Some writers have questioned the need for soft power in Pakistan and advocated reliance on hard power only. What is less understood is the fact that non-traditional security has become more salient after the cold war. Multiple existential issues such as stagnating economies, climate change, energy crises, repressive governments, cronyism and corruption, poor governance, cross-border interventions, refugees and internally displaced persons, drug and criminal mafias – all necessitate drastically revisiting the traditional security paradigm. In other words, the concept of the ‘security’ state has morphed into that of a ‘welfare state.’ Joseph Nye Jr, a Harvard professor, coined the term ‘soft power’. The term gained currency in the 1990s and is now widely used in international affairs. In fact, ‘soft power’ is the ability to persuade through some of the values humanity holds dear: democracy, art, culture, human rights, welfare, good governance and societal harmony. According to the 2013 Monocle Soft Power Survey, Germany currently holds the top spot in soft power. Nye differentiates between two types of power: ‘Hard power’ is ‘the ability to get others to act in ways that are contrary to their initial preferences and strategies’. On the contrary, ‘soft power’ is the ability to get ‘others to want the outcomes that you want’ and more particularly ‘the ability to achieve goals through attraction rather than coercion’. Finally, Nye introduces ‘smart power’, fusing hard and soft power. ‘Soft power’ as embodied in culture and arts is as old as history: the Greek, Roman, Iranian, Indian and Ottoman empires all manifested this influence on others. The US, Great Britain, France and Russia also radiated ‘soft power’ effect in territories they dominated. Islamic societies also exhibited ‘soft power’ – by the Abbasides and then the Spanish Moors – but over a period of time, this dwindled through political enfeeblement. This has caused poverty of thought, anti-intellectualism and lack of creative dynamism in many Muslim societies. South Asia has had a rich cultural reservoir of Hindu, Buddhist, Islamic (Turkish and Iranian and central Asian) and lately British heritage. After the cold war, western films, music, dress, cuisine, IT, Pope’s visits, democracy, radio Free Europe – cumulatively had immense influence on millions of people in Eastern Europe and created strategic importance in generating change. Democracy, education, economic development good governance, research and innovation, human rights, culture, tourism and interfaith harmony have become indices of ‘soft power.’ China is a prime example for business investments, infrastructure development, foreign aid, innovative products, tourism, cultural arts, peaceful diplomacy; South Korea for its art, culture, tourism, culinary assets and Hong Kong and Taiwan as global business hubs. Soft power is sometimes helpful in situations rather than resorting to hard power. Indeed, complex issues such as global warming, global diseases, refugee rehabilitation, post-war reconstruction and cyberspace are more likely to be resolved through soft power. Nations, instead of acting unilaterally, can act multilaterally. Use of multilateralism co-opts others and enables other countries not to feel threatened by its supremacy. Use of soft power by a nation-state gives it confidence by raising its international image and leads to enhanced interactions in international organisations and leads to cultural, trade and other cooperation. Diplomacy becomes easier and more effective with soft power. However, some key factors are necessary for power conversion: capital, political structure, social capital and social structure. Established democracies are more inclined to use soft power than authoritarian regimes. But soft power can be wielded not just by states but by other actors in international politics, such as NGOs and international institutions. A country’s soft power rests on three resources: its culture; political values and foreign policies when others see them as legitimate. Why is ‘soft power’ generally lacking in the Islamic world and, ipso facto, in Pakistan? Soft power was more evident in the 1960s/early 1970s when Pakistan presented an image of a moderate, progressive Islamic welfare state. Pakistan then had a better economy, held development models for others, had a hardworking friendly workforce abroad and attracted foreign investment; it was a place for foreign tourists, possessed good universities, civil institutions, better educational levels and skilful diplomacy. However, since the 1980s, the situation has steadily declined –with the country succumbing to forces of militancy and radicalism. Regional international developments such as invasions of neighbouring Afghanistan by two superpowers – Soviet Union and USA – and festering the Kashmir dispute with India has taken a toll. More importantly, the average myopic leaderships lacked vision to nurture overall national interests through ‘soft power’ and instead obsessed over the security state paradigm. In history, nations that relied only on crude power to control and impose their ideologies – such as Germany, Japan and Russia – faced problems. It was the lack of soft power of Russia which led to its demise while the west stood for democracy, human rights, openness, good quality of life, better consumer goods and progress in all walks of life. The fact that even today the developing world and Eastern European citizens are eager to go and settle down in the US and Europe is a testimony to the latter’s open societies and way of life: in other words, attraction of their soft power. This soft power got some reversal when the US used military forces invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and militarily intervened in Libya. Turkey and Malaysia enjoy mid-way status in the ‘soft power’ spectrum while Pakistan is much behind. While one does not dispute the realist paradigm completely, which focuses on military power, a discreet combination will make a country vibrant, internationally likeable and credible. This is the need of the time. To be continued The writer is former president of the Islamabad Policy Research Institute and presently adviser to centre for policy studies, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology, Islamabad.
