AMONGST the many things that democracy has delivered, such as chaos, a divided nation, an economy in trouble, lessons in horrible language and really bad manners, the U-turn as a stigma is perhaps the curious anomaly. But before we get to that, rather amusing is that my freedom-loving friends, while agreeing with me on the current state of affairs, still believe and patiently await for democracy to deliver the promised end state where the poor are free, and the poor matter. Have they not learnt from experience?
Nonetheless, whilst sitting on the fence watching politicians ruin the future of democracy in Pakistan for all times to come is an entertaining pastime for those who believe that the end of history still needs a bit of ratiocination, someone needed to come out in defence of the apparently hapless and much maligned U-turn.
The U-turn is a brilliant invention for the strategic improvement of road layouts and pedestrian safety in an urban environment. Even otherwise, the U-turn is quite beneficial. Take an extreme example, whizzing down an alley approaching a dead end, what would you want the driver to do, take a U-turn or bang into the wall?
Extrapolate the example to the national economy heading for a fiscal cliff, what should be the optimum course for the finance manager, brake and take a U-turn, or drive over the cliff?
What should a leader do when he realises he is heading for a collision?
In domestic political parlance, or perhaps even global parlance today, the U-turn is used extensively to ridicule the reversing of a decision or position on issues by a politician. Keeping the earlier analogies in the forefront, what should a leader do when he realises he is heading for a collision?
Absence of complete information, an uncertainty, entails decision-making; alternatively, when everything is known, the course of action is rather obvious, and hence a decision is not required. A leader is someone who can take a decision rather than procrastinate endlessly. However, every time a decision is taken, there is always a good probability that it turns out to be wrong, despite a detailed due diligence and careful analysis. A successful leader perhaps is one who is right more than 50 per cent of the time; albeit this suggests that he will be wrong many times and will end up taking a U-turn in all such situations.
Alternatively, not taking a decision in substance means that the leader was wrong 100pc every time, but somehow we have evolved into a society where indecisiveness is not considered a crime; neither are bad decisions. More worrying is that sticking to a wrong decision with serious repercussion for the nation is seemingly a lesser crime than taking a U-turn. And that exactly is the problem with negatively popularising of the U-turn stigma within the political arena. Even in this information age with all its technological advances, no one can be right all the time. Funnily, only when you admit you are wrong, you start being right. Unfortunately, since no one wants to be associated with U-turns because of the attached negativity, accepting a wrong decision is not an option anymore, meaning that everybody would rather drive over the cliff or bang into the wall.
This perhaps is the biggest leadership crises we have; no one is willing to ever admit that they ever took a wrong decision; which, when you think about it, is impossible. Even when a U-turn is taken, it is denied; rather than accepting having taken a wrong decision earlier, mistakes are ferociously defended. Sitting in front of the idiot box during prime time will easily prove the point; no one admits they were wrong on anything.
Recalling something from previous readings, ‘Breaking on the floor’ is when you change your mind during an argument, ie agree with the opposing views, in front of an audience. Unfortunately, I cannot recall the exact reference to give the respective credits, but the context this was used in had to do with interviewing for some political position. If a political aspirant was to assert in an interview that he had never ever broken on the floor, it would be crystal clear that he was either a bigger genius than Einstein, or stubborn, or a liar — you choose!
Essentially, U-turns are not a problem, in fact they evidence that a decision or position was taken, which is good. Accepting taking a wrong decision is good too; it shows an honest pragmatic approach to handling problems.
On the other hand, the ratio of right and wrong decisions is what matters; being wrong most of the time is what should beget serious ridicule. Even more critically, denying taking a U-turn is the disaster.
“When the facts change I change my mind. What do you do sir?” — attributed to John Maynard Keynes.
The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad.
Published in Dawn, October 18th, 2018
