Opinion

What Comes First: Pay, Play or Performance
By Mohammad Ashraf Chaudhry
Pittsburg, CA

“A person can pay now and play later, or he can play now and pay later.” - John C Maxwell

John Maxwell repeats what our grandparents assiduously drilled in us like Math. Tables in childhood: first perform and then play. We just could never hide our lapses and failures because parental love for us invariably passed through the narrow path of our performance - be it studies or behavior. Smartness then lay in hard-work, and not in hood-wink. It was always based on what we did and how we did, and not on how we looked or manipulated. Now the saying stands reversed. One looks rather silly that still deems performance as an art or a virtue of some value-be it in academics or in the acquisition of money and power. Finding short-cuts to infinite riches or power is the real art because richness is the other name of power and success. The role models in this art of success are our politicians in Pakistan.

Maxwell in his book “The Winning Attitude” gives the example of a woman who went to a pet store to purchase a parrot to keep her company. She returned the next day to report, “That parrot hasn’t said a word yet!” “Does it have a mirror?” asked the storekeeper, “Parrots like to be able to look at themselves in the mirror.” The woman bought the mirror and returned home.

Next day she was back again, complaining that the bird still wasn’t speaking. “What about a ladder?” the storekeeper said, “Parrots enjoy walking up and down a ladder.” So she bought a ladder and returned home. But she was back again with the same complaint. “Does the parrot have a swing? Birds enjoy relaxing on a swing.” She bought the swing too. The next day she returned to announce the bird had died.

“I am terribly sorry to hear that”, said the storekeeper. “Did the bird ever say anything before it died?” “Yes” the lady replied. “It said, ‘Don’t they sell any food down there.’ ”

Our leaders in Pakistan are like the lady in the story. They cajole people with all kinds of ladders, mirrors, swings and laptops, etc. except the provision of sustenance. They expect people to perform while they themselves just play. Leaders in Pakistan do not lead, and do not serve the people. They just serve themselves and as such, they have become a big liability for people whether they (leaders) are in power or out of power. The current culture of chaos, corruption and confusion is a reflection of what these leaders stand for. Robbers and cheaters rob people of their possessions and dreams, but never expect them to arrange for their safety and security as well in case the consequences of their acts chose to re-visit them. In Pakistan, these leaders did that too. Even the former law minister is heard saying, “A law for life-time securities was enacted, but I have never seen or read this kind of law anywhere”.

When a soldier joins the army, he knows the risks involved; when a worker joins a factory that produces toxic gases, he knows the hazards; when a doctor joins the medical profession, he knows about the presence of the life-endangering viruses. When a politician joins politics, it is expected that he also knows about the dangers that beset this field as much as he knows about the perks that come with it.

It is true the life of politicians is at great risk these days. Even today on April 16, there had been a suicidal attack on Haji Balaur and his companions in Peshawar. The discussion that ensued was not on the elimination of the terrorists, but it was focused on the Election Commission and the caretaker government’s collusion to get Awami Nation Party (ANP) out of the elections. In five years, the ANP, the MQM, the PPP and the PML (Q) had been in power. Did they ever agree on one item agenda by taking PML (N) on board, which being on how to end terrorism? While terrorism prospered under the nose of the army, judiciary, the executive and the opposition party/parties, they stayed divided and busy in reaping the perks and flouting the law of the country. Pakistan in its history has never faced such a confused and anarchic state of affairs. It had its share of silly and dullard leadership, but not of the kind and quality that it had in the past five years.

It just hurts to read The Economist, March 30 th edition mentioning Pakistan in such terms in its editorial article, “Can India become a great power?” “Pakistan is dangerous and unstable, bristling with nuclear weapons, torn apart by jihadist violence and vulnerable to an army command threatened by radical junior officers. Yet India does not think coherently about how to cope.” In Mr. Bharat Karnad’s view that represents the Center for Policy Research, a think-tank, “Pakistan’s main danger to India is as a failed state, not a military adversary”. While India is actively developing naval relationships with Vietnam, South Korea and Japan, and most of all, America, Pakistan is happy to hand over the management of Gwadar to a Chinese company. Even this, and the signing of a gas pipe line pack with Iran is viewed by India as a “matter of concern”.

Indian leadership is awake and the living proof is its performance. Pakistan just keeps digging the hole in which it is already imprisoned. Nations become sleepless when calamities befall them, and certain ideas and challenges (as terrorism in Pakistan) put a demand on the leadership for clarification. Such moments test the souls of leadership. Franklin D. Roosevelt once famously said, “Washington incarnated the idea of federal union, Jefferson and Jackson the idea of democracy, Lincoln union and freedom, Cleveland rugged honesty.” The three great Presidents of America, Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt confronted the greatest challenges and crises that the nation ever faced, and all three earned their name by overcoming those crises in the most glorious manner. It is in a crisis that the creativity and imagination and vision of true leadership gets tested. The leader gets both an opportunity to outshine and a danger to get destroyed. The crisis of secession did not help Buchanan, nor did the crisis of depression help Hoover to emerge as a great leader.

In Pakistan, the case is different. Here the politicians seek leadership, and demand it as if it were a family property deed; they do so, not because the leader is spurred by a noble desire to rectify what is wrong, to set right what is out of order. They openly claim that they are not mystics or Sufis to waste the opportunity fallen in their way. For them, leadership is not a trust; it is all about perks minus the perils. Challenges confronting the nation are termed broadly as the legacy of the past regimes, a doing of the dictators, hence none of their business. The most unfortunate part of our leadership is that notwithstanding its dismal performance, it never gets destroyed; it never becomes redundant, and it never it never opts to retire. This is the age of Mariam Nawaz who earned her name by virtue of her performance; of Mrs. Chenai; or even of Bilawal Bhutto in case Oxford has made a dent in his feudal thinking, or of those who have not been tried, such as Ahsan Iqbal and Imran Khan. What new can ooz from old and rusty minds!

Pakistan goes to elections in May, 2013, and India in 2014. Guess who is emerging to the forefront in India for the central role. It is none else but Narendra Modi. His emergence is based on solid performance in Gujarat, but he is also living with a stigma of having watched over the massacre of Muslims in 2002. According to the Economist of April 13, 2013. “Hindu mobs ran riot, raping and murdering Muslims and burning them alive. Over 1,000 people died in some of the worst religious violence seen in India since independence”. He thinks that since it has not been proven, therefore, it is just a suspicion, and he has not done anything wrong. Moreover, he is not repentant either, even during the election season.

Otherwise his credentials are solid; he takes pride in being the son of a “Chai-wala”, the tea-seller, and is least hesitant to compare himself with Margaret Thatcher, who was the daughter of a “grocery seller”; he has emerged as a dominant figure in the BJP, the main opposition party; even outsiders are beginning to rub shoulders with him; Britain’s high commissioner to India, according to the Economist, has already, “led the charge, ending a boycott last year”. European Union ambassadors have also broken bread with him; “Rumors in Delhi suggest that America is pondering whether to issue him a visa”. The world has a tendency to forget charges that get older more than five years.

Stability and economic prosperity established by a leader in his sphere of rule, is all that counts in the present day world, be it a city-state like Singapore or Hongkong. As Chief Minister of Gujarat, they maintain, Modi kept stability in a riot-prone state; he transformed it into a rich state, the income per person increased more than double. “If all Indians enjoyed the same income as Gujaratis, the country’s economy would be 50% bigger-easily outstripping France’s”, writes the Economist. Businesses have flocked to Gujarat, as do migrant workers; farmers have flourished. Modi, in spite of his religious zealotry, is a modernizer and is viewed as “a proselytizer for small, effective government”. He has turned Gujarat into a highly pro-business state, by making land available for the investors, by providing reliable power, decent roads and relatively uncorrupt officials, confirms the Economist. He aspires to turn Gujarat into a hub for defense manufacturing; he has tapped the solar energy in the biggest way. He has initiated the voucher system to improve education, and intends to privatize state-run firms. He favors looser labor laws and conditions for generating productive, private jobs, rather than government make-work schemes. Poverty, he thinks, can be cut only through rapid growth.

India is a business oriented country, and all businessmen crave for Modi, and jobless people yearn for him. But academics disagree with some of the assertions. Children are victims of malnutrition and women as economically backward. Other states are tackling poverty and ill health better. But he is brash, aggressive, physically large, and charismatic. Muslims and moderate Hindus may not vote for him, or may because India is their country.

Who is emerging in Pakistan? Nawaz Sharif, Imran Khan or Balawal Bhutto. The first one has been there since 1980’s; the second one is yet to be tested because politics is different from cricket and social work (Abdus Sattar Eidhi is still the undisputed king in the social service field), and Balawal Bhutto, like Rahul Gandhi is a privileged but reluctant young man. What is their agenda? I cannot define it because it is all based on euphuism and on slogans.

Much is made of the performance of PML (N) in the Punjab, but it is hardly a match to Nirish Kumar’s in Bihar or to that of Modi’s in Gujarat. Moreover, Pakistan’s problems are unique and are deep rooted. It is as complex as separating Vanilla flavor, sugar and milk from the Vanilla ice-cream. Pakistan urgently needs a brash, bold and somewhat aggressive leadership that is willing to take all kinds of risks; that wants to live in the modern world without turning it hostile; that has a resolve to put a snapping turtle like grip on the corrupt and non-tax-paying rich, and that is unwilling to release its grip, even if the head gets cut off; that has courage to send a simple, clear and unambiguous message to the terrorists and to all the disgruntled and angry groups (as Imran Khan tends to define them) that obedience to the law of the country is the only way they can save themselves; that has the vision to sit with the army, the judiciary and agree on a minimum achievable agenda and go after its implementation with the fullest might of the state, sparing none, and rather starting from their own homes first; that has a vision to put the whole country to school like Ata Turk did; that envisions to provide power, feasible health-care and healthy eatable products, including drinking water to the masses in the minimum time; and that introduces the culture of fair-play, merit and of religious tolerance in all walks of life. The country needs a clean-up drive.

These are lofty and difficult tasks. They sound good as slogans. Talking about change is good politics, but change always comes in a slow and steady manner. Pakistan is notorious for working on many myths. For example, there is the myth of “Burning Platform”, i.e. start doing something when a terrorist attack takes place and then go to sleep; the myth of “Stock Options”, i.e. give perks and privileges to those who disagree with you. President Zardari is a master of this art; then there is the myth of “Fear-Driven Change”, i.e. the fear of being left behind. Since others have minted money and are likely to use it in the elections, so we should also do the same; since Imran Khan said that America is responsible for all the Taliban problems, therefore, we should also not do anything that may annoy them etc. These myths are articulated by Jim Collins. Sometime back, these leaders talked about a revolution, but on hearing its thunder, then they compromised it with a mere change.

Our leaders are over-hyped in their assertions. I conclude by saying without sounding very cynical that they are not capable of bringing about any changes or revolutions. With the exception of Imran Khan, all the rest are like an open book. It is the people alone who should feel the need for a change, and the change - a good one will come at a striding pace to them. Leaders will not because they refused to be in the “Doom Loop” of a big flywheel. How can they deliver when they refuse to subject themselves to accountability; when they lose any sort of authenticity, and credibility. And now they demand protection from the monster that they let grow due to sheer heedlessness. They turned this beautiful country into a laughing stock of the world. The saddest part is that they do not even feel what they have done - there is absolutely no trace of repentance, shame, or moral compunctions. It is just business as usual. They want people to vote for them. About sixty years ago on June 3, 1948, Professor Daniel Schuemann, an expert in International Politics, said in a lecture in New York: “The State of Pakistan (which) recently came into being in South-East Asia, is a State manifest with enormous pitfalls unique to itself. Its existence is vulnerable as time will show. In less than half a century, the State will collapse because of the people who are born with chains of slavery, whose thoughts cannot see love of a free country and whose minds cannot function beyond the scope of personal selfish ends - I know their insides.” Daniel Schuemann is right.

The people of Pakistan, it is true, could not digest freedom; could not learn its true value, and could not rise above their own egos. Neither the compassion and Mercy of Islam and its concept of Tawheed, nor the beauty of not being in minority could change them. Had they asked any Christian, Ahmadi, Shia, or Hindu how it was to being a minority? The blessing of a free country could have dawned upon them.