International Threat: Pakistan

A State in Need of a Better Fate

Capstone Public Affairs International Relations

 May 20, 2011

By Felicia Whatley

Introduction:

In this paper I will establish what a failed state is, how Pakistan is a failed state, and why that is detrimental to the international community. Pakistan’s destabilized region is a hotbed for terrorism. Most major terrorist attacks of the 21^st century link back to Pakistan where Al Qaeda and the Taliban train and house some of their top leaders and training camps. The big fear is Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, which is the now the world’s 5^th largest. The fear is that one of the terrorist groups will get control of the nuclear arsenal. Pakistani Army has admitted they do not have control over their government, their streets, and their cities especially in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan. It is important to note that the war in Afghanistan has had a profoundly negative impact on Pakistan as the displaced citizens fled the war torn region to Pakistan, where public works and resources are scarce. 

            I will establish what some of the major problems facing Pakistanis and what a few solutions and policy suggestions will be for the U.S. officials who play an active role in aiding the country’s military and public works’ programs. Pakistan is the second country to receive the most amount of aid from the United States. Though, the U.S. has been criticized for its drone attacks perhaps killing civilians, Pakistan is very reliant on America’s funding. I will attempt to set forth policies that will help Pakistan get out of its failed state status. As a failed state, its country is a threat to all other states in the region and all over the world.

            Some of the problems Pakistan has are rooted in the imbalance of government power and military control. Pakistan’s history of development and the many wars with India haunts them. Its strategic interest for the U.S. due to the wars in the Middle East adds to an already volatile environment. The military is thought to have too much power over the government but not enough power to protect the state. We will evaluate the military coups and the political powers’ assassinations. I will prove that it is in the international community’s best interest to have more involvement and intervention in Pakistan until the nation can protect itself and other regions from the criminal terrorism that plagues it. Pakistan has been dubbed the most dangerous state for a reason. Now is the time to help fix that before it becomes an ultimate international center of crisis. It is in the U.S.’s best interest to become more politically involved and deliberate as to where the funding should go.

            Corruption is widespread. It has been noticed that the president of Pakistan is one of the wealthiest in the nation. How can this be when so many of Pakistan’s citizens cannot make their basic needs? Is that where a portion of our billion-dollar funding for their military goes? What is most devastating is the illiteracy rates. The majority of women do not know how to read and only 60% of men do. If the country wants to invest in its future it has to start with the education or lack thereof. The country has schools—religious Islamic schools that teach extremist thought to many Saudis. This just adds to Pakistan’s reputation of being a dangerous place to be. The radical tribal leaders either go unchecked or get murdered by U.S. drone attacks. The Pakistani military does raids as well, and though they seem over funded they are overpowered by the insurgency. They need America’s help but they also need to make some major changes. Military coups should be a thing of the past, but for Pakistan it is a recent past that blemishes their future and derails the opportunity for its citizens to have trust in their government. Let’s help overcome the corruption and re-establish that trust as well as learn how to help the 10^th most failed state Pakistan.

           

           

Felicia Whatley

Capstone

Is Pakistan a Failed State?

Abstract

The term failed state is often used to describe a state having failed politically or economically at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities such as an erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions; for it to not be able to provide public services; and/ or not be able to interact with the other states as a member of the international community. There can be widespread corruption, crime, and a stark downfall in the state’s economy. A failed state can be a threat to the international community. “The Reagan administration also cheerfully tolerated Pakistan’s slide toward radical Islamist extremism under the rule of Muhammad Zia-u-Huq, one of the brutal dictators supported by the current incumbents in Washington and their mentors. Reagan and associates also looked away politely awhile their Pakistani ally was developing nuclear weapons, (Chomsky, Noam: Failed States, 16). Recently, we have seen the United States military do drills on the risk that the Taliban gets control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

            Is Pakistan a failed state? The Taliban and Al Qaeda have their training camps within the country of Pakistan. “South Waziristan was a haven—and now the base from hundreds, perhaps thousands of Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters who had fled Afghanistan. Every major terrorist attack since 2004—London, Madrid, Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul, and Mumbai—has been traced back to the tribal areas of Pakistan,” (Weaver, Mary Anne, Pakistan: Deep Inside the Most Frightening State xvii). If it is a question of power and control, do the militias have too much power? Should the international community get more involved?

Defining a Failed State:

            The term failed state is often used to describe a state having failed politically or economically at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities such as an erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, for it to not be able to provide public services and/or not be able to interact with the other states as a member of the international community. There can be widespread corruption, crime, and a stark downfall in the state’s economy. A failed state can be a threat to the international community. Democratic consolidation is influenced by a variety of factors, including economic development, political leadership and the attributes of formal institutions. The existence of an effective state is one essential ingredient that is lacking in some countries. In the current debate, four different approaches to engaging failed and collapsed states have emerged. The revivalist school is committed to resuscitating dysfunctional states and is currently the entrenched approach in official circles. The ‘shared sovereignty’ framework advocates various levels of quasi permanent intervention in difficult cases of state failure or collapse. Territorial restructuring of states calls for the recognition of de facto sovereignty and the restructuring of de jure international boundaries when necessary. The fourth and most controversial approach, which focuses on stateless zones and uncertainty, insists on a historically grounded analysis of modern statehood as a failed global project, (GFN SSR).

            Robert Jackson’s work on the weakness and failure of the state in the developing world was a debate of loss of sovereignty, and even with a loss of sovereignty the failed state can still prevail. Jackson defined this as negative sovereignty: a normative framework which upholds the de jure legal sovereignty of states in the developing world, in contrast to ‘positive sovereignty’ in Europe in the 21^st century which had emerged after states were consolidated and many colonies were given the right to lead themselves. “Such states, in theory, enjoy legal freedom from outside interference but they lack the ability to meaningfully function or provide public services, including order. Jackson described this as the ‘sovereignty game’,” (Newman) In Jackson’s ‘negative sovereignty game’ the statesmen tolerates and supports this as a result of the ‘uncritical and widespread faith in self determination or equal sovereignty’.

Again how sovereignty for the state verses the individual has been redefined for modern purposes. Though, this is not a paper about sovereignty, it is important to evaluate that a state in crisis failed mode’s sovereignty is on trial because the dire need for judication and intervention from other states. One may argue if a country is unable to defend itself from enemies within and abroad then they do not have sovereignty. This may not be the exacerbated truth, but it is definitely important to understand how such a state values its military and fears its loss of independence.  A failed state may not have either definition of sovereignty, yet instead is dependent on outside aid and jurisdiction, even in a country like Pakistan where they have set dictatorship government. We live in a unique time where the Middle Easterners and Northern Africans are revolting and demanding democracy and perhaps an old and new form of sovereignty, where the citizens have a say in what happens in their own state. Perhaps globalization can be blamed for the erosion of some state’s stateness. I am sure North Korea’s Kim Jung Ill would make that argument and for many years China and its wall wished to keep out globalization. Within this paper I will discuss how food products with U.S. labels on it are not as welcome as you may think in Pakistan despite the poverty and starvation. Globalization is a form of expansionism and according to the scholar Newman, an invasion that can weaken the state. “Globalization is sometimes seen as an important component of state weakness: ‘the processes known as globalization are breaking up the socio-economic divisions that defined the patterns of politics which characterized the modern period. The new type of warfare has to be understood in terms of this global dislocation.’ According to this argument, therefore, neoliberal economic forces have resulted in a weakening of state capacity and a weakening of the provision of public goods in states which are already fragile and often contested.”

            If it is question of power and control, do the militias have too much power? So, ‘the “failure” of the state comes with a growing privatization of violence. This is where the new wars were characterized by a multiplicity of types of fighting units both public and private, state and non-state, or some kind of mixture’,” (Newmen). An alternative but complementary explanation for failed states is that declining superpower support for states after the end of the Cold War – as the strategic importance of the developing world appeared to be in decline it undermined the integrity of some such states. Other analysts like Gerald B. Helman and Steven R. Ratner felt that the ‘negative sovereignty game’ put strain on the consequences of a weak state creating more civil war because of security problems locally or globally. The humanitarian aid would then be misappropriated. In Gerald B. Helman and Steven R. Ratner’s famous “Saving Failed States”, Foreign Policy, No. 93, article, they argued that the weak/failed states throughout the 90’s linked to international insecurity and the newer ideas of non-traditional security threats and they described the negative implications of such an action.

            The concept of failed states has attracted the attention of many analysts, and there are three mains poles of opinion.”. “Following Jackson, theories of conflict and instability increasingly point to the weakness of the state as a key factor in the onset of violent conflict – the ‘declining state’ or ‘the problem of the modern state’. Some scholars have put this into a broad social context, suggesting fundamental changes in the nature of conflict,” (Newman).

                        Failed states do not have to be weak states. In fact a strong failed state often is what makes it so dangerous, especially when talking about failed states in Africa or the Middle East. A day does not go by when a tragedy does not happen in Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan. Where there is lawlessness, militias or terrorists are not contained. “Failed states need not be weak…the aggressive, arbitrary, tyrannical or totalitarian state would equally be regarded as having failed—at least according to the norms and standards of modern day international law,” states Chomsky. He goes on to say that even in the naked definition of what it means to be a failed state, the danger for its statesmen or the international community is at stake. “Even in the narrowest interpretation failed states are identified by the failure to provide security for the population, to guarantee rights at home or abroad, or to maintain functioning democratic institutions.” Even the concept of sovereignty is under attack in failed states. If we agree that personal freedoms embody a modern definition of sovereignty, then we much understand that in a failed state that has rights is under fire.

In Pakistan, children have to worry about getting blown up by a suicide bomber for playing in the streets or going to the market. And in Pakistan, schools are for a limited few. There are many jihad training camps and schools that Saudis send their kids to because they are numerous in Pakistan and they can afford to. If a state fails to provide basic services to its people, as Pakistan clearly does, then it is a failed state as I will diligently prove throughout the paper. For many reasons, if it should fall under the criteria of a failed state, then what should be done to help remedy this situation?

What Happens When States Fail:             

            How does it affect the international community when nation states fail? “Desirable international norms such as stability and predictability become difficult to achieve when so many of the globe’s newer nation-states waver precariously between weakness and failure, with some truly failing, and a few even collapsing. In a time of terror awareness, appreciating the nature of and responding to the dynamics of nation-state failure, and to restore the functionality of failed states is urgent policy questions of the twenty-first century,” (Rotberg). Failing states become an international threat when the government, economics, and military of a country are unstable. Nation states are also supposed to provide public goods for those within their borders. When that disintegrates, they lose faith in their own country and look for desperate means to provide for their families. In many cases they flee to neighboring nations hoping for more stability and safety. 

            When citizens cannot find work or are stricken and plagued with war in their neighbors, many flee to get away from that. A traditional definition of security and what it means for a state to protect that is still among some of the most important things that citizens value the most. Safety is one of the most important public good. When that fails, there is an upset in the state and often the economy is strained. “The state’s prime function is to provide that political good of security—to prevent cross-border invasions and infiltrations, and any loss of territory; to eliminate domestic threats to or attacks upon the national order and social structure; to prevent crime and any related dangers to domestic human security; and to enable citizens to resolve their differences with the state and with their fellow inhabitants without recourse to arms or other forms of physical coercion,” (Rotberg). The ability to provide many public goods is possible when security has been reinstated.  Most modern states are able to adjudicate disputes and provide norms for mores for a particular society. The state must have a working judicial system and enforceable set of laws to provide stability and reasonable punishment for its citizens’ crimes. Ideally, the political system will allow those it governs to participate freely, openly, and comprehensively in their political process. Much political dissidence, disobedience and unrest comes from citizens who are locked out of free participation of their politics and governments’ decisions. The embolism of sovereignty continues to be the important compass that nations need to be whole. A failed state often loses its sovereignty. “[Jeffery] Herbst goes so far as to recommend that states that cease to exercise formal control over parts of their nominal territories should lose their sovereignty, which is to be decertified. They should also lose sovereign status if they fail to project authority or fail to provide basic services outside a capital or a few cities,” (Rotberg). 

            You see it isn’t suggesting that the government necessarily has to embody democracy, but it at least encompasses diplomacy. Though, there is a movement all over the world, mostly in the Middle East and Northern Africa as citizens realize there aren’t fair democratic elections. These revolts were a long time coming and are forcing their governments to reassess and reshape how their countries conduct their governments, which is fundamental to civil rights and human rights. “Failed states are tense, deeply conflicted, dangerous, and contested bitterly by warring factions. In most failed states, government troops battle armed revolts led by one or more rivals,” (Rotberg).  The instability can lead to terrorism, gangs, or some form of crime among its citizens because the borders are not protected and its resources are strained. Often times, the official authorities in a failed state will have to fight a couple insurgencies, much of civil unrest, different degrees of communal discontent, and much of dissent directed at the state and at groups within the state, (Rotberg).

            Rotberg explained further that a failed state is often a state in anarchy that happens when there is tension between countering communities. Some newer failed states have differing ethnic, religions, and language factors that contribute to not being able to build a cohesive nation. Many of the recent holy wars were based on religious or ethnic identities. He states that state failure cannot be blamed on groups of diverse backgrounds. It can be a contributing factor as is the oppression of a minority, but often they are a main reason that adds to why a nation failed. Perhaps, poverty is another underlying factor. These may be reasons why a nation is at war but not necessarily why it is a failed state.

            “Many failed states flunk each of the tests, but they need not flunk all of them to fail overall, because satisfying the security good weighs very heavily,” (Rotberg). 

Other public goods that its citizens expect states to provide are homes, medical and health care, schools and other educational instruction, roads, railways, harbors and other infrastructure. The people want ways to conduct commerce, communications networks, money, banks, and a place where the citizens can exchange items and prosper. “Failed states are typified by deteriorating or destroyed infrastructures. As rulers siphon funds from state coffers, fewer capital resources remain for road crews, equipment and raw materials. When a state has failed or is in the process of failing, the effective educational and medical systems are privatized informally with a result of hodgepodging of shady schools and questionable health clinics,” (Rotberg).  In a failed state health care and education may be a luxury for the few that can afford it.  Yet the population may expect it to be a public good that should be more universal to access. When states fail, a country may not be able to provide such goods, especially if they are in a state of war and/ or poverty and starvation is rampant.  The government may focus their funding on their military instead.

            What can happen when a state fails according to Brennan M Kraxberger “Failed States: Temporary Obstacles to Democratic Diffusion or Fundamental Holes in the World Political Map” as various strengths and weaknesses from ‘number of strengths and weakness can be traced and shown how a state fails when:

• The state revival strategy has been successful in countries with small territories although there is no consensus about how to reconstruct political institutions after state collapse.  
• The shared sovereignty approach requires longer-term external oversight, which can promote transparency in the management of natural resources and monetary policy and can lead to better development outcomes. However, this approach may not aid larger failed states. Furthermore, the decay of institutions in collapsed states undermines negotiated power-sharing agreements between local and external actors.  
• Territorial restructuring of states involves giving juridical sovereignty to regions demonstrating empirical sovereignty, thereby supporting the emergence of new territorial entities. Altering the territorial status quo through creative diplomacy would entail significant risks. However, proponents argue that such risks may be worth taking.  
• According to the fourth approach, the government in a failed state is often viewed as a threat to indigenous cultural identities. Collective governance may be desired but the modern state model may not be. Thus, it advocates a return to pre-colonial stateless zones, although it fails to adequately address the question of what should replace modern states in regions where they are ill-suited.

            There is a significant need for creative approaches to failed and collapsed states. Whether state failure will be a temporary roadblock to political liberalization depends largely on the international context in which it operates. The necessity and emphasis on sovereignty demonstrates a country’s need to operate independently, but also it needs to provide services for its citizens. Interestingly enough Kraxberger uses the term “shared sovereignty”, which I can only imagine means a shared interest in the nation and its operations. This reminds me of Bosnia; the country was split for religious reasons. It is still seen as a collective region, but it is definitely no longer the old Yugoslavia. Many political scientists suggest that a failed state should be divided into many smaller more manageable regions. Kraxberger makes the argument for fragmentation.

• Major powers have consistently opposed redrawing international boundaries.  
• There have been more developments with regard to shared sovereignty arrangements but changes have been piecemeal and limited.  
• Austere budgets and worries about neo-colonialism have been key factors limiting these quasi-permanent relationship

Why is Pakistan a Failed State?

            Pakistan is a failed state because it is corrupt, unable to secure itself for outside actors nor able to secure itself from within its borders, its economy is frail, and the country is unable to provide public works programs for its citizens. The Fund for Peace Failed Index goes into 12 criteria that the nation is judged on and on that basis the nation ranks as the tenth most failed state in the world. The change in rank from 2009 to 2010 is shown in parentheses and the three table headings correspond to those used by the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine. This is the current list for 2010.The report uses those 12 factors to determine the rating for each nation including security threats, economic implosion, human rights violations and refugee flows. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index)

Country	Rank	Total	Demographic Pressures	Refugees and IDPs	Group Grievance	Human Flight	Uneven Economic Development	Economic Decline	Delegitimization of the State	Public Services	Human Rights	Security Apparatus	Factionalized Elites	External Intervention
Somalia	1	114.3	9.6	10.0	9.7	8.3	8.0	9.6	10.0	9.6	9.9	10.0	10.0	9.6
Chad	2	113.3	9.4	9.5	9.8	8.3	9.3	8.5	9.9	9.6	9.6	9.9	9.8	9.7
Sudan	3	111.8	8.8	9.8	9.9	8.7	9.5	6.7	9.9	9.3	9.9	9.8	9.9	9.6
Zimbabwe	4	110.2	9.4	8.6	8.8	9.7	9.4	9.6	9.6	9.4	9.5	9.2	9.5	7.5
Dem. Rep. of the Congo	5	109.9	9.9	9.6	8.6	8.0	9.5	8.7	8.8	9.0	9.4	9.8	8.9	9.7
Afghanistan	6	109.3	9.5	9.2	9.7	7.2	8.2	8.3	10.0	8.9	9.2	9.7	9.4	10.0
Iraq	7	107.3	8.5	8.7	9.3	9.3	8.8	7.6	9.0	8.4	9.1	9.5	9.6	9.5
Cen. African Rep.	8	106.4	9.1	9.3	8.9	6.1	9.2	8.4	9.0	9.2	8.8	9.7	9.1	9.6
Guinea	9	105.0	8.3	7.5	8.2	8.6	8.7	8.9	9.8	9.0	9.5	9.4	9.3	7.8
Pakistan	10	102.5	8.1	8.9	9.4	7.9	8.4	6.2	8.9	7.3	8.9	9.7	9.5	9.3

 

Indicators of a failed state

12 factors are used by Fund For Peace to ascertain the status of a country.

Social

• Mounting Demographic Pressures
• Massive Movement of Refugees or Internally Displaced Persons creating Complex Humanitarian Emergencies
• Legacy of Vengeance-Seeking Group Grievance or Group Paranoia
• Chronic and Sustained Human Flight

Economic

• Uneven Economic Development along Group Lines
• Sharp and/or Severe Economic Decline

Political

• Criminalization and/or Delegitimization of the State
• Progressive Deterioration of Public Services
• Suspension or Arbitrary Application of the Rule of Law and Widespread Violation of Human Rights
• Security Apparatus Operates as a "State Within a State"
• Rise of Factionalized Elites
• Intervention of Other States or External Political Actors

Pakistan was ranked tenth in the 2010 Foreign Policy and Fund for Peace Failed State Index. It was judged based on the twelve indicators above. 

2010 Failed State Index

Rank		Country	FSI
2010	Change compared to 2009		2010	Change compared to 2009
1		Somalia	114.3	(0.4)
2	(2)	Chad	113.3	(1.1)
3		Sudan	111.8	(0.6)
4	(2)	Zimbabwe	110.2	(3.8)
5		Democratic Republic of the Congo	109.9	(1.2)
6	(1)	Afghanistan	109.3	(1.1)
7	(1)	Iraq	107.3	(1.3)
8		Central African Republic	106.4	(1.0)
9		Guinea	105.0	(0.4)
10	(1)	Pakistan	102.5	(2.1)

Is Pakistan a failed state? The Taliban and Al Qaeda have their training camps within the country of Pakistan. “South Waziristan was a haven—and now the base from hundreds, perhaps thousands of Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters who had fled Afghanistan. Every major terrorist attack since 2004—London, Madrid, Bali, Casablanca, Istanbul, and Mumbai—has been traced back to the tribal areas of Pakistan,” (Weaver, Mary Anne, Pakistan: Deep Inside the Most Frightening State xvii). From the beginning of Pakistan’s independence in 1947, many wars plagued the nation. It was once ruled by British along with India. The land divided via religion—Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India. They fought for control of Kashmir on multiple occasions. The wars led to the country splitting for the Line of Control, but the wars continued between the two nations.

Pakistani President Iskandar Mirza declared martial law in 1958 and Commander in Chief Ayub Khan kept it in such a state until 1962 when a new Constitution was made.  Then power was turned over to dictator General Yayha Khan in 1969. Bangladesh demanded its independence from Pakistan in 1971 and successfully defeated Pakistani forces with help from India.  Then Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a leader from the Pakistani Peoples Party took control of the Pakistani government. A new Constitution was drafted and Bhutto took control of a few public works’ programs that helped land reform so peasants could have land. He took on the title of Prime Minister.  His nationalization efforts made him very unpopular and as a response, the Pakistan National Alliance was formed and an attempt at democracy happened. The election was thought to be set up and Bhutto won by a landslide in 1977.

            The PPP and the PNA worked to negotiate, but instead General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq as the Chief of Army Staff seized control of the government in a military coup. He reined for ten years as a dictator until he was killed in a suspicious plane crash in 1988. Afterwards, there were elections and the country was ruled by civilians for eleven years, but most were under Benazir Bhutto, who was dismissed twice as Prime Minister because of corruption charges. Then there was another military coup in 1999 as General Pervez Musharraf took control of the government, who later had to resign to avoid impeachment. Then Asif Ali Zardari (husband of Ms. Bhutto) was assassinated. So you see the country was never a true democracy but instead with long corrupt dictatorships. “The Reagan administration also cheerfully tolerated Pakistan’s slide toward radical Islamist extremism under the rule of Muhammad Zia u-Huq, one of the brutal dictators supported by the current incumbents in Washington and their mentors. Reagan and associates also looked away politely awhile their Pakistani ally was developing nuclear weapons, (Chomsky, Noam: Failed States, 16). Recently, we have seen the United States military do drills on the risk that the Taliban gets control of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

Pakistan is different in that the aid increased after the Cold War because of strategic interests. One must keep into account that such dangerous wars have continued throughout the past century. Four times Pakistan has been at war with India and four times they have lost. Bangladesh broke away and very recently Mumbai was attacked by Pakistani militants. The death toll was almost 200 people killed. Jews, Israelis, British, and Americans were specifically targeted. One must ask, should the international community get more involved? Whatever has been done in the past to try to keep the terrorists at bay, is obviously not working now. If a failed state is one that cannot impose laws and protect its citizens as well as the international community, then definitely Pakistan would be a failed state. Every country has criminals but something of this large scale begs for intervention.

            Also it was a country plagued with wars from India, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda. Pakistanis suffered through two military coups. Knowing now that the military in Pakistan is disproportionately over funded verses the rest of the public programs tells me that perhaps the military in that country has too much power over its citizens. It is empathetic to note that the country has been at war since its beginning and worries that it must hold up a strong military, but at what cost? Thus far, Pakistan has survived two military coups and two assassinations. This situation is not sustainable and the army itself will crash and burn at some point, with horrific consequences. Meanwhile, the country is splitting further on ethnic and sectarian lines and is always one step away from economic chaos. No one, not the army, not the mainstream political parties, not the intelligentsia, has a coherent framework in which they can disengage from Islamist millenarian dreams and rebuild the country as a more normal country ‘developing’ country, said Ali, O.

The population in Pakistan is growing rapidly, along with a stark unemployment rate and a lack of educated adults. A newspaper Jung did a report in 2007 stating that the population will double by 2050. In 2007 when this report was done 70% were uneducated and resources were very thin.  “The population growth has caused an eight-time increase in the unemployment...With almost one third of the population living in abject poverty, 54 million people do not have access to safe drinking water ... 53.5 million are illiterates. The population explosion has led to the shortage of educational facilities, health services, housing units, food, living space, arable land and clean water,” (Ali). This imbalance of education and lack of resources is still true today. There aren’t enough public works programs to help the citizens of Pakistan. The population has increased by 50 million in the past 15 years, while the impoverished has doubled. Also the literacy rate for 2002 was half the population. Almost 60 percent of all men know how to read and only about 30 percent of all women can read. We can already see the stratification and lack of women’s rights in this country. It is devastating. 

At that time, the country set aside $107 million a year for education verses their $2 billion for their military—granted the country has been in multiple wars since its existence in 1947, but how will the country grow and complete with other nations if they are uneducated? Instead they have madrasses—Islamic schools that scatter the countryside adding to the theocracy of the state. “The state of Pakistani women has a powerful bearing on the condition of Pakistan. For example, two out of three women in Pakistan are uneducated. The importance of this fact lies in that many studies show that poverty, malnutrition and child labor are higher in societies where the women are uneducated,”(Sastry). Pakistani women's rights activist Ameera Javeria, in an article entitled “To Be a Woman in Pakistan is to ask for a Life of Subservience wrote:

“Pakistani women continue to be victims of an unjust society rooted in history and tradition. Lack of awareness about their rights and their need for education has added to their predicament. Most Islamic communities are averse to the idea of giving women social status equal to that of men. That a strong feudal elite still rules the roost in the vast countryside is a major impediment to enlightenment and democracy, while a powerful clergy rejects all notions of equality and freedom for women. Those women who rebel by asserting their rightful place in society are punished and considered immoral; many have been the victims of domestic violence, rape, and murder.”

Pakistan had a baby boom with 37% of the population are fifteen or below, but a large high infant mortality rate of over 67 deaths per 1,000 births, (www.foreignpolicy.com), due to a lack of a healthy system and sanitation.  There is a big risk for communicable diseases in this nation. These factors give Pakistan an 8.1 on the Failed State Index. It is a slight improvement from 8.3 the previous year. The amount of refugees and displaced population increased from 8.6 to 8.9. The worst that there could be is a 10 on the index scale, so as you can see so far the country ranks very high, unfortunately. 

There are about 1.4 million Afghanistan refugees who fled to Pakistan, which puts pressure on an already impoverished state, but it is the internally displaced people that really put a strain on the economy. Because of wars over 3 million Pakistanis had to leave their homes in Swat, Buner, Shangla, and lower and upper Dir. There are much military resistance in the tribal regions and rival parties. After the female PPP leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in 2007 much reaction violence spiked. A bombing in the capital killed 50 and injured 200. The skirmishes of the Pakistani Army and the militants continued to spike. What did improve were the group grievances. It went from an index indicator of 8.3 to 7.9.  And the human flight indicator improved by .4 also.  The social indicators also track the emigration rate of 2.2% as published in the 2010 Human Development Report.  The poverty is unbelievable and the economy is stunted.

 

Poverty in Pakistan:

The Human Poverty Index (HPI) is an indication of the standard of living in a country, developed by the United Nations. For highly developed countries, the UN considers that it can better reflect the extent of deprivation compared to the Human Development Index.

Cases of poverty in Pakistan rose from 22–26% in from 1991 to 32–35% to 1999. They have subsequently fallen to 25-28% according to the reports of the World Bank and UN Development Program reports. These reports contradict the claims made by the Government of Pakistan that the poverty rates are only 23.1%3. The CIA fact book places the 2006 poverty rate at 24%. Poverty in Pakistan is a major economic issue. Nearly one-quarter of the population is classified poor as of October 2006. The declining trend on poverty in the country seen during the 1970s and 1980s was reversed in the 1990s few federal works programs and rampant corruption. The government of Pakistan has launched an "Interim Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper" that suggest how to reduce poverty in the country. The World Bank evaluates that the program has much success, with stating that poverty has fallen by 5 % since 2000.

For many people in developing countries, poverty means difficulty in living and being able to feed, clothe, and provide shelter for their families. It also means a lack of basic services in health and education. In Pakistan lack of access to credit, training to income generating activities, basic social services and infrastructure are the critical factors behind the persistence of substation poverty. Poverty is widely spread in Pakistan and is affects the majority of the rural phenomenon. Nearly two-thirds of the population of Pakistan live in rural areas. In the 1970’s to 1980’s the poverty rate of Pakistan fell down a bit, but then in the 1990’s it rose up. According to the Government of Pakistan’s poverty reduction strategy papers, currently about 10 percent of the population is chronically poor, but a much larger portion of the population [for about 33 percent] is considered vulnerable and likely to sink in poverty, stated the CIA fact book.

The amount of poverty varies between rural to urban areas, and from one province to the next. In many other mountainous parts of the country where communities are small, isolated, and there are few major urban centers, poverty is vast and evenly disturbed. There is much controversy between the government officials and independent economists about the statistics of poverty, but both agree that three out of four Pakistani living under the poverty line are women.  It is concluded that if a person who is living in Pakistan earns less than a dollar per day then he is in poverty net. On other hand if he has lack of facilities than it is also borderline poverty. More than 40% of the population of the Pakistan is living below the poverty line.

Poverty in Pakistan is a growing concern. The middle-class has grown to about 35 million, yet still nearly one-quarter of the population is classified as suffering from poverty as of October 2006. As of 2008, 17.2% of the total population lives below the poverty line, which is the lowest figure in the history of Pakistan. The declining trend in poverty as seen in the country during the 1970s and 1980s was reversed in the 1990s by poor federal policies and rampant corruption; it is known as the poverty bomb. As of 2009, Pakistan's Human Development Index (HDI) is 0.572, higher than that of nearby Bangladesh’s  0.543. Pakistan's HDI still stands lower than that of rivaling India's at 0.612. According to the Human Development Index (HDI), 60.3% of Pakistan's population lives on under $2 a day, and some 22.6% live under $1 a day. Wealth distribution in Pakistan is highly stratified, with 10% of the population earning 27.6% of income. Pakistan's human development indicators, show especially those for women to be falling below those of countries with comparable levels of per-capita income. Pakistan also has a higher infant mortality at 88 per 1000) than the South Asian average 83 per 1000 (Qazi Shamveel Bin Tousif).