Pakistan far behind competitors: WEF report

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=62114

By By Mansoor Ahmad

LAHORE: Pakistan is ranked very low compared to its regional neighbours in competitiveness ratings of network readiness, travel and tourism, business, global retail development and political freedom.

An analysis of various reports released recently by a reputed global research institution reveals that despite tall claims Pakistan is still far behind China, India, Sri Lanka in most of the above parameters.

Pakistan’s score by Transparency International reveals that Pakistan is ranked at 142 with a transparency score of 2.2 out of 10. India and China are placed at 70th position with transparency scores of 3.3 each and Sri Lanka is ranked 84th scoring 3.1 transparency points.

The latest Business Competitiveness Index prepared by World Economic Forum evaluates Pakistan at number 91 out of 125 countries in competitiveness. India is placed at 43, China at 54 and Sri Lanka at 79.

The same institution in Network Readiness Index (IT) places Pakistan at 84th position while China is at 54, India 44 and Sri Lanka at 86.

In the Travel and Tourism competitiveness Index released by World Economic Forum, India is placed at 65, China at 71, Sri Lanka at 70 and Pakistan at 103 out of 125 countries evaluated.

The thirty best Global Retail Destinations declared by AT Kearney places India at number one, followed by Russia and China. The list includes countries like Vietnam, Algeria and Indonesia but Pakistan is missing on the list.

In case of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) a UN agency, UNCTAD, in its survey conducted separately with economic experts and Trans-national Corporations (TNC) has declared China as the best FDI destination in 2006 as evaluated by both experts and TNC, however, experts declared USA the next best place while TNC preferred India.

The experts declared India the third best FDI location while TNC placed USA at number three spot. Pakistan is not among the top 20 countries in this category. The Freedom Index released by Freedom House of the United States declares India a free country (based on political, economic and press freedom). Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are classified as partially free countries; even Afghanistan has been placed in this same category.

Pakistan falls under the grouping of those countries that are not free at all. China is also ranked in this group.

Economists point out that the fast economic growth achieved by Pakistan on the strength of its lenient donor approach and economic reforms instituted during the past decade would not be sustainable unless all the low performance and other socio-economic parameters are adequately addressed.

They pointed out that Pakistan is growing rapidly from a narrow economic base and even then its growth is lower than that of India and China as both have much larger economies than Pakistan. They said economies in the entire South East Asian region are booming. They cited the examples of Vietnam and Cambodia that have resurged from closed socialist economies. In fact they said Vietnam has out paced Pakistan even in the textile sector as textiles are now its main export base.

They said the economic performance of every country is in line with the positions they enjoy in the evaluation done on the above parameters by creditable global organisations. They said Pakistan would have to improve its ratings on all these parameters to attain a sustainable growth.

Its really surprising that India is placed ahead of China in most of the parameters.

Benefits of democracy. Say what we want, but we suffer from an endemic corruption in Pakistan. And many investors dont wish to invest in dictatorships. Mushy has done some real good, the economy has been restructured to a service heavy one (thats good), women's representation in politics have risen massively.

But Pakistan is not perceived free. The economic benefits have aided mainly the middle class, as the standard cost of living keeps rising. Todays Jang reported that the cost of fruit/veg is rising etc.

Mushy has served his purpose. He arrested the slide of the late 90's, stablized economy and so on. But now we need to return to democratic rule.

In my view , economically , its not important which government is there , military or democratic. Its more important to have able government , which can make structural changes in the economic structure of the country and can reduce the red tape and corruption.

When countries like North Korea and Afghanistan are ranked higher then Pakistan then u know there is something wrong. North Korea was placed at 13th compared to Pakistan 12th in failed state index. And this case Afghanistan is more free then Pakistan.

Different index?

Democracy should get our support on moral grounds, not only political ones.

Democracy is losing its value when people flaunt it around like this. Fact is that there are many variants of democracy and us Pakistanis have a very bad habit of importing our political ideologies rather than defining ourselves. Pakistan has 50-years of history behind it, and the country had two decades of a democracy. In one decade our major industries were nationalized and government emphasis on public care went no where. The second decade we elected two of the worst rulers in South Asian history and three of our political parties are being led from abroad...and we got one leader asking help from India. This is the definition of 'democracy' that I hear when a Pakistani says democracy without proper definition. I can bet you're thinking about a democracy practiced in a different country with a different peoples and much different history. You should also know that democratic formation is conducted through decades if not centuries of fine tuning, trial and self-definition - NOT importation.

Let me give you an example of a series of democratic formations:

1) The American democratic set-up is ruled by corporate and national-aristocrats. When it declared itself independent from the British Empire, its democratic government had slavery institutionalized and urged the usage of forced assimilation of native peoples. By today's standards this was not considered democratic, but nonetheless we recognize that the U.S was born as a democracy.

2) Although China is ruled by a single party, if I recall correctly - aren't party members elected through consensus? I also recall that in the local/town/district level, the people elect their leaders and representatives. While we seldom call China democracy, it does value some democratic values - and it even adopts a form of meritocracy within its ranks. Still though we consider China a more of an authoritarian government, yet it is still up there as a solid economic and social performer. How are we to compare the average Chinese to the average Indian in terms of lifestyle and benefits? Who has the higher GDP-per capita? Who wields more political influence?

3) Are we to recall states like Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E, Qatar, etc, as democracies? Does a poor man not have a better chance to send their child into a proper university or to enter governance in Cuba than say the U.S?

4) Am I not living in a Canada that was once one the most racist countries on earth? Was it not a democracy when it refused to let Sikhs and Jews into its borders? Was Canada not a democracy when it forced natives into residence schools? Was Canada not a democracy when it showed overt preference to Whites over non-Whites?

5) How did the Nazis and Hitler come into power in Germany before they mass slaughtered Europe's Jewish population?

The problem is in Pakistan we import a word and the values of that word from elsewhere, without defining it ourselves. If when they decided to hold elections in Pakistan, why is it that NO ONE - not even the opposition - sat down to think on how to efficiently run the state? Why is it that no one has taken into account Pakistan's inherent social issues of inter-provincial ethnocentrism and self-contained pride? What of Pakistan's farmers and labourers - the people doing the picking and the nailing, not the agriculture or financial 'ists' - why haven't our farmers and labourers EVER been represented or spoke of? EVEN IN THE OPPOSITION NO ONE TALKS ABOUT THEM! What about the Madrassahs and the many poor children who are better off there than in some Western owned sweatshop? Why doesn't anyone address these issues or at least speak of them within our opposition? What baffles me is...WHY HASN'T ANY DEMOCRATIC WANTER EVER FIGURE OUT WHY WE HAVE SO MANY POLITICAL DIVISIONS WITHIN A MASSIVE SPAN OF LAND? WHY IS IT THAT WE NEVER REPRESENT THESE DIVISIONS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, EVEN IN A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT?

These are the endless strings of problems that this word democracy brings whenever a Pakistani supporter of it speaks. Until and unless they properly educate themselves and adequately define it for Pakistan, it will never work here. I would love to help sit down and define a Pakistani democracy, but I'm not a supporter of such a clause and neither do I scream for it to be placed in Pakistan...yet. Frankly speaking, right now we need an automatic meritocratic system where those with the abilities reach the highest levels, and then we should start defining a Pakistani democracy...that means we need to be a dictatorship that runs on merit and ability first...

Yes Pakistan has problems, but the needs of the people are better met when they have some say, with votes in a democratic set up. Mushy has done much good, but the time is ripe for democracy now. India has these divides, these issues, yet it is a democratic state?

Your attittude will only hinder our development as a democratic society. Yes meritocracy is vital, and the best way of ensure that is accountability.

Pakistan already have Parliament where Mushy is elected president. Or democracy is only possible when looters like Banazir and Ganja are in Pakistan?

You've not defined democracy for Pakistan, that is the hindering our country's success! There are only words and no definitions.

There are also many variables within Pakistan that are extremely critical and have not been addressed by a single democrat. Therefore by merit, unless someone can truly propose a well defined and structured solution to our problems - they do not deserve a voice. Maybe after they have an idea on how to end our inter-provincial ethnocentrism or maybe to bring out the voice of dire working farmers/labourers - I had enough listening to PPP/PML/MQM leaders not even in Pakistan...

the government is actively tackling this issue. the results may take some time to come forward. LINK

In my view comparision of Indian and Chinese system of democracy based on lifestyle and benefits is not fair. Both India and China are at different stage of developments and that not necessarily be influence by single factor of governance. For that matter why not compare Chine with US or other developed countries.

India , china and Pakistan are at this stage of development based on several historical and other factors and system of governance alone, is not responsible.

USA and other developed countries are far more economically advanced does not ( alone) mean that their system is better than African / Chinese system of governance.

It's interesting. Traditionally, Pakistan follows a system of government similar to that of the British one, where it is the Prime Minister and not the President who holds the most power. Thus, the President is allowed to be voted in by the Electoral College, because ultimately the power resides with the Prime Minister, and thus the latter must be put in office by the people - directly - and not by the elected representatives of the people.

When Musharaff changed that system, i.e. concentrating power in the Presidency, then the rules of the game should have changed also: he no longer should be allowed to be kept in office by an outgoing assmebly. It's plainly unfair. And it does not allow the people of Pakistan to decide whether they want him in office or not. The assembly is simply an outdated 5 year old organisation whose agenda has changed somewhat from that one 5 years ago which allowed them to be voted in. Thus, the new elected assmebly - which more accurately reflects the wants and desires of the people of Pakistan - should decide whether Musharaff stays.

And it makes me wonder.

Musharaff and his supporters claim that the majority of Pakistan is behind him.

Why then are they so afraid of holding conventional democratic elections? I'm all for the good this man has done, but if the people do not want him in office, all that he has done for Pakistan will go to waste. The truth is: it is duly-elected leaders and not dictatorships that improve a country.

Tell me: why is Musharaff so afraid of running in the national elections alongside other candidates?

Agreed ..


PS: Even Saddam was elected by the people and the parliment with 99% votes.....bottom line so is Mush..

Plus the thing is that whoever comes to power in pakistan will and does Line his/her own pocket irrespective of Benazir or Nawaz or Mush they are all the same.

Make money till/when the sun shines thats their motto... else mush this...mush that is all crap we all know why he is there and best part of the story is beleive me he will NOT leave change uniform only when he knows that the power base in the Army is consolidated and he will then remain President for life.....

For Mush now it isnt about money anyomore he made it already..now its just POWER and thats what drives him..

Peace

^ You have a cynical view.

You believe the Western leaders wouldn't or don't line their pockets? If they have the chance, of course they would.

Simply that they have the checks and balances in place which can detect any corruption.

I was sort of praying with the whole CJ mess we were going along that path. InshAllah!

there was never a system of checks and balances system in pakistan prior to the musharraf government coming. like it or not, there are three power brokers in the pakistani political landscape: the prime minister, the president, and the chief of army staff. these three could each check mate each other, and it always resulted in the parliament being dissolved, and there being a period of army rule. the army was intelligent enough to not come to power during the 90's, though it had several opportunities. the creation of the national security council (NSC) has created that system of checks and balances. each member, plus the leader of the opposition, the senate chairman, speaker of the NA and the chiefs of the joint services (air force and navy) have a role to play. there are only four uniformed members on the NSC compared to nine civilians, who can unite to thwart any motive the COAS may have to try to come to power. in addition, it gives a forum to the president and the PM to resolve any issues they have with each other. lastly, because the other two armed forces are avowedly non-political, it makes it alot harder for even a politically motivated army chief to try to gain power. he will have to persuade both to cooperate, and i predict that will likely not happen in pakistan. the NSC is a must for there to be continued democracy in pakistan. atleast for the next several decades. if pakistanis learn from their mistakes, and our people begin to elect honest and dedicated politicians to power, then perhaps the need for the NSC will diminish and the country can dismantle it. however, right now its the only way to sustainable democracy. the army cannot, and does not want to, come to power anymore. it has understood what it does to the country, and above that what it does to the army.