Siraj uddin Aziz
‘I think, therefore I am’, wrote Rene Descartes in 1637. This assertion was the foundational principle of his philosophy. He highlighted through this famous remark that even if you doubt everything, the fact that you are possessed with the capability of doubting or thinking confirms your ownself or consciousness.
He was establishing his idea that humans are a thinking entity. It is only when you think, can you come up with ideas, new, reformed or even altered. The best way to arrive at new ideas is to challenge the status quo. The acceptance of old order will lead to stagnation of thought and consequently in action. The validity of existing order must be challenged.
I can become only that which I think I can grow into. Now, if we apply this very principle to a nation, then, it is the people who would decide what their nation should be like. Ralph Waldo Emerson supported the idea when he remarked, ‘you become what you think about all day long’. This was followed up with a remarkable crafting of words, ‘the ancestor of every action is a thought’. Our inner beliefs, value system and ingrained orientation over a period of time go towards in-making and development of character. The sum total of character of the society ultimately impacts the destiny of the individual constituent as well as the entire society.
We essentially therefore become what we think. The mind, said Emerson, once stretched by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions. We are all blessed with ability to think — and for the 78 odd years, we have been thinking (convoluted mostly). Our problems emerge from not being able to translate ideas into actions. Unanimity of purpose has also been an impeding factor — coupled with the worst malaise of non- implementation, accompanied by procrastination and stubborn inertia.
We have swung from Free Enterprise to State Control; from promotion of entrepreneurship to directed economic activity and then taking a full circle , we are all now active subscribers of the concept of privatisation. While, it is important to promote private sector, but to do it because public sector enterprises have become ‘white elephants’ due to state ownership, is to portray an attitude of turning away from the problem.
In these columns for many years, I have invited attention of readers to the fact that state ownership is not the ailment, it is “state management” of the enterprises, which is the root of the problem. The idea in having state ownership has merits too; but these merits get washed away when the state decides to manage the entities. The state plants professional managers to run these or whether it infiltrates the organisation with poor quality human resources; who are in a manner given a carte blanche authority to plunder.
That’s exactly what Pakistan has done to its state enterprises. If the State wishes to do both, own and govern, then disaster will loom, undoubtedly; however if professionals are given the task to run without interference, we could have similar results as the many state-owned Chinese enterprises. The difference in results is due to the dichotomy between idea and its implementation. It has been in implementation that we have collectively destroyed the spirit of the best ideas — and privatisation is just one case in point.
Diversions from goal posts is our national sport. We are truly a creative nation whose only fault is in its ability to carry through a thought towards its due and correct implementation. The causes for this derailment from this ‘purpose’ are aplenty. Again the varied reasons range from the temperament to think for short-term gains, while deploying and using tools of long-term solutions. For the gain of the moment, we have continuously sacrificed the future. The pain of today, if that becomes intolerable as a continuous habit of response to challenges that emerges while reforming the dynamics of the country, then evidently future gains stand compromised. Political exigencies have outclassed the need for consistency in reforms (idea) and its application (implementation).
There is no documentary evidence yet because it sounds so pleasing to the ego, there is this incident that’s oft quoted: the South Koreans in the early 1960s looked at our five-year plans and were impressed. They copied, borrowed or developed locally a replicated version, whatever it be, they ‘implemented’ our ‘idea’ and progressed to become part of the OECD. We wrote those plans (idea) and possibly neatly shelved them — or maybe used them for a limited period before complete abandonment to such economic planning in the late 60s. If this be true, why did Pakistan fail?
Economics has always been intertwined with politics. The political upheavals that we’ve undergone, since our independence, have never allowed for achieving any economic stabilisation. The nation has been wobbling on the turbulent waters of emerging global political economy. We have failed to take advantage of the ‘shifts’ that have happened on the international finance and trade horizon.
As an example when during the decade of early 2000 China decided to vacate the lower end of the textile value chain , it was an excellent opportunity for us to capture that space , instead it was Vietnam, Bangladesh and Cambodia, that did so by both developing the right strategy (idea) and more so by strict implementation standards and governance. Our exports were then on the rise, today they are dwindling. And Vietnam whose exports then were more or less the same as ours are now clocking at a staggering US$ 500 billion plus. The difference — implementation.
‘A stand can be made against invasion by an army; no stand can be made by an invasion by an idea’ (Victor Hugo). Ideas need translation into action, failing which they remain wild dreams. The best treatment to ideas is to entertain them with resolute implementation. New opinions and ideas will always be suspected and opposed, but if there is merit in the idea for which the time may have come, it must be pursued unrelentingly by the economic czars of any country. We have all along seriously lacked that skills of carrying reforms through to their logical end. Our political impatience casts usually a deadly blow to long-term planning and future results.
Politicians are architects of the future of a nation. Their principal task should be to be able to foresee (vision) how the nation would look like, say in 25 years from now — if that picture is not in the dense fog of uncertainly of purpose, then all that is required is to hand over a schedule of milestones to be achieved within given parameters of time and success measurements — this task must be given to the people and the competent economic managers who should be put to the tough test of governance, credibility and accountability. That’s exactly what Korea and Japan did, later followed by China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore and now Indonesia.
The bureaucracy far too long has subscribed to the thought that says, never do today what can you can put off till tomorrow – and tomorrow never comes. Instead we must harken with ‘he that would thrive, Must rise at five; He that had thriven, May lie till seven (John Clarke). Islamabad’s bureaucracy is a reminder of Charles Dickens’ views expressed in ‘Little Dorrit’: ‘whatever was required to be done, the Circumlocution Office was before hand with all the public departments in the art of perceiving – how not to do it’. In the theatre of life, men cannot afford to be onlookers. They must act or die – not all impulses are criminal in nature. We cannot stop to take initiatives – produce an idea and implement.
Since we don’t value time we have continuously been missing the bus. Many opportunities have remained unavailed due to inertia, inaction and sluggard attitude. The nation’s pastime has been to design the elephant as a horse. The need is to have a strong handshake between idea and implementation.
Political governments must oversee through a microscope how its plans are being implemented – check accuracy and speed. It is not that the governments haven’t in the past monitored progress of projects; they have, however, it is unfortunately this innate trait in us to convert evaluation into witch hunting – the process loses its credibility, its fairness, its sense of balance and justice.
