Daily Times

Some of the participants in a seminar in Lahore a few days ago argued that governments in Pakistan should shift their focus from security to the building of a welfare state. This is good advice. Pakistan’s security concerns have abated in recent years. A man who enlisted in the army 40 years ago has not had the occasion to fire a shot at a foreign enemy. Relations between Pakistan and India have lately been improving and the time may not be far when they will stop referring to each other as the enemy. One would like to assume that the Pakistan army is still in good shape, but there is no way of ranking it as a fighting force.

Both India and Pakistan possess and maintain stockpiles of nuclear weapons and relevant delivery systems. Skirmishes and minor irritations may happen but a full-scale war between them can be ruled out. There is also a growing feeling among the people on both sides of the border in favour of friendlier relations. Recent agreements provide for considerably expanded trade and people-to-people contacts between them. President Asif Zardari recently went on a private visit to the shrine of Khwaja Moeen-ud-Din Chishti in Ajmer and was persuaded to make a stop in Delhi to have lunch with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Ms Meena Kumar, speaker of the Indian Lok Sabha, visited her Pakistani counterpart, Dr Fehmida Mirza, speaker of the National Assembly. She said she had brought a message of love from her people for the folks in Pakistan. She spoke chaste Urdu, recited verses composed by Indian Urdu poets, and charmed her audiences. Sardar Mohan Singh, the former chief election commissioner in India, and his wife also visited and worshipped at Dera Baba Nanak where the founder of their faith had lived for a time.

A few days ago, General Kayani, the Pakistani army chief, recommended that India and Pakistan should negotiate to withdraw their army units from the Siachen glacier. He also recommended a reduction in their defence budgets and deployment of the funds thus saved for economic development. His proposal merits serious consideration.

Turning now to the building of a welfare state in Pakistan, let it first be noted that a single universally accepted definition of such a dispensation is not available. A classless society where all have the same level of income is not likely to emerge in the foreseeable future. Distinction between the rich and the poor will remain but the distance between them can be diminished. Taxes can pull the wealthy down a little and make life a bit more comfortable for the poor. A welfare state is one that has taken upon itself this kind of a mission. It moves to provide or subsidize its citizens’ access to the basic necessities of life. The extent and terms of this access vary from one country to the next. These will depend upon the resources that a government can assemble for this purpose, which needless to say, will come from the revenues it collects mainly through taxes. In other words, the wealthy will pay a large part of the cost of making life tolerable for the poor. Their willingness to do so may also vary with the passage of time. Social security programmes, unemployment insurance, free or subsidised access to education and healthcare will reduce the impact of poverty.

We may now ask what the prospects of a welfare state in Pakistan are. This is a country of more than 175 million people nearly one half of whom stand below the poverty line. Take the case of education as an example. At the present time, government spends less than two percent of its GDP on education whereas its neighbours to the east and west, India and Iran, spend more than four percent and some of the other developing countries close to 10 percent. There is no popular movement to increase the outlays on education. There are thousands of ghost schools in the country. A great many of those that do exist on the ground are in poor shape. Teachers do collect their salaries but many of them do not want to put in a full day’s work. Students without schools and schools without teachers abound, particularly in Sindh and Balochistan.

The state of healthcare is equally abysmal. The majority of this country’s population lives in rural areas. There is no shortage of young men and women who graduate from medical schools each year. However, they want to work in large towns and cities where their children can go to good schools, and where their families can have gratifying social interaction with members of their own class. They are reluctant to go and live in a village, as a result of which the local people have little access to professionally trained physicians. If any of them falls sick, he may have no option except to go to the local quack. If he wants to consult an adequately trained physician, he may have to travel ten miles to the nearest town and even farther if he needs hospitalisation.

A welfare state will cost money, which will have to come from the proceeds of taxes. Through much of the 20th century, the wealthy in the western world were willing to provide the needed funds. In the United Kingdom, higher education came free to students who were capable of profiting from it. Of late, the winds of change have been blowing. Social security and welfare programmes have been shrinking in the US and several other countries. The government of the United Kingdom announced a few months ago that students wishing to attend universities would have to pay tuition fees and related charges. They rioted outside the prime minister’s house at 10 Downing Street, but that did not change his mind.

Another perspective on the issue at hand may be noteworthy. The availability of resources for a given purpose depends on the priorities that the government assigns to it. The present government in Pakistan throws away uncounted billions of rupees on frivolities, which could be allocated to projects relevant to the building of a welfare state. The resource base may be expanded by levying income tax on the earnings of farmers and speculators who play the stock market. A welfare state will materialise in Pakistan if its ruling elite have the determination to create it.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is currently a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at dranwar@lahoreschool.edu.pk