In 2024, elections were held in more than 70 countries making it a historic year in global politics. From the United States to Europe, India, and Pakistan, nearly 5 billion people voted to elect their leaders; these results have reshaped the world’s power dynamics and influenced the decision-making of global leaders on war and peace strategies. Historically, the world’s power dynamics have transitioned through various patterns—unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity—empowering some regions while diminishing others. In 1991, the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in a unipolar world dominated by the United States. However, the emergence of new power centers has been steadily transforming the global order into a multipolar system with regions like Asia, Africa, and Latin America gaining prominence, with Asian countries at the forefront of this shift.
In the 17th century Asia dominated the global population and production, but by the 18th century its production share fell to 20% as the West experienced rapid industrial growth. Today, Asia’s population and economic growth suggest it surpasses the West in various spheres, including economic, political, and military domains. Halford Mackinder’s heartland theory implies that regions with dense populations, growing economies, and innovation capacity will increasingly influence world affairs.
Political stability and societal reforms have driven economic development in several developed Asian nations. The trajectory of democracy in Asia reveals a growing appetite for democratic governance as nations recognize the importance of safeguarding electoral processes and political rights. This political maturity is exemplified by two recent incidents: the fall of the Shiekh Hasina’s government in Bangladesh and the failure of an attempted imposition of martial law in South Korea. In both instances, economic growth followed the end of military rule.
In Bangladesh, the youth-led Monsoon revolution without centralized leadership demonstrated political maturity and the military’s realization that seizing power was no longer tenable. The people’s zero tolerance for military rule marked a significant shift. Similarly, in South Korea, protesters vehemently opposed President Yoon Suk-yeol’s declaration of a short-lived martial law. It was the first such attempt since the 1980s, and citizens feared a return to the dark era of military dictatorship. These incidents established boundaries for military institutions to focus on their intended purpose: defending the nation rather than ruling it.
Despite differences in their economic histories, both Bangladesh and South Korea have witnessed prolonged periods of authoritarian rule. In the 1980s, South Korea underwent rapid industrialization known as the ‘Miracle on the Han River,’ transforming from one of the poorest countries to a high-income nation. Two pivotal factors in this transformation were political independence following the end of military rule and government support for chaebols—large family-controlled conglomerates. These entities helped transition the economy into a knowledge-based system, significantly impacting GDP, employment, and the cultural landscape.
Bangladesh’s economic growth also gained momentum after the military government ended in 1990. The two major political parties, the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) shaped the country’s political landscape. Led by Sheikh Hasina (AL) and Khaleda Zia (BNP), often referred to as the “two begums of Bangladesh,” these leaders steered the nation through periods of progress and intense rivalry. Although Bangladesh’s industrialization was less dramatic than South Korea’s, its GDP growth consistently outpaced many South Asian peers, maintaining an average annual growth rate of over 6% since the early 2000s and peaking at 8.2% in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. This growth was driven by the booming ready-made garment (RMG) industry, remittances, and agricultural productivity. Bangladesh also achieved significant poverty reduction, with poverty rates dropping from over 43.5% in 1991 to around 20% in 2023, aided by social safety programs, microfinance initiatives from institutions like Grameen Bank and BRAC, and investments in education and healthcare.
In contrast, Pakistan’s economic growth has been inconsistent, averaging around 4-5% annually, with periodic declines. Factors such as political instability, structural issues, and a lack of export diversification have hindered progress. While Bangladesh leveraged democratic governance for robust economic growth, Pakistan’s democracy often lacks inclusivity and transparency. Although military rule ended in 2008, weak democratic institutions have failed to deliver meaningful progress. The persistent influence of civilian and military elites has stifled reforms. Recently, the deployment of law enforcement agencies to suppress political protests has further highlighted the fragility of Pakistan’s democratic framework.Many other countries offer lessons on how the will of the people has made military authoritarianism untenable, leading to the consolidation of civilian supremacy. Political reforms in Pakistan are hindered by corruption, a lack of transparency and accountability, and weak institutional capacity. Good governance is essential for development, relying on the independence of the judiciary and media. Countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, and Rwanda have successfully reduced corruption through independent anti-corruption bodies. In contrast, Pakistan’s National Accountability Bureau (NAB) suffers from political interference, affecting both the judiciary and media while the government faces challenges in strengthening institutions, such as establishing an independent Election Commission and ensuring a strong judiciary.
Pakistan’s economic challenges stem from internal political conflicts, a low female labour force participation rate, limited investment in research and development (0.25% of GDP as reported by Trading Economics), inconsistent policies, low savings and investments, weak exports, fiscal deficits, and energy crises. In the 1970s, while South Korea invested in its chaebols, Pakistan’s nationalization policy hindered private-sector innovation and limited economic growth. Today, Samsung alone contributes more to South Korea’s economy than Pakistan’s entire GDP. With a market capitalization of $381.4 billion and revenues of $233.1 billion in 2023, Samsung underscores the transformative power of public-private partnerships and private-sector giants.
To achieve economic and political stability, Pakistan must address systemic issues. With 60% of its population comprising youth, there is a critical need to transform this demographic advantage into skilled labor. Investments in digital and manual skill training are essential for creating exportable skilled labor.
Additionally, lessons from South Korea and Bangladesh emphasize the importance of societal changes, education, industrialization, and a growing middle class to support democratic values and stability. Robust public-private partnerships, increased investment in research and development, and fostering private-sector innovation can make Pakistan globally competitive.
Politically, Pakistan’s journey toward democratic freedom requires systemic reform and collective resolve. It needs a transformative grassroots movement aimed at creating robust institutions and a culture where leaders are dispensable, and the populace is empowered. Achieving this requires fair elections through strengthened electoral institutions, transparent voting systems, strict monitoring, and judicial oversight, coupled with public awareness initiatives like civic education, mass media campaigns, and civil society engagement. By prioritizing transparency, accountability, and good governance, Pakistan can pave the way for sustainable development and prosperity.
