The cost of protests
It is an easy argument to make either way, but people must make up their minds about it one way or the other. While protests remain a democratic right, the costs can be high.
Indeed, the cost of the PTI protests to the country and the economy is very large, if measured in terms of the erosion of confidence, the muddying of the Pakistan narrative for foreign and domestic investors, and the weakening of the state’s controls over the economy and its ability to discharge its regulatory and oversight duties.
There may not be an immediate impact in terms of loss of output or damage to infrastructure, but the cost to the underlying pillars upon which a market economy operates can be immeasurable. However, some of these costs are avoidable.
Already, the state has impounded containers laden with export consignments to use as obstacles in the path of the protest caravans in a repeat of what was done two years ago when the same scenario played itself out. Needless to say, this tactic does incalculable harm to our exports that are already suffering.
The stock market has lost more than 1,500 points since hitting its historic high this month, an indicator of the storms of uncertainty unleashed in the investor community.
The former is an example of an avoidable cost, while the latter represents an enduring loss whose effects will linger long after the affair is over and the market has regained its momentum, because the damage done to investor sentiment in manufacturing will take far longer to repair.
Those participating in the protests may ask: what are the costs of not protesting? This is a fair question, because business as usual is also marred by its many dysfunctions, primarily poor governance, a bad security environment, and corruption.
But, at the same time, it would be naïve for protesters to think that should they succeed in their goals, the dysfunctions will disappear. The path to repairing Pakistan’s many dysfunctions is a long one, and progress on that road can only be gradual.
The first thing to be fixed is the political system, more specifically the path to power and the means through which power is legitimised. The more we politicise that, the more we undermine the very tools with which any course correction can be undertaken.
To fix the economy, the ship of state must be steady and resting on an even keel, and it must be clear to all contestants in the political arena that there is only one path to power — and that leads through the ballot box. Any loosening of this principle weakens the ability of the state to address its own dysfunctions regardless of the intentions of the rulers.
These protests exact a cost from the economy that outweighs any benefits that the protest leadership promises.
Houthi missile attack
THE Saudi-Houthi conflict took a dangerous turn as reports emerged on Friday that the Yemeni rebel group had fired a missile deep inside the kingdom. Accounts of the missile’s intended target vary: the Saudis insist the attack was aimed at the holy city of Makkah, while the Houthis say it was targeted at Jeddah’s airport, some distance from Islam’s holiest site. The way the incident is being spun risks recasting the Yemeni conflict in overtly sectarian terms, much like the Syrian civil war is portrayed. The Saudis and most of their Gulf allies have seized the opportunity to question the faith and motives of the Zaydi Shia Houthis, and their alleged Iranian backers. The Houthis dismiss this as “political nonsense” and say they had no intention of targeting Makkah. It is, of course, difficult to believe that any Muslim group — regardless of the animosity it may bear towards Saudi Arabia — would consciously target Makkah, simply because of the revulsion such an act would cause across the Muslim world. The Yemeni rebels have, indeed, in response to Saudi military intervention, conducted cross-border attacks, including a salvo earlier this month targeting a Saudi base in Taif. But there is little evidence to support the thesis that they have purposefully targeted the holy cities in Hejaz.
While the missile attack is condemnable, the Houthi strike should not be used as an excuse by the Saudi-led coalition to escalate the war effort in Yemen. As it is, this impoverished Arab state has been battered by relentless conflict, especially since the Saudis intervened last year. The UN estimates that over two million people in Yemen require humanitarian assistance, while the threat of famine looms large. The number of civilians killed has been disturbingly high; on Oct 8 the coalition was accused of bombing a funeral in Sanaa, in which over 140 people were killed and hundreds more injured. The air strike caused an international outcry. If the Saudi coalition continues to pound Yemen, more extreme reactions from the Houthis — such as the missile strike — are possible. If the situation escalates, a wider regional conflagration with ugly sectarian overtones may result. That is why the international community — particularly regional and Muslim states — should intervene to bring the fruitless and bloody Yemeni conflict to a close. The rebels and the government should be persuaded to cease hostilities, negotiate a way out of the impasse and share power.
Decimation of wildlife
IT is widely recognised that supporting humanity is extracting a heavy toll on the planet. Even so, on Thursday came a report that is nothing less than damning: since the 1970s, nearly three-fifths of all vertebrates —fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles and mammals — have been wiped out directly as a consequence of human appetite and activity. If the prevailing trend continues, by 2020 — which is only four years away — the planet would have lost two-thirds of its wildlife stock. These are the findings of the conservation groups WWF and the Zoological Society of London, published in their joint biennial Living Planet report. Sadly, there is no mystery about why this is the case: with the human population having more than doubled in number since 1960 to the current 7.4bn, humans are simply eating, crowding and poisoning our planetary cohabitants out of existence. To make matters worse, while this particular study involved the tracking of changes in wildlife population sizes and not the number of species threatened with extinction, experts are in agreement that Earth has entered its sixth “mass extinction event” — when species disappear at least 1,000 times faster than usual — over the last half a billion years.
If humanity has a conscience, these findings ought to galvanise the world into action. There is, of course, an urgent need to save and conserve wildlife habitats, and an argument can also made for mankind to change its dietary patterns. But many countries need to start with making their populations aware of the need to protect wildlife, Pakistan being a case in point. Our own record of conservation on the whole leaves much to be desired. From the snow leopards in the north to the marine life in our oceans, depletions and habitat loss are occurring, without people tuning in to the fact that this will take an environmental and economic toll on human communities as well. Can the trend be reversed? Only time will tell.
Published in Dawn, October 31st, 2016