Business Recorder Editorial December 15, 2020

Business Recorder Editorial as written by me on December 12, 2020:

 ‘Third force’ intervention

 

Chairman Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Bilawal Bhutto Zardari called on Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Vice President Maryam Nawaz at her Jati Umra residence in Lahore on December 11, 2020. Bilawal offered condolences on Maryam’s grandmother’s recent demise, but the real significance of this meeting lay elsewhere. For one, the meeting took place on the eve of the opposition Pakistan Democratic Movement’s (PDM’s) Lahore rally at Minar-e-Pakistan on December 13, 2020. Second, this meeting and the joint efforts of the two young leaders of the two main political parties in the PDM reflect the transition to the next dynastic generation. This generation does not carry the burden of the past differences and collisions between their elders. And their rapport seems to offer the opposition benefits in the PDM campaign as well as better relations between their respective parties in the future. In fact Bilawal has already instigated a discussion within PDM on the PPP’s electoral alliance with the PML-N and even Maulana Fazlur Rehman regarding this idea and the benefits accruing to all the component parties in the next election, but especially the PPP if it sacrifices its Sindh government through the en masse resignations of parliamentarians on the PDM’s agenda. Of course only time will tell whether such an electoral alliance becomes a reality and what it offers. For the moment, in the increasing heat of the PDM campaign, Bilawal categorically ruled out PDM creating a situation where the ‘third force’ may intervene. Of course, there is much history to peruse in Pakistan’s past regarding such a development, and the track record does not inspire total confidence that such a scenario can be categorically ruled out. However, the nature of the ‘intervention’, if it comes, is debatable. It is unlikely a direct military takeover would be viable in today’s international climate. With the possible exception of all-weather friend China, Pakistan could find itself bereft of the aid and loans on which it still crucially depends from bilateral and multilateral sources. An indirect intervention is of course already the stuff of the opposition’s critique, dubbing the 2018 elections manipulated if not rigged in order to bring a ‘selected’ prime minister to power. This does not mean the establishment is incapable of changing course in the face of a crisis that renders the present plans unsustainable. But there are no signs of that so far. Maryam stated after the Jati Umra meeting that government ministers were now approaching the PML-N for talks, but she had rejected this in line with her view from the beginning that there should be no talks with this government. The implication being that the opposition considers talks with the government less important than ‘talks’ with its powerful backers. The government’s recent offer of talks (including by Prime Minister Imran Khan) appears to reflect some nervousness in the power corridors. However, qualified as the offer is by the government’s usual rhetoric about ‘No NRO’, etc, it seems a non-starter, not the least because it is too little, too late after years of the brutal castigation of the opposition. This view, according to one report, is shared by some senior government ministers, who are dejected by the lack of political thinking in the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf’s (PTI’s) top ranks, which have never discussed the crisis and how to handle it in any meaningful manner.

Political predictions by their very nature are an inexact science. However, the government’s recent actions against facilitators of the Lahore PDM rally (including DJ Butt and the restaurant owner who served food to Maryam Nawaz in Lakshmi Chowk, Lahore the other day) smack of both panic and stupidity. If history is any guide, imposed governments eventually run out of credibility, particularly if they, in their wisdom, consider pillorying their opponents the only way to cling to power. Such a course weakens the possibilities of any national dialogue, let alone the (belated) assertion by Imran Khan that parliament is the best forum for a dialogue between the two sides of the political divide. Increasingly, it appears the die is cast and confrontation looms. The result is unpredictable, but although both sides must share the blame to respective extent, it is the government that has most to lose and the greater responsibility to keep the system from going south. At present, however, the weight of logic rests with the sceptics, including those within the government’s ranks, that the government has played its cards badly and will now have to bear the consequences, along, of course, with the country.

And as published by the paper on December 15, 2020:

There’s dire need for govt-opposition dialogue

 

First things first. The 11-party opposition alliance – Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) – has ruled out talks with the government. PDM convenor Maulana Fazlur Rehman has asked the establishment to move aside from the way of people or else there could be massive unrest in the country because of obvious reasons. That was perhaps the gist of what PDM leaders said at their power show at Lahore’s Minar-e-Pakistan on Sunday. Yesterday, PDM extended an “ultimatum” to government, asking it to quit by Jan 31, 2021. Two days before their much-hyped rally in Punjab’s capital, Chairman Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Bilawal Bhutto Zardari called on Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) Vice President Maryam Nawaz at her Jati Umra residence. Bilawal offered condolences on Maryam’s grandmother’s recent demise, but the real significance of this meeting lay elsewhere. For one, the meeting took place on the eve of the opposition Pakistan Democratic Movement’s (PDM’s) Lahore rally at Minar-e-Pakistan on December 13, 2020. Second, this meeting and the joint efforts of the two young leaders of the two main political parties in the PDM reflect the transition to the next dynastic generation. This generation does not carry the burden of the past differences and collisions between their elders. And their rapport seems to offer the opposition benefits in the PDM campaign as well as better relations between their respective parties in the future. In fact Bilawal has already instigated a discussion within PDM on the PPP’s electoral alliance with the PML-N and even Maulana Fazlur Rehman regarding this idea and the benefits accruing to all the component parties in the next election, but especially the PPP if it sacrifices its Sindh government through the en masse resignations of parliamentarians on the PDM’s agenda. Of course only time will tell whether such an electoral alliance becomes a reality and what it offers. For the moment, in the increasing heat of the PDM campaign, Bilawal categorically ruled out PDM creating a situation where the ‘third force’ may intervene. Of course, there is much history to peruse in Pakistan’s past regarding such a development, and the track record does not inspire total confidence that such a scenario can be categorically ruled out. However, the nature of the ‘intervention’, if it comes, is debatable. It is unlikely a direct military takeover would be viable in today’s international climate. With the possible exception of all-weather friend China, Pakistan could find itself bereft of the aid and loans on which it still crucially depends from bilateral and multilateral sources. An indirect intervention is of course already the stuff of the opposition’s critique, dubbing the 2018 elections manipulated if not rigged in order to bring a ‘selected’ prime minister to power. This does not mean the establishment is incapable of changing course in the face of a crisis that renders the present plans unsustainable. But there are no signs of that so far. The government’s recent offer of talks (including by Prime Minister Imran Khan) appears to reflect some nervousness in the power corridors. However, qualified as the offer is by the government’s usual rhetoric about ‘No NRO’, etc, it nonetheless throws up an opportunity for the opposition to grab it with both hands. That the opposition has stepped up its pressure on the government is a fact. It needs to speak from a position of strength, not of arrogance. Not only will an opposition-government dialogue effectively forestall ‘third force’s’ intervention, it will possibly lead to a revisit of government’s ‘No NRO’ rhetoric. The country cannot afford any protracted period of political instability. The situation, in fact, underscores the need for reprising a high economic growth, which will need, among other things, greater political stability.

Business Recorder Column December 15, 2020

PDM’s Lahore show

 

Rashed Rahman

 

The Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM) held its much-trumpeted rally in Lahore at the historic Minar-e-Pakistan on December 13, 2020 on a cold wintry day. Given the hype generated by the organisers before the rally, the result was less than inspiring. PDM leaders had been labelling the Lahore rally as a ‘make-or-break’ moment, but on the evidence of the gathering, substantial though it was, and the response of the crowd, it proved underwhelming. Admittedly, the severe cold may have proved a damper, but PDM is hard put to it to justify the outcome despite the government and police deciding not to seriously block roads and routes leading to the city and on to Minar-e-Pakistan.

Whether the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government assessed this to be the best course, a reversal of some of its threatening (even blood-curdling) statements on the eve of the rally, is not known. Speculation abounds that it may have consulted its powerful backers in the establishment and was so advised on the basis of their assessment of the potential of the rally.

At the rally itself, the PDM leaders put on a brave face, reiterating their by now well known rhetoric. This includes the stance of no talks with the government and girding up their loins for the march on Islamabad, which Maulana Fazlur Rehman stated would occur end-January, early February 2021. The Maulana and other leaders were at pains to argue in their speeches at the rally that a ‘rigged’ system was unsustainable, not the least because the choice of the ‘selected’ has turned out to be such a blunder.

Though the narratives of the PDM and PTI government are by now coming out of the public’s ears because of constant repetition, there appear to be some not so hidden problems in the PDM alliance. For one, the resignations issue has engendered hesitation and internal fissures. Whether the report (denied by Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, PML-N, spokesperson Azma Bokhari) that a considerable number of PML-N parliamentarians (and presumably their supporters) did not turn up at the rally because of reservations about the resignations demanded of them by their party leadership is correct or not, it would come as no surprise if the ubiquitous establishment had approached such elements and played on these sentiments. The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), despite its stance on the ‘selected’ government, has more stakes in the present dispensation than anybody else in the shape of the Sindh government. Despite the receipt of resignations from their parliamentarians, both the PPP and the PML-N need to go back to the drawing board to reconsider this tactic, whose efficacy is at present in doubt in any case. Despite the possible scenario of the present dispensation being emptied of whatever moral and political credibility it still has by en masse opposition resignations, there appears little hope that this government or its backers will take that into consideration and make way for fresh elections.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s argument that state institutions should not stand in the way of the people’s will has weight. He warns of possible anarchy if these institutions and the people come face-to-face in the event of no solution to the present impasse. Nor, the Maulana continues, can national solidarity be ensured if people’s rights continue to be violated.

Akhtar Mengal of the Balochistan National Party-Mengal (BNP-M), a recent defector from the PTI coalition government to the opposition PDM after being frustrated by failure to extract from PTI what it had promised him vis-a-vis Balochistan, reminded the rally audience of his benighted province’s woes. The most heart rending of his words were the reminder that 10,000 people are still ‘missing’ in Balochistan and no one seems to care. His smarting wounds may have been assuaged to some extent by the PDM rally’s resolutions, one of which highlighted the ‘robbery’ of Balochistan’s natural resources and its deprivation in the same breath.

Maryam Nawaz revealed that the 2011 rally held at Minar-e-Pakistan by the PTI, which launched it as a ‘serious’ force in the country’s politics, was orchestrated by none other than former ISI chief Lieutenant-General (retd) Shuja Pasha. The latter stuck with the PTI and Imran Khan until their long march on Islamabad in 2013, by which time his message to Imran was: we have ‘tamed’ then prime minister Nawaz Sharif (regarding his outreach to Modi and India) and therefore Imran should abandon the long march and planned dharna(sit-in) in Islamabad. Imran refused, citing his loss of face if he backed down then, and despite his repeated calls from the dharnastage for the ‘third umpire’ to raise his finger, Imran was disappointed. It took a different ‘third umpire’ later to fulfil Imran’s wish. The rest, as they say, is history.

It cannot be denied that the PTI’s constant bombardment over the years of the theme of the corruption of the previous ruling parties, the PML-N and the PPP, has found resonance in large sections of the public, particularly the urban middle class. However, the partisan witch-hunt of these two parties’ leadership by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) has weakened the argument. In any case, corruption is endemic to our system, from top to bottom. It cannot be eliminated by the strategy in vogue at present. What it can do and arguably has achieved is to bring the credibility, and therefore the longevity, of the present dispensation into question as it stands on shaky moral and political ground.

There appears no alternative out of the mess created by the establishment (once again) except genuine free and fair fresh elections. These will have credibility but most likely bring the same opposition faces into power again. Only allowing the system to run as it should can hold out any hope over time of corrupt elements in the political class (including the PTI) being weeded out and replaced by better people. ‘Short cuts’ of the type the establishment trots out again and again despite experience proving their inefficacy, will not work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

The December 2020 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review is out

 The December 2020 issue of Pakistan Monthly Review is out. Link: pakistanmonthlyreview.com

Contents:

1. From the Editor: Left Unity, PDM's positives and limitations, PTI's anti-worker policies.

2. Prof Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri: Cuban-Soviet Relations in Africa (1975-1980): 'Partner-Proxy' Relations: a Theoretical Debate – I.

3. Book Review: Review by Prof Charles Lindholm of Dr Nosheen Ali's Delusional States: Feeling Rule and Development in Pakistan's Northern Frontier.

4. Joint Declaration of the Left.

Rashed Rahman

Editor, Pakistan Monthly Review

Director, Research and Publication Centre

Business Recorder Editorial December 5, 2020

Pakistan-China relationship

 

To say that the Pakistan-China relationship is a close, deep and continuing one would be to state what has been obvious for many years. Chinese Defence Minister General Wei Fenghe’s three-day visit therefore was expected to help deepen our mutual relations even further, and so it has proved. General Wei had embarked on an outreach mission in the region in the light of China’s currently tense relations with India pertaining to the two countries’ long-standing border disputes. General Wei travelled to Pakistan after visiting Nepal, a South Asian country sandwiched between China and India. While in Islamabad, General Wei interacted with the civilian and military leadership, and the outcome was a consensus on deeper cooperation for regional peace and stability, while taking on board India’s apparent hegemonic designs in the region. The military leadership signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the distinguished guest’s delegation for enhanced defence cooperation. The importance of this step can be understood if the drying up if not dried up traditional source of defence procurement and aid, i.e. the US-led west, is taken into account. Given the efforts to wind down if not resolve the conflict in Afghanistan, in which the US in particular has begun to appreciate Pakistan’s role in the peace initiative, Pakistan no longer enjoys the same pre-eminence as before in Washington’s eyes. China can fill this emerging gap in significant ways. Prime Minister (PM) Imran Khan during his meeting with General Wei laid stress on the threat to regional peace and stability posed by India’s illegal annexation of Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) on August 5, 2019. He also dilated on the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) actions and blatant discrimination against religious minorities in India, particularly Muslims, and curbs on freedoms that threatened to spill over into tensions regionally. The PM argued for deepening bilateral strategic communication and coordination between Pakistan and China as two closely knit neighbours. President Arif Alvi too expressed similar sentiments during his interaction with the distinguished guest.

China has stood like an iron friend by Pakistan’s side through thick and thin for many years. The mutual trust and friendship between the two neighbours has only deepened over time. Both countries support each other’s concerns and stances on every international forum. So far, so good. But there are also real or potential differences that need to be addressed in order to avoid misunderstandings. China’s Road and Belt Initiative, of which the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a part, has much promise and mutual benefit if properly framed and handled. China’s need is to provide an outlet to the sea that is one-third of the distance to its eastern seaboard for its troubled western province of Xinjiang. This is a Muslim-majority province that could not escape the growth of Islamic fundamentalist movements that had the region in their grip as a corollary of the Afghan wars. The Chinese have been very patient with us over the presence in erstwhile FATA of Uighur Islamic fundamentalist elements, who were only eliminated from our soil during the military operations against our Taliban. The Chinese have been attempting over the years to wean us off our obsession with Islamic fundamentalist groups as extensions of state power and policy in the region, an obsession that has yielded us more costs than benefit. CPEC has often been dubbed a ‘game changer’, but there are some serious issues with the project that need addressing. First and foremost, CPEC represented a golden opportunity to help the backward regions of Pakistan to catch up with its developed parts through the aegis of the western route passing through relatively underdeveloped Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. With hindsight, it could be argued that the western route has yet to attract equal attention as the eastern one, which passes through Punjab and Sindh, already relatively better developed. More attention therefore needs to be paid to the western route, including Special Economic Zones in which Pakistani businesses too are accommodated along with Chinese ones. Gwadar Port promises much, but local grievances regarding their share of the benefits of this development need attention. Similarly, given the simmering sub-nationalist insurgency in Balochistan, the benefits of CPEC, should they begin to appear and be enjoyed by the local populations along the route, could undercut the insurgents’ critique with arms of what they dub as another plan to exploit their land and resources for others or the state. Inclusive development of CPEC could go a long way towards mitigating resentment and grievances, deliver tangible benefits to the populace along the route, and help dull the edges of armed confrontation in Balochistan.

Business Recorder Editorial December 3, 2020

Trump’s follies

 

Outgoing US President Donald Trump’s four-year incumbency has yielded any number of foolish policies and practices that, had their impact on the US itself as well as the world not been so grave, would probably have provided a great deal of merriment. But even in this surfeit of riches, some things stand out from amongst the crowd. Trump’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis has been nothing short of criminally negligent. Initially, he poohed poohed the warnings of the pandemic’s threat to life, adventurously went about without a mask even to election rallies, and may well have continued in this vein had he not contracted coronavirus himself. No steps were taken to provide public health in a country that only provides private expensive medical treatment, which left most of the poor and not so well off to fend for themselves. Little surprise then that the US has competed with countries in Europe and elsewhere for the top slot of cases and deaths. The virus has so far killed over 265,000 Americans, and the current ongoing deadly surge has produced over 100,000 new cases per day, leading to record-high hospitalisations (of those who can afford them). As if all this were not enough, Trump appointed Scott Atlas his pandemic special adviser when the latter was a neuroradiologist with no expertise in infectious diseases or epidemiology. Sighs of relief are audible all round after Atlas shrugged off his assignment after four months marked by controversy. During his short tenure, Atlas’ contributions to the drive against the coronavirus bordered on the hilarious, giving even his boss, Trump, a run for his money. Atlas downplayed the coronavirus threat, attacked science-based public health measures, and clashed repeatedly with other members of the pandemic task force. It is a mystery what qualifications or expertise Atlas had that persuaded Trump to put him in charge of one of the US’s (and the world’s) deadliest pandemic outbreaks. Scott Atlas is a fellow at Stanford University’s rightwing Hoover Institution, where he works on healthcare policy. During his tenure as special assistant, he attacked mask wearing, stay-at-home orders and social distancing, i.e. all the standard operating procedures (SOPs) instituted round the world to limit the spread of the virus, promoting instead the scientifically unproven notion of ‘herd immunity’ for the US. Had his advice been followed, it would probably have led to millions of deaths. He was rightly repeatedly rebuked by public health and infectious diseases experts. Not only that, he called on Michigan residents to ‘rise up’ against restrictions imposed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who became the target of a kidnapping plot, probably inspired by Scott Atlas’ call. This incident led to calls for his firing. Even Stanford University and its faculty senate distanced themselves from their own faculty member Scott Atlas’ ridiculous shenanigans.

Scott Atlas’ resignation comes amidst a deadly surge in cases in the US and other parts of the world. The troubling aspect of the situation in the US is that despite his foolish handling of the pandemic and the damage it has inflicted on American lives, jobs and the economy, 70 million plus Americans were still persuaded to vote for Trump. This is an indicator of how polarised and divided the US is today. Those who voted for Trump have blinkers on regarding his mistakes and downright damaging policies. They may even be the harbingers of a growing neo-fascist right wing trend in the US’s polity. Trump has not been loath even in his last days in office to wreak revenge by firing those members of his administration who may have dared to differ with him or sully the traditions of losing gracefully by kicking up a fuss about alleged rigging and mounting legal challenges that have more or less sunk without a trace. Incoming President Joe Biden will have his work cut out for him in terms of attempting to re-establish the US’s global standing. Pakistan has to prepare itself for the new administration in Washington as well as understand that kowtowing to every wish of the US in the past, e.g. the Afghan wars, has damaged our own interests. The relationship with the US going forward should be based only on what is good for Pakistan, without grandiose ambitions or unattainable goals that turned out to be mere chimeras in the past.

Business Recorder Column December 1, 2020

PTI’s anti-worker policies

 

Rashed Rahman

 

Nothing has exposed the ruling Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf’s (PTI’s) anti-worker policies than the surprise announcement on November 28, 2020 that over 4,500 employees of Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM) were being terminated with severance pay of an average Rs 2.3 million each. If this was not bad enough in the midst of the pandemic and its effects on the economy, including unemployment, Federal Minister for Industries and Production Hammad Azhar virtually drove the last nail in the coffin of PSM by announcing that 95 percent of its workforce was to be laid off. This statement lends weight to the apprehension of workers’ union leaders and other activists that the real plan is to close down PSM for good (it has already been closed since 2015) and divert its 1,900 acres of land to other uses such as real estate development. Hammad Azhar has already indicated that 1,300 of these 1,900 acres would be leased out (to whom, for what, are still to be revealed).

PSM’s sorry history is a lesson in our ability to turn a good thing into bad ‘effortlessly’. PSM was set up under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government in the 1970s. Experts say the contention between the US and the former USSR to set up the mill, mooted as a plan in 1958, finally fell into the Soviet Union’s lap since Washington and Islamabad’s chequered history and many differences found sharp focus when Bhutto came to power after the 1971 East Pakistan debacle. The Soviet plan consisted of a phase-wise mills setting up, starting with an initial production capacity of 1.1 million tons of steel. During subsequent phases, training of personnel by the Soviets would go hand in hand with further investment in order to reach at least the minimal feasible production capacity of three million tons. It may be added that at 1.1 million tons, not even the fixed costs of the plant could be met. Industry wisdom also dictated a minimum capacity of three million tons to break even and further expansion to become profitable.

The later expansion phases never happened, being overtaken by political developments inside Pakistan, including Bhutto’s incremental resiling from even his proclaimed Islamic socialism during his tenure, the brutally repressed opposition’s agitation against the 1977 rigged general elections, and the simmering nationalist insurgency in Balochistan. Subsequent governments were either ignorant of, or chose to turn a blind eye to the original plan. Some, like General Ziaul Haq’s dictatorship, considered even Bhutto’s pseudo-socialism anathema, and Soviet friendship a difficult bone to swallow. Others, like Nawaz Sharif’s three stints in power, wanted no truck with competition from PSM for their recently restored (by Zia) Ittefaq Foundries. Nawaz even destroyed the flourishing shipbreaking industry in Gaddani to leave the field clear for Ittefaq and other private sector steel firms. Needless to say, the phased original Soviet plan went abegging, leaving subsequent Pakistani PSM managements with the unenviable task of making a steel mill profitable that inherently fell short of even break even production capacity. Over the years, this production capacity did increase, leading for some years to PSM entering into the black in profitability, but this brief respite did not last.

Overemployment for political reasons has been the bane not only of PSM, but most state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in our history. PSM attracted the tender attentions in this respect of both the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). But the greater blame for giving in to such exorbitant job distribution demands falls on PSM’s management that acquiesced in such unsustainable foolishness.

Ironically, it was the PPP government of 2008-13 under former president Asif Zardari that oversaw mismanagement in PSM to the extent that before they left office, the already inadequate production capacity (as explained above) of PSM was reduced to 40 percent. The remaining funereal rites of PSM were enacted by the following Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) government of Nawaz Sharif by cutting its production to 20 percent, then six percent, and then finally shutting it down in 2015. Now PTI seems bent upon turning this industrial asset into probable real estate ventures for the rich, on the lines of its Ravi Riverfront project in Lahore and its drooling over Sindh and Balochistan’s islands.

Whatever his other flaws, Bhutto must be credited with digesting and then attempting late Indian Prime Minister (PM) Jawaharlal Nehru’s vision for his own country’s development. Despite steel giants like the Tatas being in the field, Nehru realized that without basic heavy industry, India could not achieve a modern, thriving economy. He therefore set up heavy steel and engineering industries in the public sector since the private sector was by and large shy of such long gestation, low return projects. Derided later for the three percent so-called ‘Hindu rate of growth’, Nehru was later vindicated by India being able to make faster industrial and economic progress on the foundations of the heavy industry base inherited from Nehru.

Bhutto too tried to fill the gap in Pakistan’s industrial development by overseeing the Pak-Soviet PSM plan, setting up heavy engineering industry in the public sector, nationalising in the process the commanding heights of the economy, including banking and insurance. However, the flaw in Bhutto’s planning was the failure to address the lack of professional management cadre to run the SOEs, which under the bureaucracy to which they were transferred, went steadily south. This, by the way, and for the information of PM Imran Khan, had less to do with ‘socialism’, to which he ascribes our subsequent economic ills, and more to do with bureaucratisation under the misleading label of Islamic socialism. If Bhutto can be faulted, it is not for attempting leftist reforms in the economy, but for failure to consistently and incrementally transform Pakistan’s economy in the direction of true socialism. Even his land reform was subverted and reversed by the mid-1970s by the influx of large landowners into the PPP.

The model of economic development that Pakistan has more or less consistently been following over the years is wholly dependent on loans and aid, both bilateral and from international institutional lenders. This has translated in practice into Pakistan benefitting when its ‘nuisance’ value or willingness to become part of US-led western imperialism’s strategic plans for our region (e.g. the Afghan wars) are on offer. When the ‘nuisance’ value changes into a real nuisance (i.e. our acquisition of nuclear weapons) or Pakistan drifts away from western imperialism’s desires (and into the ‘alternative’ embrace of, for example, China), this model runs into trouble. In any case, it has inherent to it a classic debt trap.

The working class is being forced to stir in the face of retrenchments (like in PSM), unemployment, inflation and the misery of being unable to feed families two square meals a day. Weakened by the assault since the 1970s on its unions and thereby ability to resist injustice and exploitation, the working class is nevertheless rising again in the face of unacceptable hardship. The PTI government’s exposure of its anti-worker stance and policies promises another front against this government, one that touches the hearts of the poor, unlike the Pakistan Democratic Movement’s (PDM’s) limitation to the fight for a formal parliamentary democracy without any mention of even scraps from the table for the poor.

 

 

 

 

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com