Shouldn’t one be a little surprised – and intrigued – when the head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) makes this statement: “We want the poor people of Pakistan to be protected”? Could this be a point of contention in the IMF’s protracted negotiations with the government of Pakistan, with the deal now in its final stages?
The poor people of Pakistan do need to be protected, particularly now when the threat to their well-being is so grave and relentless. But this assignment is meant for the rulers of this country. Are they sufficiently aware of what this monumental obligation actually entails?
Let me first provide some context to what the IMF chief said in an interview given early this week to Deutsche Welle, the German public broadcaster. Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the IMF, remarked: “Pakistan needs to take strong measures to avoid getting into a dangerous place where its debt needs to be restructured…what we are asking are steps that Pakistan needs to take to function as a country.”
There was more: “I want to stress that we’re emphasising two things. Number one: tax revenues. Those who can, those that are making good money, public sector, private sector. They need to contribute to the economy. And secondly, to have a fairer distribution of the pressure by moving subsidies only towards the people who really need it. It shouldn’t be that the wealthy benefit from subsidies. It should be the poor to benefit from them. And there the Fund is very clear.”
Makes sense, of course. Irrespective of the devils that may lurk in the details of Ishaq Dar’s discussions with the IMF, there should be no quarrel with the imperative of protecting the poor. We should need no advice on this matter from any foreign source, unless we have become so impoverished as to also require common sense as a foreign assistance.
Coincidentally, it was after the publication of the IMF chief’s statement that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced his ‘austerity measures’ on Wednesday. “Far reaching results of these measures will come to the fore. We will save around over Rs200 billion due to such measures”, he told the media.
It is not my intention to dwell on what these measures are. The steps being taken, obviously on the IMF’s dictation, include such predictable stratagems as a cut in current expenditure by 15 per cent. The prime minister has asked his ministers and advisers to forgo their salaries, benefits and luxury cars and fly economy. And yes, only one dish will be served at all government events.
On the one hand, there is nothing very radical or revolutionary in these measures. On the other hand, it is surprising and sad and unfortunate that it has taken the present coalition setup so long to induct ‘austerity’ in its operations. Why, why couldn’t they do so earlier, even in the first week of their present stint in power? Were they waiting for some oracle, some specific constellation of the stars, to launch this ‘austerity’ drive?
There is no doubt that the mission that Shehbaz Sharif had undertaken, with his political allies, was almost impossible. Things have forever been falling apart in this country but the current crisis is certainly forbidding. It does not help that Imran Khan, who has served as a catalyst for disaster, has dominated the media and has whipped up considerable popular support with his Quixotic political ploys.
But it is our misfortune that the present leadership, which perhaps should be described as a collective leadership of the Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) with Shehbaz Sharif holding the banner, was not able to grasp the opportunity that is embedded in the challenge that Pakistan’s problems constitute. There seemed no sense of urgency in how they took office nearly one year ago. It seemed like business as usual – a mindset that must readily be abandoned in a time of emergency.
It can be argued that there was an exceptional opportunity for the PDM leadership to readily resort to some radical and revolutionary strategies and make a new beginning. The overall disarray that prevailed had, in a sense, set the stage for a progressive social change, provided that the powers that be were willing to change their loyalties from a rapacious elite to the vast majority of this country. Can this happen now, when the IMF chief wants the poor to be protected?
This task, to protect the poor in the larger sense of enforcing social justice and equality, must have been present to the decision-makers from the outset. Now that the expanding deprivations of the ordinary citizens are becoming a threat to peace and social harmony, it is incumbent on the existing leadership to look for radical options to create a new equilibrium of power and privilege. And this will certainly not be achieved with the proposed austerity measures.
It may not be a very proper reference but I have in mind that concept of challenge and response that Arnold Toynbee had developed in his classical study of history. Every society faces challenges and it is the nature of the response that determines its fate. Toynbee used this concept to explain how civilizations rise and fall. His theory of social change was founded on the equation of challenge and response.
Another reference that is more relevant could be of how Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was able to inject a sense of hope and continuity in a defeated and traumatized people after he took charge at that dark moment in December 1971. A flawed leader he was but he demonstrated the capacity of picking up the pieces and the pace with which he did this was astonishing.
I have said before that every aspiring politician of Pakistan secretly wants to become another Bhutto. This does not mean that we need a prototype of Bhutto at this time. Every crisis demands its own antidote in terms of an idea or a movement or a personal focus. We, sadly, have none.
The writer is a senior journalist. He can be reached at: ghazi_salahuddinhotmail .com