Various international social surveys and numerous UN studies have been concluding over the years that the Nordic states along with Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the least corrupt nations in the world on one hand and the best countries to dwell in, on the other.

So, not surprisingly, even this time Norway, Sweden, Canada, Belgium and Australia respectively bagged top five positions, according to the Human Development Index, that takes several complex factors including life expectancy, literacy rate, GDP per capita, gender equality, availability of health care and other basic amenities into consideration, in the annual United Nations Human Development Report (UNHDR), released on July 24, 2002. Sadly, the same report placed Pakistan at 138th position on a list of 173 contestants.

Besides noticing the obvious inverse proportionality between corruption and prosperity, appropriate questions would be: what is wrong with us, what is special about these societies and ultimately what does this vast gap depend on? Or put it like this, what are the main reasons (or frailties) behind the prevailing suffering and grinding poverty in our region compared with the attributes that have been pivotal for the progress and well being of the top performers of the UNHDR?

First of all, for sure, these nations are not genetically superior to South Asians. The differences are and must be man-made. Hence, it would be a beneficial undertaking to ponder over the salient features of the aforementioned nations in conjunction with reflecting upon the major shortcomings/virtues of our society. Identifying rational answers to these riddles and subsequently genuine attempts to implement the findings would definitely help us solving some, if not all of our umpteen problems.

I myself have been very curious to locate the magic wand responsible for this huge disparity for quite a few years. The inquisitiveness gradually inspired a closer assessment of the Scandinavian socio-political system. Without laying any claim to the final truth or ruling out other possible explanations, I would be honoured to pass on some empirical and studious observations of mine.

Amazingly, the underlying principles, according to my analysis, are simpler than expected. A sole phrase would illustrate the phenomenon: utmost respect for hakookul ibad (people’s right) and the rule of law. To put it briefly, their effective socio-legal set-up seems to be the foremost rationale for their phenomenal accomplishments in all walks of life.

In fact, it wouldn’t be an erroneous assertion that to prosper, at least in worldly terms, nations have to be sincere about hakookul ibad (human rights, in contemporary terminology) and honest in upholding the supremacy of law.

Insaaf (justice) is the best guarantor for social peace and the leading source of motivation. A level field for all participants, irrespective of their financial and social standing ensures that the players will be justly rewarded for their efforts and as a result induce them to partake wholeheartedly. It doesn’t take much brainpower to realize that a society can never flourish where rules and laws are being implemented selectively.

The essence of insaaf is that everyone, right from the prime minister down to a junior clerk is held accountable for his deeds – alike. To extend “softer” treatment after the legal machinery has been sent into motion because the accused happen to be a mighty general/minister is out of question for the nation-states aspiring to move forward.

Trust in the judicial system that your grievances will ultimately be redressed according to the book is a comfort that cannot be measured in monetary terms. The surety that a pauper to VVIP has to go through the same process, once the judicial institutions have well taken over is the best crime prevention.

Evidently, imparting justice and ensuring equality in front of law is yet another sector where they diametrically differ from us. The rule of law soundly incorporated into daily life affairs, unquestionably an imperative for any thriving society -- totally forsaken by us whereas enthusiastically adopted by these countries-- explains a lot.

Anyhow, without being a bigoted, fundamentalist or rigidly religious person, I would further aver that in reality the countries in question are doing nothing extraordinary but (unconsciously) following the fundamental teachings of Islam – paradoxically the religion often accused of sponsoring terrorism nowadays -- regarding social obligations, exactly those we have tragically forgotten ourselves.

For instance, Scandinavian countries with their extensive social welfare system, theoretically assuring cradle-to-grave affluence to their nationals are the few places on the planet that remind an ideal Islamic society, where no one goes to bed unfed. Due to the absence of discriminatory criteria in favour of influential, people at the helm are not isolated from the mainstream society and are fully aware of the daily life difficulties. This first-hand awareness/experience of ground realities is a real “devolution”, rendering the problems being faced by a common man go unnoticed for long impossible.

At the same time, publicly as well as privately, religion is regarded as a spiritual relationship between an individual and the Creator over there. Faith or other pure theological issues are considered personal realm, where the state has no say. For example, the official registration of religious affiliations of the citizens in Sweden was last commissioned back in 1912.

Even, privately, not many of them go to church either; rather the majority is thoroughly secularised. What a strange co-incidence that without fulfilling any of Hakook Allah (duties towards God), they are the economic powers to reckon with. In contrast, most of the Muslim countries with their hypocritical standards, selective enforcement of the religious provisions and dogmatic interpretation of Islam have little to show except despair and hopelessness, immense natural resources notwithstanding. Does the human rights record of a state and the misery have anything common – draw your own conclusion.

Furthermore, it can be contended that hakookul ibad as prescribed by Islam can comfortably be equated with the sorts of democracy practiced in these countries. Actually, democracy and one’s duties towards fellow beings are nothing but two faces of the same coin, covering all aspects of daily life from freedom of speech to good governance.

Therefore, it can be plausibly argued that the so-called incompatibility of Islam with democracy, as intermittently put forward by certain vested interests, is not only a completely void argument, it is also an affront to Islam and Muslims. On the contrary, Islam not only encourages democracy, it is the key to peace and affluence as well, IF abided by honestly (and open-mindedly).

Amartya Sen, the famous Indian economist and Nobel laureate, argues that famines don’t normally occur under democracy and free press. Democracy itself is not a tool to ensure abundant food supplies. But it does prevent state to be passive when food shortage causes food prices to irrationally rise thereby making it difficult for the poor to feed themselves. The press will promptly notice any asymmetrical appreciation in prices not strictly warranted on economic grounds and democratically elected leaders will be forced to intervene to rectify the market disparity. If they don’t, they themselves will be kicked out.

Similarly, reverence for hakookul ibad and insaaf at its own may not automatically lead to instant richness – but absolutely vital prerequisites for creating conducive environment for achieving that goal. Therefore, call it western parliamentary democracy or Islamic model of governing; progress is not possible without placing hakookul ibad and justice at the top of the priority list.

Likewise, the contention that western-style democracy is not applicable in poor countries like Pakistan is a sheer nonsense. It is exactly the opposite. By the way, how does poverty prevent us from having same norms for all, to have an independent judiciary and government accountability, or to have social equality? It is just lack of democratic traditions that’s holding us back, not the other way round. Are we in such pathetic conditions due to democracy (in its better form) or because of the absence of it?

Finally, to conclude, I would suggest, please, look around and try to find a single country with an acceptable human rights record, properly functioning judicial system, and exercising somewhat social equality that is not a viable economic power. It looks like that lasting economical development sans supremacy of law, prosperity without peace, and general sustainable opulence minus respect for human rights, are simply not possible.