Changing times
By Syed Bakhtiyar Kazmi

Changing times are upon this nation; optically abominable decisions will need to be taken with the best long term interest of Pakistan the only criterion.

“The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis” — Dante Alighieri.

The above quotation is the underlying theme of Dan Brown’s most recent fictional endeavour. On a personal level, Inferno was rather mediocre, and in fact, appeared more to be a travel log for Florence. While the inordinate energy spent on explaining tourist attractions around Venice, Istanbul and Florence did invoke Google image searches, on balance, the narrative was cumbersome reading. But hey, this is not a book review so go ahead and splurge on the hardcover for a personal experience.

Nonetheless, the storyline takes its cue from the Malthusian prediction of an impending catastrophe brought about by the ever increasing human population the world over. While according to the gurus technology deferred the inevitability of Malthus’s theory, with over seven billion humans consuming global resources, the question is, how much more can mother Earth endure? The soothsayers continuingly warn about impending water shortages, consequent food shortages, environmental issues and other disasters related to overpopulation, which are largely ignored primarily because of an unflinching faith in technological advances; and there is no denying that technology has changed the landscape completely in less than a generation. However, living in Pakistan, there is this gnawing feeling that with everything moving in reverse gear, the proof of the pudding, or in this case the theory, is around the corner.

Ever growing population eventually begets scarce resource. A few decades ago, the Sui gas fields were supposedly sufficient to meet the nation’s demand for the next 100 years; today there is not even enough to meet residential demand. Tarbela Dam was initially not even envisaged as a power house; today, even the capital is facing load shedding every two hours, and apparently things just got worse. Since morning, load shedding is occurring every alternate hour. Considering the ever worsening demand-supply equation for gas and electricity, political slogans aside, there is just not enough to go around.

The moral crisis is who gets scarce resources and under what criteria.

Capitalism, the blue eyed boy, rather system, of economists in the west, and hence the darling of domestic pundits as well, asserts that only free markets have the right to decide, with price being the sole criterion. So the pertinent question to ask economists from all political camps is simply that if capitalism is the right system, then why the dilly dallying over the solution?

For the boggled laymen, the capitalist solution is to raise prices until demand falls sufficiently to equate with supply. Imagine if the price of electricity was suddenly increased four fold, all hell would break loose over wastage in every household. Parental chastising, on leaving unwanted lights on, the norm a few decades ago, might be synonymous with a Ripley’s Believe It Or Not episode for today’s youth, but in those times of scarcity it kept demand in check.

History lesson apart, what are the causes behind the reversal of the national quality of life? If within a generation the quality of life had improved significantly, why could the momentum not continue? And what is the solution?

The optimum size of the global populace might be linked with the uncertain capacity of the planet to provide requisite resource, but particularly in Pakistan’s case, an increasing population was not necessarily a bad thing. To pacify the dissenters of the aforestated view, even if population was the problem, the solution is definitely not the hair-brained scheme of Mr Brown’s villain in Inferno. What then was the controllable variable behind the current state of affairs? Simply, wait for it...the leadership did nothing!

Over four decades ago, in 1972 Pakistan’s population stood at 62.7 million, compared to, for reference only, 68.5 million for Bangladesh; for the record, Pakistanis surpassed them in 1981. During these 40 odd years, the heads of state are split evenly between elected leadership and military dictators, with the balance tilted more towards democratically elected governments than vice versa. Which logically evidences that neither form of government is solely responsible for this merry-go-round of fortunes, each is equally responsible.

And where is the evidence for doing nothing?

One can quote economic statistics in defence of this hypothesis, but over time it is crystal clear that nobody understands economics, so let’s move towards tangible accomplishments. In these 40 years, the population trebled, and in this very period how many more dams the size of Tarbela were constructed? More food is obviously needed for a higher population. How much more acreage was added to agricultural land and if that was a limitation, which it is not, is crop yield today in Pakistan comparable with the region? Since the population size increased three times, there were more migrations towards cities, and in this very period how many kilometres of railway track was added to the network and if not added what was the increase in two-way tracks? How many more ships were added to the national shipping corporation over these 40 years? How many more planes were added to the international carrier?

Inconsequential claims to fame aside, has anyone even observed let alone analysed the development successes in certain states just across the border?

Solution? Well apparently not what the national leadership, its economic teams included, has been doing for the last four decades.

As an example take the privatisation bandwagon, a favorite initiative for the supporters of free markets. Privatising utility corporations will not increase resources; selling the Sui field does not increase its gas reserves. More importantly, once the nation has sold its gas and oil reserves, its Hydel generating capacity, its coal and other mineral reserves and its air waves, what will it sell when the creditors come calling next time; parcels of prime land; and what after that?

Efficiency is also a misnomer in this particular case. Fourfold increase in prices will obviously curtail demand significantly and make the corporation profitable, but will the government sit on the fence and let wealth be the sole criteria for enjoying unfettered supply of gas and electricity? If not, which is the likely scenario, not because of morality but poor voters make the difference in elections, the government will end up subsidising the poor. More circular debt?

If private power generation cannot be classified as a productive experience, the basis for assuming that privatising of raw materials and distribution will significantly improve the situation at best remains confusing. Borrowing in cash or kind to meet current consumption is a short term arrangement only. An ever increasing population convinced that cheap electricity and gas is a fundamental right is a no win scenario for a developing nation.

The book might have been boring, but was surely enlightening. Changing times are upon this nation; optically abominable decisions will need to be taken with the best long term interest of Pakistan the only criterion. Irrespective of the how and why of this moral crisis, rephrasing an apt quote by an unknown personality, weakening the strong to strengthen the weak will make everyone weak!

With so many pillars, the assumed or apparent neutrality on critical solutions in changing times is indeed a moral crisis in itself. Wonder what Dante’s views on golfers were!

Cheers!

The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. He can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com and on twitter @leaccountant

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default...7-5-2013_pg3_2