The politics of values

POWER can at times appear shamanistic. It is able to steal into hearts, subtly persuade and, with devastating logic, finally prevail. The political adroitness of Asif Ali Zardari, the new president-elect of the country, has achieved precisely this.

No mere ‘accident’ or proxy, he succeeded, on the contrary, in converting two-thirds of Pakistan’s electoral college to his way of thinking and taking it along with him to clinch the top slot in the country. It has been a bravura performance that has brought even detractors up short.

Zardari’s has, of course, been the victory of realpolitik. Unimpeded by qualms about good faith, the road to it has proven compellingly Machiavellian. Its beauty lay in the curious combination of guile and temerity displayed, alike, in Zardari’s dealings with erstwhile foes and allies recently turned adversaries.

The path ahead may be fraught with uncertainty and hazard. Our economy is teetering at the edge. There are the Taliban and inter civil-military sensitivities to address. There is the delicate issue of Pakistan’s reportedly sought-after nukes and the question of whether some of the historical baggage of absolutism needs jettisoning. But for the time being, there is just the sweet smell of success.

Does this mean that the other major political player in the country, Nawaz Sharif has all but been consigned to oblivion? Some analysts seem to hold this view. But it is short-sighted.

If Sharif and his PML-N cohorts are to be heard making conciliatory pro-democracy noises, this should not be construed as a sign of weakness. Apart from the fact that the party comfortably held its majority in the presidential election in Punjab, there is method in what Sharif appears to be saying — with an eye to the long-term.Not enough attention has been paid to his discourse on a politics of ‘values’ as opposed to power. What are these ‘values’? We must take these as having arisen out of Sharif’s personal experience of power: notably, the catharsis of his imprisonment and subsequent exile.

Topping his list would logically seem to be the primacy of human dignity and civil rights. Yet his quest is equally for the overall democratisation of Pakistan: the sovereignty of parliament, the supremacy of the country’s constitution and, of course, the independence of its judiciary.

This explains his unremitting advocacy of the restitution of all our deposed judges, something that, no matter how apparently improbable, would serve to guarantee the return of some semblance of the rule of law to the country. It is linked in turn to some very genuine apprehensions on his part about the future of the federation.

So instead of the impetuously self-seeking politico of yore, we see someone quite different today: a man aspiring to give the country what he feels it desperately needs by making principle fundamental to the business of politics. Though belated, this has nevertheless allowed Sharif to regain the trust of at least a portion of a formerly disenchanted electorate.

Yet, unlike Zardari, he also seems to be flying in the teeth of some inescapable historical realities. If, for instance, he is to be acceptable to the West — as he surely must to achieve more than just informal head-of-opposition status — he will have to come to terms with the need to contain the insurgency on the tribal belt, militarily and not just through ‘peaceful’ dialogue.

This does not mean that we must cynically barter away our citizens or pursue military solutions in the region to the exclusion of all else. And, clearly, incursions by US forces into our territory are not on. But it does imply sitting up to the facts on the ground and realising that we simply must clean house. Regardless of the origins of its components, the Taliban apparat has to be dismantled.

It may be that — like many in civil society — Sharif also exists in a sort of time warp or is out of touch with what is happening in the wings. He may be blinkered for one of two reasons. It is possible that he has simply been away from the scene for too long. Alternatively, this may be attributed to his parochial mindset and an inability to perceive the sea change that has come about in the smaller provinces or that the country has moved beyond a point where it can be reinvented in keeping with his faintly quixotic format.

The insurgency in the NWFP and Balochistan and the uprising in Sindh in the aftermath of Benazir’s assassination all point in the same direction. Belief in the federation would seem perceptibly to be on the wane. The smaller provinces all share, as never before, a growing sense of alienation. The feeling by and large is that they are, and have been from the start, less equal or indeed ‘federal’ than Punjab. This is something Sharif is not perhaps reckoning with.

Zardari’s candidature for the presidency may have been controversial but it also plainly had the support of these political margins. Reports relating to his mental illness and unaccounted for wealth were, his supporters here felt, mere hogwash designed to do them out of their legitimate democratic right. At the same time, given the somewhat awkward questions surrounding his name and the fact that authoritarian rule was no longer in vogue, there were those who saw an element of chutzpah about his sudden bid for absolute power.

However, now that Zardari has won out, it is important that civil society give him a chance by taking its cue from Sharif in not trying to destabilise the new dispensation. What matters is that we address issues that concern us more directly. The judges’ issue over which the PPP–PML-N coalition came apart is crucial. It still awaits resolution. The ‘reappointment’ of judges piecemeal smacks just very slightly of expediency.

The insistence of Sharif and the top PML-N leadership that the pre-Nov 3 judiciary — along with Iftikhar Chaudhry — be restored in one go speaks of a commitment to constitutionality and the rule of law not just for now but in the long term.

This is heartening as it suggests that they share our concerns and are thinking about a viable future for a country seriously at odds with itself and — Zardari’s victory notwithstanding — with an increasingly nebulous horizon.

Can agriculture lead the way?

PAKISTAN does not have a trade policy that could help the country take advantage of the dynamism of the global trading system. The result is that the trade deficit continues to grow bringing the balance of payments under great stress.

It does not have any kind of industrial policy. One consequence is that it has no presence in the international system of production. By comparison several Indian companies from both the public and private sectors have become global players.

Pakistan has not framed a comprehensive agriculture policy for years. For a country with its kind of endowments, it should be a major participant in the international agricultural system. Instead, it is a player; it is an importer of the products that should be produced at home. In fact, Pakistan does not have an economic strategy.

At this point, the new leaders are too consumed with the political difficulties they face — some of these are of their own making — to worry about economic policymaking. Neglected, the economy continues to slip. Prices continue to increase, the stock market continues to plummet, the trade deficit continues to increase, and the fiscal deficit has touched a level never seen before in the country’s history.

The people are suffering. Load-shedding has increased to the point where small shops and small enterprises that employ tens of thousands of people have shut down, adding to the level of unemployment. The incidence of poverty no doubt is increasing. Soon the economy will arrive at a point where any kind of rescue effort will be difficult and expensive.

However, today I will not deal with policies that could begin to address the problems the country faces. I will come to the subject at some later date when the policymakers may be inclined to take some advice. Today I will address one part of what could be a strategy for the long-term management of the economy. I will discuss what the country needs to do in the sector of agriculture, long neglected by the state but comprising that part of the economic system that could bring the economy back on track.

In thinking about using the sector to revive the economy and getting it moving again, I will refer to the recent experiences of two Latin American countries that have used in very different ways the opportunities that have become available to large agricultural systems in the developing world. There is much Islamabad could learn from the experiences of Argentina and Brazil.

There are some interesting differences between the agricultural sectors of these two countries. Brazil’s is much larger. It has 173m acres of land under cultivation, about twice as much as Argentina. It has less water available for irrigation than Argentina in spite of the Amazon, one of the world’s largest rivers, that flows in the country’s north. A large part of Brazil is a desert while Argentina receives more rain.

The agricultural systems are different but the differences don’t necessarily reflect their different endowments. Argentine agriculture is focused on grain production; Brazil’s on the production of high value-added crops. Both are large players in the international market but in different ways. Argentina is the world’s second biggest exporter of corn, after the United States; Brazil is the world’s second or third largest exporter of beef, soybeans, orange juice, chicken, sugar and coffee.

Pakistan has traditionally managed its agriculture in much the same way as does Argentina; it should change track and go the Brazilian way. Why?

Experts believe that the world is seeing a paradigm shift in the prices of commodity prices. The recent increases in the prices of grains, oilseeds, fibre and other agricultural products are not because of temporary developments that will go away. They are not because of adverse weather in some part of globe and that has produced these changes. These have happened because of the permanent shift in demand for agricultural products.

Many parts of the developing world have seen sharp increases in consumer demand that have brought about a permanent move in agriculture’s terms of trade with other sectors. From now on fewer agricultural products can buy the same amount of non-agricultural goods. This is what economists mean by shifts in terms of trade.

Such shifts always produce windfall income gains for those who produce the favoured products. Public policy has two ways of dealing with this situation. One is to tax the agricultural producers and use the state to provide subsidies and other benefits to the consumers of agricultural items. This is what Argentina is doing. It has imposed a heavy tax on agricultural exports which has the effect of lowering the domestic price. Since the political base of the government is in the urban areas, this policy makes political sense but is disastrous for the country’s agricultural sector and for exports since agriculture is the main source of trade for the country.

The other way is to pass on price increases to agricuural producers and let them enjoy the windfall. Experience shows that farmers are not big spenders. They will plough back the increases in their incomes into agriculture — into the various parts of the agricultural system. This will result in increasing the productivity of land and labour, making the country more competitive in the international market. This is the policy option favoured by the Brazilian government.

In fact, the Brazilians have gone two steps further. They have provided a very large increase in the amount of credit available to agricultural producers at subsidised prices — with the state picking up in the budget the difference in the market and subsidised price of credit. This system will increase further the productivity of agriculture. It is clear which way Pakistan should go. It should go the Brazilian way.

To make this approach Pakistan-specific, we need to adopt a number of policies and do so quickly so that the farming community can start to make its plans in time. The government should have international prices of traded agricultural commodities reflected in its procurement price. It should encourage the banking system to lend much more to the farming community, subsidising some parts of the capital that will get used for modernising agricultural practices.

It should enter into a partnership with the private sector to invest heavily in agricultural research. It should carefully study the water-pricing policy and charge farmers the real price of this precious commodity. And it should provide income support to the poor so that they can deal with price increases. Pakistan, in other words, needs a well thought-out farm policy.

The global discontent

WHICH country in the world exemplifies peace, prosperity and progress? The answer to this question is easy: none. Even western economic giants like the US and Europe or eastern miracles like China and India do not qualify.

These are strange and testing times where the world is going through an identity crisis; where concepts like globalisation which were supposed to make the world a better place have themselves become disputable; where more learning and research have failed to overcome human failings; where the survival of the fittest has led to ruthless power and politics overriding the movement for a mature, civilised global society.

War and recession are a recipe for disaster. Having witnessed these and seen the horrific impact on humankind, one would have thought the world would be much wiser and avoid getting into such devastating conflicts again.

But human nature gives way to the addiction to control and subjugate, and no amount of historical evidence of the negative fallout of this seems to have diminished the appetite to exercise power.

As the superpowers struggle in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, smaller nations like Pakistan and Zimbabwe struggle to shrug off dictatorships and corrupt politicians which have made them vulnerable to every form of socio-economic attack on their sovereignty and identity.

Stronger nations, in pursuit of their philosophy of ‘we can only become stronger if the others become weaker’ have forgotten how to become stronger themselves. Let us see how these conflicts have actually eroded their economic might and made them more vulnerable and insecure.

The political cost: Politics in the West is limited to being either pro- or anti-war. Americans and the British are choosing their leaders on this basis alone. The exit of Tony Blair and the expected departure of George Bush are attributed to their obstinate stand on war.

Politics in lesser countries like Pakistan is also decided on the basis of whether the leadership is supporting the war in Afghanistan.

The last few years of Gen Musharraf were simply a reward from the White House for services rendered to facilitate the American-led war on Pakistani and Afghan soil.

The preoccupation with perpetuating war and then propagating it as one on terror have diluted politics to its weakest level.

Increasingly, politics and politicians are being gauged on the basis of the exercise of coercive power in a world which is theoretically obsessed with democracy but practically possessed by the desire to control all sources of power. This huge divide in political leadership has actually made progress on a global scale impossible.

The economic cost: Recession is the inevitable result of bad politics and indifferent economic management. America has paid a price for its wars with a downturn in its economy which has dragged most parts of the world into a downward economic spiral. All over the US and Europe the news is dismal.

Stock prices are tumbling, the credit crunch is expanding and consumer spending is at its lowest. Companies have only one survival strategy i.e. tightening their belt. This of course means downsizing and cost-cutting which have worsened unemployment.

Inflation is at an all-time high and food prices are unaffordable. Economies like Pakistan have gone into a freefall. Exports are down, the rupee is the most worthless currency possible raising the import bill to a level which cannot be paid thereby leading to further debts and deficits of all kinds.

The social cost: The pressure to live, and live up to, is so huge in today’s society that the ability to live for real values and principles has given way to adherence to social norms which result in artificial lives with no substance or character.

American society has gone into its worst period of racism and materialism; family units in the UK are almost an alien concept as the country has the highest number of teenage pregnancies where the mother being a child herself is incapable of rearing children. In Pakistan we have a society where extremism in both modernism and fascism has undermined its balance as a place with a reasonable ideology and identity. The youth of this country vacillate between two ends: some are partly copies of their western counterparts, the others of the Taliban, thus causing social confusion and emotional devastation.

How are we going to get out of this misery spiral? The solution is not remote. Politicians in the West and East have already realised that more conflict is not the solution to supremacy and is eventually self-defeating. The change in government in the US will see more focus on looking after the public interest rather than indulging in megalomaniac self-pursuits. The failure of Gordon Brown is inevitably going to lead to a more balanced government in Britain. In Pakistan the pains of transition to democracy are hopefully going to make people choose their leaders much more judiciously.

Countries and citizens of this global society must realise that to rediscover social and personal satisfaction they need to develop their lives on the basis of principles of integrity, tolerance, equity, justice, starting with themselves, their families and their communities. The attitude of each one of us should be that we should not have to wait for the world to change but initiate the change at our own level, no matter how small it is, because as they say “what lies behind us, and ahead of us, is insignificant compared to what lies within us”.

The writer is a consultant and CEO of FranklinCovey.

andleeb@franklincoveysouthasia.com