Most of us learn proverbs at the primary school stage and many of us would have written essays upon essays on these adages. Readers would recall, for example, “A man is known by the company he keeps “.
The centrality of the theme in this dictum being that one should avoid bad company and must find good people to spend time in their midst.
The underlying hope here being that the positive features present in those good people would rub off on others in the company.
By using the same simple logic, we have since 1949 been in the good company of People’s Republic of China; that’s good seventy five years. Unfortunately, however, we as a nation seem to have learnt nothing from China…be it politics, economy or social reconstruction.
Having lived in the Region and in Beijing as well, I am witness to the amazing transformation of China. Our prime minister alongside a heavy delegation on his recent visit to china landed at Shenzhen airport. This city was the first Special Economic Zone that China opened up to the world.
From a sleepy fishing village in the mid eighties, it now betters the Manhattan skyline with several skyscrapers. I am certain even that short visit to the headquarters of the IT company, Huawei, would have lit up the imagination of the delegation.
China’s independence is a mere two years apart from our own independence in 1947. In 1949 and till the late sixties we were in a better state in all respects as compared to China. And 75 years down the road, China is a global powerhouse, an economic miracle with a reputation of being the “factory of the world”.
Against this growth and development of China, Pakistan on the other hand, has been on tenterhooks for the longest of times and is today a picture of sad economic morass— a patient in an ICU perennially.
So what went wrong or alternatively, how were the Chinese different than us, and what did they do differently to achieve such amazing milestones?
In the very few first years of independence, China decided to live in the comity of nations on its own terms. It refused to bargain or trade off its interests. It preferred to be a closed country till the late seventies.
The leadership refused to seek outside help for reconstruction after the devastating fight with Kuomintang forces led by Chiang Kai Shek.
In October 1949, Chairman Mao raised the Chinese flag after defeating Chiang Kai Shek.
The Chinese with a clenched fist decided to remain resolutely emancipated economically too, having gained political liberty. They stood for claiming “self- respect” for themselves, instead of falling prey to economic assistance, which the leadership sensibly recognised and fairly understood, would come with a lot of ‘strings’ attached to it.
Any assistance taken would have weakened the resolve to stand on their own feet. They denied to themselves comforts of the basic and ordinary type, let alone seek luxuries of life.
The Chinese nation learnt to live in difficult circumstances. There was no difference in the pain and pangs suffered by both the leadership and the led.
Leaders took no privileges or perks. They struggled together. There were years when due to famine many families would settle for a single meal during the day.
This was done with great feeling of satisfaction and due grace. In this behaviour they found and protected their self esteem and belief in their abilities to turn around the country.
Immediately after 1947, divinity took away within a year or so our founding father Jinnah, who was suffering from debilitating tuberculosis, succumbed first, and two years later, Liaquat Ali Khan, a stalwart in his own right and a loyal confidant of the Quaid, was taken out through a bullet, which was fired from the cannons of conspirators, who till date remain unnamed and unpunished.
Between 1951 and 1958 Pakistan lost almost all leaders associated with the independence movement. The subsequent leadership saw no harm done to national prestige by becoming willing takers of economic handouts - which were put on the table as a quid pro quo. We joined CENTO and SEATO, both these organisations were created to act as a bulwark against the likelihood of the spreading of the Communist thought. We bargained our independence to “think” and acquired the status of being an “aligned country”.
The Korean War in the early fifties gave boost to our economy, largely through grants and aid. The infant/child state of Pakistan began to live on the malnourishment of “Aid”; little did the leadership realise that we were becoming’ ‘parasites’, gnawing at our own roots that ultimately led to the dismemberment of the country in 1971. The Chinese in the meantime thwarted the hegemonic designs of India by beating them black and blue in the Ladakh region. They knew how to protect their sovereignty. We failed the Quaid in less than 25 years.
Contrarily, China was( like India ) extremely fortunate vis-a-vis its leadership. The formidable duo of Chairman Mao Tse Tung (the visionary) and Premier Chou En Lai (the executor or doer) led China for long years; they were Rock of Gibraltar, and stood their ground of making China a power to contend with.
Notwithstanding the ill effects of programmes like ‘Great Leap Forward’ or the more notorious, “Cultural Revolution”, the Chinese political system survived and continued to mature with reforms brought in frequently at various stages of its growth. The Party (Communist Party) in spite of diabolical intrigues played and engineered against it by overseas powers kept a tight grip on the Nation. The people, most of them willingly and some of them being unwilling, rallied around to support the Party.
Leadership in China has always been clear in its objectives; both in relation to political philosophy and the economic system. It is pure’s imagination of leadership to have an outcome that embraced diversity, and to have come up with a saleable slogan of “One Country, Two Systems”. This how they negotiated the takeover of Hong Kong from the British in 1983.
State-owned enterprises blossomed in China during the decades of fifties and sixties. Pakistan on the other hand was struggling with both; political thought and economic system, we oscillated between full laissez- faire and muted Socialism.
On the economic front during the decade of sixties, we witnessed some Capital creation and formation, through private enterprise, which also unfortunately led to concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. The infamously famous coinage of 22 families ruling the roost became evident.
From here we moved to nationalisation of key industries and services. Both the political philosophy and the economic model failed and with the advent of the ‘dark age’ under the dictatorship of Gen. Ziaul Haq, we were back to square one.
Our dependence and reliance on external support only gained more prominence and consequently dominance over policies. The Soviet misadventure in Afghanistan came as a blessing to the dictator. We were required to act at the behest of western global powers. There was ‘loss of independence to think’ about our interests.
China is still ruled by a single party. From the tracing of the history of the two countries what emerges is, essentially, the pronounced characteristics relating to ‘political leadership’ and the major element of “Sacrifice”. Till the year 1976, which year, both, Mao and Chou departed to the yonder, the leadership was united and consistent in policymaking that gave economic and political stability.
In Pakistan, political circus was the order, flirting the Westminster type of political democracy to the US Presidential system, both models were well punctured with long periods of dictatorship. The State was rudderless and the political leadership, either was clueless or conniving, the bureaucracy remained in bed with the establishment.
Leadership in China, because of the trust it has earned is respected by the people; in Pakistan, every single leader was booted out by the establishment on charges, real or perceived, relating to competence and corruption. Hence the people of Pakistan have scant respect for political leaders and, sadly, the courts operated as courtesans to the whims of the dictatorship.
China achieved its current status not without sacrifice! At least two generations offered to live in poverty and distressful economic conditions, yet they remained committed to meeting the demands of hard work and discipline. They faced severe famine, but in quick time were growing grains with a super high yield per acre harvest.
The heavy and light industrial base kept growing due to consistent policies.
Between the Mao/Chou and Deng Xiao Ping years there was just two years of political instability, when the “Gang of Four” seized power through a bloodless “Palace Coup”. The Party and the military acted swiftly under the leadership of Deng Xiao Ping and in 1978, China opened up its doors - the Forbidden City/Country started to modernise with speed.
Again it was the foresight of leadership; it began with the creation of four Special Economic Zones, all crafted with the sole aim of drawing capital investments from Hong Kong and Taiwan, including the greater China areas. Alongside, thirteen coastal cities were opened up; thus began China’s meteoric rise to being an economic powerhouse. In less than a decade, the giant in the fog emerged with subtlety. No theatrics or dramatics were seen from the political leadership.
Every leader that followed Deng remained faithfully inclined to the basic precepts of ‘economic growth first’, and political discourse to follow later. The theory has served the populace well. This is where Mikhail Gorbachev went wrong, leading to dismembering the Soviet Union. The average Chinese has more disposable income than the past two generations, who couldn’t even dare to imagine.
Leaders are expected to give direction. Leaders are respected when they are seen to be ‘walking their talk’. Any disparities between words and actions renders the leadership to be unworthy of the trust of the people. Simplicity has been in constant attendance to the political leadership in China; it still does while our leaders are known for living an ostentatiously loud and crude life. They flaunt their wealth, earned or ill gotten. Consequently, they are mistrusted.
An ordinary Chinese, who has good reasons to be filled with certain pride, due to his/her intellect and skill, will always decimate his/ her positions to act and remain ordinary while we have a tendency to act smart and knowledgeable without anything to substantiate the position or the claim.
I remember reading a news item when I was in the 10th standard. Robert McNamara, as president of the IMF, told media reporters after a rare meeting with Chairman Mao in Beijing that China will crumble under the weight of its own ticking population bomb.
They shall starve, he asserted. In reaction Mao reminded Robert that the Chinese have only one mouth to feed but two hands to work. And indeed, under able leadership the hands, almost 2.8 billion of them, have cohesively worked to produce the economic wonder that China is today.
Only an enlightened leadership can develop and translate vision into reality. Honest, committed, well read and sincere leadership’s availability is the first rung on the ladder of growth and development. All power comes from the canons of the ballot and people’s power. The leadership in China is respected by its people and so does the rest of the world.
‘It is leadership, not the economy, stupid’!
Copyright Business Recorder, 2024