherence to a specific governance form.
The Development of microfinance industry depends upon the resilience and risk management: SECP Chairman Amir Khan
Islamabad : SECP Chairman, Aamir Khan emphasized that in these challenging times the development of microfinance industry depends upon the resilience and risk management, achieved through quintessential pillars of liquidity-tapped through private capital and technology embracement. Khan was addressing the Non-Bank Microfinance Companies Stakeholders Forum organized by SECP to devise a way forward and collaborate strategic response to cope the challenges posed by COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing lockdowns.
The SECP Chairman Amir Khan, along with Commissioner Specialized Companies Division, Farrukh Sabzwari chaired the session. Representatives of Pakistan Microfinance Network (PMN), State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), National Bank of Pakistan (NBP), Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund (PPAF), Pakistan Microfinance Investment Company Limited (PMIC), Karandaaz Pakistan and multilateral donor agencies including the World Bank, International Finance Corporation (IFC) and Department for International Development (DFID) attended the session.
The Chairman SECP advised NBMFCs to go far product diversification to insurance solutions and saving products and build capacity of their workforce to attain business development and operational efficiency. He endorsed formation of a working group consisting of nominees from SECP, PMN, PMIC and NBMFCs to further analyze the situation. The working group will also take up the matters with relevant forums including ministry of finance, SBP and multilateral donor agencies for possible solutions.
Khan expressed SECP’s firm commitment to providing all possible support to industry not only during the current pandemic times but also in developing the industry on a strong footing. SECP Commissioner, Sabzwari highlighted the measures taken by SECP to provide relief and flexibility to the NBMFCs and their wholesale lender in managing funding requirements. He also talked about SECP’s advice to NBMFCs to defer and reschedule borrower loans.
Participants acknowledged SECP’s timely intervention to provide regulatory relief to NBMFCs in managing their credit lines and funding requirements. However, industry representatives expressed their concerns on potential defaults by borrower and liquidity crunch that may lead to capital crisis in the industry.
They raised the need of new money injection into the industry through collaborative efforts of microfinance regulators and the government. Representatives of international donor agencies attending the Forum expressed their resolve to extend fullest possible support to Pakistan’s microfinance sector.
Gov’t releases Rs 533.33 billion for various development projects so far
Islamabad: The federal government has so far authorized release of Rs 533.33 billion for various ongoing and new social sector uplift projects under its Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) 2019-20, as against the total allocation of Rs 701 billion.
Under its development programme, the government has released an amount of Rs 230.3 billion for federal ministries, Rs 175.65 billion for corporations and Rs 43.46 billion for special areas, according to a latest data released by Ministry of Planning, Development and Reform.
Out of these allocations, the government released Rs 38.5 billion for security enhancement in the country for which the government had allocated Rs 53 billion during the year 2019-20.
An amount of Rs 81.37 billion has also been released for the blocks managed by finance division under the government’s 10 years development programme.
Similarly, for Higher Education Commission, the government released an amount of Rs 27.07 billion out of its total allocation of Rs 29 billion while Rs 301.47 million were released for Pakistan Nuclear Energy Authority for which the government had allocated Rs 301.48 million in the development budget.
For National Highway Authority, the government released Rs154.94 billion. Under annual development agenda, the government also released Rs 10.7 billion for Railways Division out of total allocation of Rs16 billion, Rs 7.7 billion for Interior Division, and Rs 8.38 billion for National Health Services, Regulations, and Coordination Division.
Revenue Division received Rs 4.3 billion whereas the Cabinet Division also received Rs 30.18 billion for which an amount of Rs 39.986 billion has been allocated for the year 2019-20.
The government also released Rs 26.9 billion for Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) block and other projects out of its allocations of Rs 27.26 billion and Rs 16.54 billion for Gilgit Baltistan (Block and other projects).
Digital12 months ago
Pakistan Moves Closer to Train One Million Youth with Digital Skills
Economy9 months ago
Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are back on track
Development2 years ago
INGOS And The Future Of Unemployed Youth in Pakistan
China2 years ago
What will the post-COVID world look like?
News12 months ago
Dr . Arif Alvi visits the National Museum of Pakistan, Karachi
Digital9 months ago
Social Media and polarization of society
Featured9 months ago
The Right-Wing Politics in United States & The Capitol Hill Mayhem
China9 months ago
TIKTOK’s global growth and expansion : a bubble or reality ?