More news that just confirms how bad the situation is…
LAHORE: Pakistan has been ranked the 12th most unstable country in the world – worse even than North Korea at 13th – in the 2007 Failed State Index issued on Monday by Foreign Policy magazine and the Fund for Peace. For the second year in a row, Sudan tops the index, largely because of the humanitarian catastrophe in Darfur. Iraq now ranks as the second most unstable country and Afghanistan the eighth. The other seven countries in the top 10 are all in Africa. They include Somalia, Zimbabwe, the Ivory Coast and Congo. The index of 177 countries gives each country points out of 10 for 12 “social indicators of instability”, with higher scores indicating greater instability. Pakistan’s highest scores were for ‘security apparatus’ (9.5), ‘factionalised elites’ (9.5) and ‘group grievance’ (9.0). Its best score was for the economy (5.8). Iraq fell from fourth place last year to second. “The report tells us that Iraq is sinking fast,” said Fund for Peace President Pauline Baker, according to the Washington Post. “We believe it’s reached the point of no return. We have recommended—based on studies done every six months since the US invasion—that the administration face up to the reality that the only choices for Iraq are how and how violently it will break up.” In a parallel series of reports, the Fund for Peace, a research and advocacy group, suggests a policy of managed partition for Iraq. The experiences of Iraq, as well as Afghanistan, show that billions of dollars in aid may be futile unless accompanied by a functioning government.
As an Indian, I find this surprising - I know little about Pakistan other than what I read in the Indian papers, but this is what I wrote just now on my blog regards this issue:
“Pakistan ranks poorly even than North Korea, which I find as amusing as surprising. Musharraf may be reneging his oft-repeated promise to cede control to a democratically elected administration, but the economy has made significant strides, and the credibility of Pakistan in international political circles is greater than any time in the last recent past. For Pakistan, surely this is a positive development.”
I know about the political problems, but do Pakistanis really regard Musharraf as a problem, or as part of the solution? I would appreciate if someone could explain.
Hi Pratik, thanks for your comments.
I share the surprise with you. There are a number of countries with far bigger problems and abject poverty who look better than Pakistan on the list. Pakistan’s score on economy is not bad which indicates the progress in recent years. I think foreign perception of Pakistan is affected by events on the Afghan border and the west’s interest in these affairs. The fact is that 99% of Pakistanis live in areas not affected by these events and they live a life which is difficult but far better than countries that appear to be doing better on this list. Musharraf however is a part of the problem now. He did well in the first few years but should have stuck to his promise to leave after 3-5 years. The coutry has moved forward, there are more educated people than before, press has become assertive and judiciary wants its rightful place. People want institutions to do their jobs and army to roll back. Musharraf has become the anithesis of the very goal he promised.
Pratik: Musharraf is now clearly part of the problem and his continued presence is exacerbating the problem. He has been pushed into a corner by all sides, but his attitude has not changed one bit. Hence, he is making decisions based on power and brute force and putting on display his machismo, which worked for 7 years. Slowly the people are realizing that the man has only weakened one of the most important aspects of any democracy-its institutions. Nepotism, corruption and sycophancy have flourished. I am not saying it as a matter of opinion, but is visible from a lot of reports by NGO’s and international organizations. Most people in Pakistan have been praising Musharraf for the freedom granted to the media. Unfortunately, Reporters Without Borders reported that Pakistan’s ranking had gone down from 119 in 2002 to 157 this year (out of 168 countries). This is truly shameful. http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639
I do agree with you both that the ratings are not indicative of our perceptions of certain countries based on what we read and see about them. Surely, Pakistan’s economy and political credibility have improved and it has become an important country internationally. However, it is now facing all kinds of problems, some highlighted in the Foreign Policy rankings, some not so obvious. And even though the economy has much stronger foundations, its strength is not derived from a much wider base. The rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. Very few have benefited and the common man has never faced such high prices making it very difficult for the working class to provide food for themselves and their families.
Lastly, I am not a believer in rankings because they are more a matter of opinion than a matter of fact. Surely, facts are analysed, but how they are chosen and weighted is a matter of opinion based on how important a group of people feel they are. Different countries with different dynamics cannot be analysed in such a simplistic manner. Even though rankings are indicative of a lot of things and can give you a fair idea of what the situation in a country is like, they are almost useless as tools of comparison. Pakistan as 12 and North Korea as 13 is meaningless except to say that both countries are in a pretty bad state. In fact all 60 countries are not in a great shape to be honest. These rankings highlight those issues. That is probably as meaningful as such an arbitrary process can get.
LISTEN FELLOWS, ONCE UPON A TIME IN A CITY A NEWS PAPER PUBLISHED A NEWS THAT HALF OF THE PEOPLE IN THT CITY WERE FOOLS, AND AFTER THAT, THERE WAS A BIG DEMONSTRATION OUT SIDE THEIR OFFICE. THE VERY NEXT DAY THE NEWS PAPER PRINTED THE SAME NEWS, THAT ONLY ONE HALF OF THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY WERE WISE, GUESS WHAT NO BODY CAME THAT DAY.
LOOK IF YOU WERE LIVING ABROAD WOULD DEFINITELY HAD A DIFFERENT VIEW. PAKISTAN HAD ALREADY FAILED 0N 16 DEC 1971. WHATEVER IS LEFT HAS FAILED TO KEEP UP WITH REST OF THE WORLD, WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT IS ECONOMIC, CONSTITUTIONAL, AND POLITICAL STRENGTH. DONT GO TOO FAR OUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOUR IS CONSTITUTIONALY AND POLITICALY, VERY STABLE AND IMGINE ITS ONE CITIZEN OWNS MORE MONEY IN U.S DOLLARS THAN, ENTIRE PAKISTANS FOREIGN RESERVES, HOW ABOUT THAT