Politics of development

The political system can be a source of excellent governance where the entire nation is homogenous and where the literacy rate is high. I am not talking of the educated for somehow the educational system is perverted inasmuch as it provides limiting factors to creativity. Fixing absolute knowledge is an anathema that our educational system suffers from.
The agriculture education, for instance, does not teach the student how to exercise his mind and to take calculated risks. While at the London Business School [LBS], Charles Handy, one of the gurus of management, had a special course for us students on how to particularise from the general and how to do the reverse. This course was demanded by us from the school management and the rule was that if one could collect seven students, then a new course could be organised without any payments.
That is the purpose of education to meet the intellectual demands of the students. That would mean that the students would be able to examine matters in a different light altogether, risk factor being modified by the nature of the analysis.
The elected representatives have over the years not been able to use the resources they should have. The reason is the poor quality of the persons in the government. At policy levels, the situation has gone extremely precarious and that is now showing in the development of the country. The nature of conveniences given to the bureaucrat will have an impact on the development aspect.
Their inefficiencies are now reflected and have become very dangerous to the country's body politics. The poverty of thought that these bureaucrats now suffer from means that the politicians cannot use their services to the benefits of the country. Unable to register, they are now unable to read at all, not even the files. As a result of this and other unexplained factors, they are unable to examine the development process in the light of the country's requirements.
Take the excluded areas excluded because they were not brought within the format of the social factors so responsible for the continuation of democracy. Some times the particular aspect of this where the misallocation are severe is known as the Dutch disease.
The manifestations of the disease are a direct manifestation of the use of natural resource [s]. The resource use eliminates any other options that might be there for the use of the natural rights of all people. If one were to look across the world, one would see that the excessive effort at minerals and at mining takes a heavy toll of the countries and there are a lot of wars. Does that mean that we give up the use of natural resources? No, it only means that societal development has to be on the basis of equity and fair dealing. Intangibles you might say and you will be correct.
Tell me any tangible statistic that has led to stability in developing countries or the use of the IMF and the WB-led policies. The countries with the maximum natural resources are also the most vulnerable at the moment. One has only to see the performance of Tanto-Zinc and other copper companies to understand that the area has been denuded permanently. Balochistan, which has been excluded previously, is especially vulnerable. The copper-gold mines will lead to conflict if the resources generated are not meaningfully utilised.
The volatility in raw material prices has another sinister implication for the country. If the price of the raw material in the world markets decreases, then the earnings from the commodity fall. The increase in soaring prices means that the local staff would not get any increase and would, therefore, stay the same. That would mean a drop in real incomes. This then becomes highly counter-productive as the profits are siphoned off by the limited number of company elites to the disadvantage of the poor of the exploitative country. The economy, instead of gaining, starts losing its resources and eventually it hits rock bottom.
The lesson for competition is immense if the paradox of capitalism is understood. It is creative-destruction and if the competitive policy is right, then the companies would die and resurrect on the basis of its efforts. That in developing countries, the rule of law is missing and the law of ethics is virtually non-existent.
Those companies with more smart aspects will be responsible for the increase in employment, but if the competition policies are riddled with mafias and if the country is unable to handle the power and the elite structure, then the economy moves into a tail spin. It means that there will be more debacle companies and less coming on the scene. So it is in the interest of the country to have laws that are based on equity and fair play. The intangibles matter more than the tangibles of the system.
The tangibles are related to the individuals, while the intangibles have a wider sphere of influence. Competition has to be based on agreed norms and within set boundaries rather than winning at all costs. The same is true for politics. Was it not Bertrand Russell, who sated that the losers in any sports should not be put to death for if that was to happen, then there would be no players left to play the game.
Natural resource base is utterly dependent on the monopoly players decency for there is no competition in this game. The monopoly players are generally MNCs and the power of these MNCs is reflected in the Naomi Klein book 'No Logo'. She talks of the power of these MNCs and states quite candidly that these MNCs are not amenable to any reason. So why is the WB/ADB furthering these as foreign direct investment in the developing countries.
Since the World War II and the development of these international agencies, they have been pushing for these MNCs, but now the game has changed a bit, for these MNCs no longer come to the developing world to try and transfer technology but are now only in the fast food sector and the exploitative sector of the natural resources.
It was the last German Chancellor, who lamented the fact and articulated what Naomi Klein had been advocating in the case against WTO and the brand names that have been used in the debacle of the developing world economies. A certain amount of clientele has been developed based on the elites of the developing world that interact with the developed countries. They are now in the developing world and are the main buyers of the products developed by these MNCs. In fact, one has only to go to the markets to realise that the markets are full of smuggled products from the developed countries.
The international agencies turn a blind eye to these misdemeanours as they help fuel the market for their goods and ensure the creation of demand and this ties in with the urbanisation that the banks have been foisting on to the developing countries. It's a bitchy game the morality of which is questionable.
So what can the developing world do? For one, they have to develop an essence of their own. That means that they have to develop on their own inner strengths. China, Vietnam, Syria, Iran and even Myanmar are good examples of self-reliant working. It is when one takes the right decisions and makes the right choices that the inner strengths of a country develop along lines that are desirable.
Take it from me that if you use country-made things these look better, are cheaper and are more functional. The burger is not necessarily good food. The Chinese are now finding out that it increases obesity and the Americans now have obesity centres. The process food that these Americans eat has also contributed to the health issues in that country. Think about it. Think Pakistani. There is still a chance to get out of the Dutch disease.