Trapped in a logjam

FOR most people, Davos symbolizes the power of globalization. For good or bad, it has unleashed a process of change. Some changes are discernible, but there are many that one can barely observe.

The reach and the levelling power of this hurricane is bewildering. Some world-class economists, investment bankers, venture capitalists, and technologists may have spawned the movement, but it has now floated free. For over three decades, the rich and developed countries have set the dominant themes, but having attended the World Economic Forum 2006, one got the feeling that India and China have now occupied centrestage.

The Forum was no longer discussing the European or the US agenda. Even in terms of numbers, one could see that there were more Chinese, Indians and Arabs than Americans. Surprisingly, Russia and Latin America were almost pushed to the sidelines and did not get the importance that was their due.

While our policymakers at home were smug and congratulating each other for achieving spectacular growth rates, Pakistan didn’t get even a passing reference as an emerging market, or even as part of a “back-up” plan for those who were eager to invest in India.

Do the people in Pakistan, especially its ruling oligarchy, realize that India, in spite of the fact that one-fourth of its population lives in abject poverty, its urban decay and poor infrastructure, is on the move and will soon catch up with China? Is anybody studying the repercussions this may have on our politics, economy and status in South Asia? Do we have think-tanks or research institutes to critically examine the reasons behind India’s continued march towards progress? And why is Pakistan, with all its economic ‘reforms’ and openness, lagging behind in almost all respects? One can see that in spite of the lucrative packages frequently announced by the prime minister, Pakistan fails to attract direct foreign investment, except in some limited fields like oil and gas exploration.

Shahid Javed Burki (in his article of Jan 31 in this paper) has admitted that Pakistan is losing ground. He has enumerated several reasons for this failure. But before we analyse these issues further, one can ask: why are our economic managers and policymakers so complacent? Why do they fail to see the writing on the wall? Is it sheer naivete or ignorance, or both? And why does our middle-class intelligentsia fail to take notice of what is happening around us? Instead of making an independent appraisal of the situation, their response is at best emotional. Mr Salahuddin Leghari’s letter published in Dawn on February 11, 2001, symbolizes this mindset.

Unless we as a nation see the ground realities and have the moral courage to admit that our ‘reform’ agenda is not working or producing results as stipulated; that our socio-political problems remain unresolved; that our governance is abysmally poor; that our education system has gone haywire; that we have ignored science and technology for long; that we have hardly paid any attention to human resource development, we cannot claim to compete with other emerging economies, especially India which is likely to become an economic superpower within the next 10-15 years.

The future will be dominated by those countries which put a premium on creativity and value development of science and technology. In India universities and institutes of technology produced mind-boggling number of engineers and technologist each year, at least a quarter of them world class. What are we doing to meet the challenge?

Pakistan has had the potential and wherewithal to reach the take-off stage and move its people out of poverty much quicker than many countries. It actually demonstrated this ability in the sixties. But somehow it failed to live up to its promise. We lagged behind while the East Asian Tigers (and now China and India), which started out much later, remained continuously on the move. Their movement is linear while we keep on moving in circles. How can one explain this phenomenon? What are its underlying causes? Is it merely the lack of democracy or something much more? These are some of the points we want to discuss in this article.

In order to understand Pakistan’s problems in continued under-development, it will be appropriate if we briefly discuss the reasons for the Asian Tigers’ success two decades ago and the recent forward march of India. This is important because countries of the Pacific Rim produced spectacular results under authoritarian regimes, while India has been able to show that it is possible to become an economic superpower even through the democratic process is generally taken to be messy, slow and corrupt.

What is common in both cases is a clear sense of direction, consistent policies and a political consensus on major issues. India’s socialist model kept the pace of development slow for about four decades, but since the early nineties (when it started a process of liberalization and ended the permit/licence raj), its forward movement has been consistent and unstoppable. In East Asia, on the other hand, the authoritarian leaderships adopted capitalist models, and were successful in changing the living conditions of their people within a generation, because of their nationalistic outlook and honest commitment to achieve set goals.

In every country the dominant forces are politicians, bureaucrats (both civil and military), the private sector and civil society. Each has a role. In the developed world, they work in tandem without encroaching upon each other’s territory. There is a system of checks and balances in place to curb transgressions. But in the Third World conditions are different. One group tries to dominate the other. In most cases it becomes a zero-sum game. But even if one group assumes power to the exclusion of the other, it can take the country forward provided it has a vision and a commitment to improve the lot of the people. For example, in South Korea it was a military dictator, and in Malaysia a political party that started the process of change as both were committed to economic development and had the vision or capacity to do so. And both succeeded.

Pakistan is another interesting example. Our early days are taken to be the golden period as far as economic development is concerned. At that time, civil bureaucracy was in ascendance and called the shots, while the military was supporting it. Political parties and civil society were weak and disorganized. Bureaucracy is currently a pejorative term, but the fact of the matter is that in the first decade after independence, British-trained civil servants spearheaded the process and plans aimed at solving the teething problems of the nascent state.

Professor Hamza Alvi had an interesting observation to make in this regard. He was of the view that in 1947, the people of Pakistan were full of enthusiasm and zeal and were ready to give all types of sacrifices to make Pakistan a prosperous, progressive and peaceful country. The bureaucracy was no exception. Those who were opposed to the creation of Pakistan thought that it was not a viable state, (neither economically nor politically) and would collapse within five to 10 years. It was taken as a challenge and the people of Pakistan led by the bureaucratic set-up proved that the new country was not only viable economically but had also the potential to become a prosperous state as well.

Question is why do we continue to stay at the same place from where we started? Why is there a logjam? Our argument is that currently in Pakistan all the dominant forces (politicians, civil/military bureaucracy, private sector, and civil society) are suffering from the mediocrity syndrome. Look at the politicians first. It is interesting to see that the leaders of three mainstream parties are in exile. As a result the PPP and PML (N) are in disarray. Even if Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto come back to Pakistan, what do we expect from them? What is the level of their competence? What is their track record? Chaudhary Shujaat Hussain leads the ruling coalition. The less said about his calibre the better. It is rather unfortunate that in the foreseeable future we do not expect any change in this scenario.

Where does the bureaucracy stand today? The steel-frame of yesteryear is in tatters and is now a bunch of demoralized, insecure and unmotivated people who refuse to take any decision. And why should they? Several screenings and promulgation of draconian laws have killed their initiative. If there is no security of tenure, if political interference in the day-to-day working is the order of the day, if posts are not filled on merit but on the whims of the rulers, if there is no protection for honest, competent people, how can the result be any different from what we see today?

A comparison of the private sector’s performance in India and Pakistan can be an interesting study. In India, the role of the private sector has always been phenomenal, but for the last 10 years it is spearheading a process of change. Although India still suffers from lack of proper infrastructure (roads, electricity, etc.) and universal education, it is on the move because of the entrepreneurial skills and progressive outlook of the private sector.

Compare this with Pakistan. Here the numbers may be impressive, packages for foreign investment may be lucrative, but what is absent is a sense of direction, an ambience where things seem possible. What we also lack is an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity. Our private sector is no doubt doing well, but is not fast enough to comprehend changes and live up to them. Most of the time it is obsessed with concessions and tax cuts. It has no clout for changes at broader level. Our young people appear to be frustrated and confused and suffer from a sense of alienation. The culture of sifarish and corruption makes them cynics in an early age. They have little faith in the country’s future and do not know what to do.

Civil society is weak both in India and Pakistan. But the difference is that in Pakistan nobody takes notice of what is printed in the newspapers and what is said on the electronic media. In India, both politicians and the bureaucrats are afraid of the power of the press. The recent example of the media exposure of legislators’ corruption and quick action by the speaker of Lok Sabha should be an eye-opener for us.

One can argue that the military is the only force in Pakistan which has the capability to take the country forward. It is well organized. It is disciplined. It is highly trained and it is powerful. To top it all, there is no countervailing force to challenge it. All this is true. We have been under military rule for about half of our existence but Pakistan still remains underdeveloped and is beset by basic problems of stability and political consensus. The military in Pakistan has seldom risen above its narrow institutional and in some cases personal interests. It can’t be an agent of change. It can at best be a status quo factor.

In conclusion we can say that the logjam, which prevents us from moving forward, is the fact that none of the dominant actors in our society has the capacity or the strength to take us out of the mess we are in. How this logjam will be broken is a multi-million dollar question.

The high price of development

BUDGETS in the early years of independence were an enigma wrapped in secrecy. India’s economic base was limited. The dependence was, therefore, on the ingenuity of finance minister. Crises could not be pulled out of a hat to maintain the morale. Yet he would do the rope trick because the government’s popularity depended on that.

The haves grumbled over fewer benefits than before but realised that they still had enough. Other people did not count in the scheme of things. The growth rate averaged 3.5 per cent annually but it did not disturb anybody’s sleep. The debate after the budget would not be whether the proposals had merit but whether they gave the country an ideological tilt, close as we were to the culmination of freedom struggle.

One point that evoked discussion was the distance between Jawaharlal Nehru’s way of development, the socialistic pattern with the state playing prime role, and Mahatma Gandhi’s concept of self-sufficient countryside without interference by the state. Over the years, the first became urban in character and the second rural. One got associated with the growth, however slow and slovenly, and the other with values and idealism.

The first has manifested itself through consumerism. The other has got stuck in simple but marginalized living. One has all the opulence and wasteful expenditure whereas the other has all its adverse fallout: poverty and neglect. Nehru’s associates, lessening day by day, still talk radical and they recall the period from Karl Marx to Harold Laski. But the Gandhian followers, close to the ground, have grown sceptical of ideologies which draw inspiration from abroad. New India has moved away from it and the governance is directed towards higher growth through globalization or whatever that means.

It is difficult to run away from the plazas, the malls and the new eating places. But of what use they are or the multi- storey buildings, big dams and foreign direct investments when at least 300 million people, more than the entire middle class, are destitute? Those who live below the poverty line are roughly 400 million, official figures testify.

All budget speeches — Finance Minister Chidambaram’s are no exception — applaud the role of the farmer or small man. But there is very little left for him when the real beneficiaries have eaten from the plate. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been promising the countryside a good deal for some time now. But agricultural growth is stagnant. The import of food grains is, in fact, ominous. Rural unemployment is rampant. Farmers are committing suicide, not only in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala but in the soya-belt of Punjab and the cotton-growing areas of Maharashtra. It has been noticed at many places in the countryside the students leaving schools and colleges and opting for work in the fields.

There is a loud demand for another Green Revolution. But this may well be wishful thinking. Farmers have no money to invest in land to make it productive. The corporate sector, if given a chance, will convert it into another industry, changing the very ethos of the countryside. Land is for people, not people for land. Bhoodan (gift of land) did not work. Even what was offered was being reclaimed. Even in the distribution of bhoodan land, an element of corruption had crept in. No inquiry was ordered because some important people were suspect.

The Employment Guarantee Scheme that the government has introduced in 200 districts is only a palliative, not a solution. The government has yet to spell out specific schemes for employment. However, the budget on defence and security has been increasing year after year. The explanation is that the Naxalites and the desperate people in Kashmir and the north-east are to blame. Pakistan also comes into the picture.

Maybe, the reading is correct to some extent. But what about the causes that are responsible for the deterioration of the economic condition? The budget is of little help to those who are at the lower rung. The government says that it has no money. But its bureaucracy is bloating and the non-plan expenditure increasing.

Have our priorities been wrong? The first five-year plan which Nehru formulated was to industrialize the country so as to lessen its dependence on land which is a victim of uncertain monsoons. Some may interpret it as a scientific approach. But it has been left half way. Services have done better than industry. On the other hand, people living in villages, India’s two-thirds of population, have been left high and dry. Nehru initiated land reforms and had to amend the constitution — it was India’s first constitutional amendment after independence — to implement them. Still, he could not give land to the tiller free.

All that he did was to put a ceiling on the individual’s holding: 18 acres per family. Sheikh Abdullah in Jammu and Kashmir was the only one in the country who gave land to the tiller without compensation. Nehru wanted to emulate him but he could not do so because the Congress was dominated by kulaks. The landed aristocracy still plays an important role in the party.

True, there is a case for constituting a commission to go into the land reforms. But does the government have the guts to do so? Vested interests in the party will not allow that to happen. Nonetheless, with land getting divided and re-divided among children and their children, there is a fragmentation of holdings all over the country. This affects food production as well. Some way must be found to redistribute the land. As things are today, discontentment will grow. Already, the dalits, the tribals and the marginalized farmers are migrating from their village in search of job.

The basic fact that India must face is that it has not enough land for the people who depend on it. The countryside can be made attractive. The best schools can be opened there. It does not matter if teachers are given salaries five times more than they get in cities. The standard of teaching should be so high that students from cities could prefer to travel to the countryside for studies there. Not only teachers but doctors should also be tempted to go to villages. Salaries should not come in the way. The purpose is to focus attention on the countryside where most people live.

We talk of the good of society. Is this something apart from and transcending the good of the individuals composing it? We may mock at the Gandhian values. But what type of society is it where the individual is “ignored?” Whatever name we may give it, the progress, however impressive, is creating more and more disparities. Probably, this is the price the development of sorts exacts. Can we pursue this path without peril?

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

Uganda’s lurking tyrant

UGANDA was for so long a bleeding gash in the heart of Africa that the turnaround engineered by President Yoweri Museveni over the last two decades seems almost a miracle. Under Museveni, Uganda has established a solid and independent court system, tripled the size of its economy, doubled school enrolment and even reduced the devastating toll of Aids.

Although lawlessness and rebellion continue in the northern part of the country, Uganda is nothing like the slaughterhouse it was under Idi Amin in the 1970s or under Amin’s predecessor and immediate successor, Milton Obote.

Yet Museveni, one of the great hopes for an era of clean leadership on a continent that badly needs it, is in danger of destroying not only his international reputation — critical in a nation where foreign aid has in the past accounted for nearly half the federal budget — but his standing in the eyes of his own people.

In the presidential campaign that culminates today, he has continually harassed his opponents and threatened to ignore the results if they don’t go his way.

Museveni’s strongest opponent is his longtime rival, Kizza Besigye, who ran an unsuccessful campaign against him in 2001. Two weeks after returning this fall from self-imposed exile in South Africa to run against Museveni, Besigye was arrested on charges of treason and rape; every time it seemed he was about to be released, he was hit with additional charges, including terrorism.

—Los Angeles Times