05-12-2006, 06:07 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Pakistanâs image problem </b>
Fridaytimes
Moeed Yusuf
<i>HEC's stance is entrenched in the 'traditional' brain-drain concept, where physical absence from a country is considered a loss </i>
 Â
Pakistan has managed a remarkable economic recovery since 9/11 and also continues to be a frontline ally in the war on terror. Yet, its image problem does not go away. Just recently, Islamabad has been declared a near-failed state in a ranking published by a reputed international journal.
The Pakistani authorities remain cognisant of the problem. During a breakfast meeting with the SAFMA delegation, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz highlighted certain truly impressive efforts from the government in this regard. However, Mr Aziz maintained that a positive image projection would only be possible if ground realities reflect a positive picture.
While there is no gainsaying that ultimately ground realities will rectify Pakistanâs image on a permanent basis, a change in ground realities may be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for altering a countryâs image. A concerted effort is required to present realities so that a positive change is registered in Western minds. This is even more important for a country that is initiating the image-projection exercise at a time when its perception in the outside world is acutely negative.
There are two aspects to image projection. First, existing positive aspects of the Pakistani society and policy must be presented effectively. Second, as ground realities change for the better, they must be reflected in their totality. Neither of these is being achieved by Pakistan at present.
The single biggest shortcoming of Islamabadâs efforts is the lack of realisation of the importance of having independent experts placed in policy informing positions in the West. The uptake of any positive change in Pakistan is that much slower at present, thanks to the lack of objective Western research on Pakistan.
One must acknowledge Indiaâs successful drive towards image projection, which has managed to focus Western minds on the positive aspects of the Indian society, while ignoring the negatives. The Indian success in tilting Washingtonâs stance in New Delhiâs favour is a result of a number of factors, one of them being the numbers of Indian thinkers (academics, experts, journalists) who have managed to find placements in Western think tanks and universities. In the final outcome, they have managed to underscore Indiaâs positive attributes. Pakistani presence in Western think tanks and universities is miniscule and remains largely unnoticed. There is an urgent need to bring the handful of Pakistani experts that are present in the West under one umbrella to devise the best possible strategy to present an objective viewpoint on developments in Pakistan.
<b>Indiaâs progress on this front has partly been made possible due to the willingness of the Indian private sector to contribute resources towards funding such research-oriented positions for its thinkers.</b> This points to the widespread understanding of the benefits in having independent researchers present views that may otherwise not be available to the common reader. Pakistan acutely lacks such understanding. We continue to live in a culture where empirical research is considered a luxury that is not likely to produce any tangible gains. Consequently, we have continued to suffer on the image-projection front.
Take, for instance, the Higher Education Commissionâs PhD sponsorship programme. The HEC has not considered boosting political science and mass communications as a priority field. The Commissionâs major reservation is that experts in such fields would take up offers from international media giants and think tanks based abroad, thus violating the HEC prerequisite of returning home following completion of the education programme.
This stance is counterproductive and it is passé. It is entrenched in the âtraditionalâ brain-drain concept, where physical absence from a country is considered a loss. Worse, it points to a disconnect between national priorities and HECâs vision. The HEC would indeed be best serving national interest by encouraging PhDs in such fields to secure placements abroad rather than returning home and being of no real use. One increasingly sees non-Western correspondents in leading media channels in the world. Hardly any of them are of Pakistani origin.
The government and its various departments need to invest in both short-term and long-term measures. They must give incentives to the handful of Pakistani researchers with sufficient grounding in their fields to seek placements in policy influencing Western think tanks and universities. The key here is to focus on âindependentâ analysts, not ex-government spokesmen or officials, who, even when they have an objective outlook on issues, are sometimes rejected for following the official line. For the long-term, the government must target political science, mass communications and related fields as a priority to produce experts in the field, and preferably allow them to find placements abroad.
It is imperative to point out that none of what I have argued is designed to suggest that the authorities need to influence research from Pakistani experts. Past authorities have attempted this to serve political interests, but have only ended up lowering the credibility of Pakistani researchers in general. The official role should be limited to giving incentives and placing experts to conduct independent, objective research on issues of their interest. As things stand right now, even where Pakistan has made remarkable progress, the discourse remains largely sceptical. These are areas where objective analysis can rectify misplaced perceptions with relative ease.
Next, we require an integrated set-up among government functionaries to identify key experts and journalists who have expertise in issues of interest to the West and provide them with current, up-to-date information on relevant issues. Strategic and economic issues relevant to US policy are examples of such areas. Such writers are taken extremely seriously by Western policy makers and could be relevant in portraying the country in a positive light. Currently, there is a dearth of real-time information available to these writers. Most of the information obtained is on an ad-hoc basis. It is imperative to institutionalise such a process.
Finally, one must point out the potential role of the Pakistani diaspora in image projection in the West.<b> The contribution of the Indian diaspora in jump-starting the countryâs IT boom is a well-known fact. Their role in Indiaâs image projection is also established. What is often ignored, however, is the constant backing the diaspora received from the Indian government at home.</b> While Islamabad is also making significant progress on this count, Pakistani dispora remains largely disjointed and must be brought under a single platform so it can contribute to Pakistanâs image projection.
The diaspora should be encouraged not only to rally for FDI (foreign direct investment) to Pakistan but also to arrange for Westerners to visit the country and witness the reality themselves. Government functionaries must be lauded for their initiatives to invite prominent foreign journalists and present them with Pakistanâs position on controversial issues. To add further credibility to the process, one might consider allowing foreign journalists to undertake field visits to high profile areas to develop independent perceptions.
There is no substitute to altering the reality. However, in order for the change to be acknowledged, image projection through independent voices is an imperative. The latter must be initiated as an institutionalised process even if the progress on the former is slow. Currently, Islamabad seems to be treating âsoftâ image projection on an ad-hoc basis.
<i>-Moeed Yusuf is a Consultant on Economic Policy at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad </i>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is ignoring major problem with Pakistan, that is Islam and fanatics.
Fridaytimes
Moeed Yusuf
<i>HEC's stance is entrenched in the 'traditional' brain-drain concept, where physical absence from a country is considered a loss </i>
 Â
Pakistan has managed a remarkable economic recovery since 9/11 and also continues to be a frontline ally in the war on terror. Yet, its image problem does not go away. Just recently, Islamabad has been declared a near-failed state in a ranking published by a reputed international journal.
The Pakistani authorities remain cognisant of the problem. During a breakfast meeting with the SAFMA delegation, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz highlighted certain truly impressive efforts from the government in this regard. However, Mr Aziz maintained that a positive image projection would only be possible if ground realities reflect a positive picture.
While there is no gainsaying that ultimately ground realities will rectify Pakistanâs image on a permanent basis, a change in ground realities may be a necessary, but not sufficient condition for altering a countryâs image. A concerted effort is required to present realities so that a positive change is registered in Western minds. This is even more important for a country that is initiating the image-projection exercise at a time when its perception in the outside world is acutely negative.
There are two aspects to image projection. First, existing positive aspects of the Pakistani society and policy must be presented effectively. Second, as ground realities change for the better, they must be reflected in their totality. Neither of these is being achieved by Pakistan at present.
The single biggest shortcoming of Islamabadâs efforts is the lack of realisation of the importance of having independent experts placed in policy informing positions in the West. The uptake of any positive change in Pakistan is that much slower at present, thanks to the lack of objective Western research on Pakistan.
One must acknowledge Indiaâs successful drive towards image projection, which has managed to focus Western minds on the positive aspects of the Indian society, while ignoring the negatives. The Indian success in tilting Washingtonâs stance in New Delhiâs favour is a result of a number of factors, one of them being the numbers of Indian thinkers (academics, experts, journalists) who have managed to find placements in Western think tanks and universities. In the final outcome, they have managed to underscore Indiaâs positive attributes. Pakistani presence in Western think tanks and universities is miniscule and remains largely unnoticed. There is an urgent need to bring the handful of Pakistani experts that are present in the West under one umbrella to devise the best possible strategy to present an objective viewpoint on developments in Pakistan.
<b>Indiaâs progress on this front has partly been made possible due to the willingness of the Indian private sector to contribute resources towards funding such research-oriented positions for its thinkers.</b> This points to the widespread understanding of the benefits in having independent researchers present views that may otherwise not be available to the common reader. Pakistan acutely lacks such understanding. We continue to live in a culture where empirical research is considered a luxury that is not likely to produce any tangible gains. Consequently, we have continued to suffer on the image-projection front.
Take, for instance, the Higher Education Commissionâs PhD sponsorship programme. The HEC has not considered boosting political science and mass communications as a priority field. The Commissionâs major reservation is that experts in such fields would take up offers from international media giants and think tanks based abroad, thus violating the HEC prerequisite of returning home following completion of the education programme.
This stance is counterproductive and it is passé. It is entrenched in the âtraditionalâ brain-drain concept, where physical absence from a country is considered a loss. Worse, it points to a disconnect between national priorities and HECâs vision. The HEC would indeed be best serving national interest by encouraging PhDs in such fields to secure placements abroad rather than returning home and being of no real use. One increasingly sees non-Western correspondents in leading media channels in the world. Hardly any of them are of Pakistani origin.
The government and its various departments need to invest in both short-term and long-term measures. They must give incentives to the handful of Pakistani researchers with sufficient grounding in their fields to seek placements in policy influencing Western think tanks and universities. The key here is to focus on âindependentâ analysts, not ex-government spokesmen or officials, who, even when they have an objective outlook on issues, are sometimes rejected for following the official line. For the long-term, the government must target political science, mass communications and related fields as a priority to produce experts in the field, and preferably allow them to find placements abroad.
It is imperative to point out that none of what I have argued is designed to suggest that the authorities need to influence research from Pakistani experts. Past authorities have attempted this to serve political interests, but have only ended up lowering the credibility of Pakistani researchers in general. The official role should be limited to giving incentives and placing experts to conduct independent, objective research on issues of their interest. As things stand right now, even where Pakistan has made remarkable progress, the discourse remains largely sceptical. These are areas where objective analysis can rectify misplaced perceptions with relative ease.
Next, we require an integrated set-up among government functionaries to identify key experts and journalists who have expertise in issues of interest to the West and provide them with current, up-to-date information on relevant issues. Strategic and economic issues relevant to US policy are examples of such areas. Such writers are taken extremely seriously by Western policy makers and could be relevant in portraying the country in a positive light. Currently, there is a dearth of real-time information available to these writers. Most of the information obtained is on an ad-hoc basis. It is imperative to institutionalise such a process.
Finally, one must point out the potential role of the Pakistani diaspora in image projection in the West.<b> The contribution of the Indian diaspora in jump-starting the countryâs IT boom is a well-known fact. Their role in Indiaâs image projection is also established. What is often ignored, however, is the constant backing the diaspora received from the Indian government at home.</b> While Islamabad is also making significant progress on this count, Pakistani dispora remains largely disjointed and must be brought under a single platform so it can contribute to Pakistanâs image projection.
The diaspora should be encouraged not only to rally for FDI (foreign direct investment) to Pakistan but also to arrange for Westerners to visit the country and witness the reality themselves. Government functionaries must be lauded for their initiatives to invite prominent foreign journalists and present them with Pakistanâs position on controversial issues. To add further credibility to the process, one might consider allowing foreign journalists to undertake field visits to high profile areas to develop independent perceptions.
There is no substitute to altering the reality. However, in order for the change to be acknowledged, image projection through independent voices is an imperative. The latter must be initiated as an institutionalised process even if the progress on the former is slow. Currently, Islamabad seems to be treating âsoftâ image projection on an ad-hoc basis.
<i>-Moeed Yusuf is a Consultant on Economic Policy at the Sustainable Development Policy Institute in Islamabad </i>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He is ignoring major problem with Pakistan, that is Islam and fanatics.