Stunted imagination - Is there no alternative to Pakistan joining the IMF program?

Aasim Sajjad Akhtar in The Dawn

FOR weeks extending into months, Pakistan’s intellectual and political mainstream has insisted that there is no option but to revive the IMF loan programme. The frank admission made by members of the treasury benches in parliament that this is an ‘IMF budget’ that the country had to take on simply confirms what is purportedly unchallenged common sense: there is no alternative (TINA).

The acronym TINA came into widespread circulation in the late 1990s when virtually one-size-fits-all IMF- and World Bank-dictated economic policies were foisted upon much of Latin America, Africa and Asia. Until the end of the Cold War, the state acted at least to some extent in favour of labour by regulating capital, but generations that have come of age after the mid-1990s have been made to believe that there is now only one workable economic model — neoliberalism.

Make no mistake: TINA was a concerted ideological project that continues to this day, despite the fact that neoliberal economic fantasies peddled by a globalised class of profiteers and states have deepened inequality, led to dispossession of working masses from jobs, housing and life itself, and wreaked havoc on the natural environment.

TINA is based around the fact that we do not export enough to cover our imports, while our revenues are perpetually less than our expenditures, and so we need loans to get by. Insofar as ‘structural reform’ entails increasing our exports, global creditors like the IMF ‘encourage’ local producers to become outsourcing partners of MNCs by treating workers like serfs. When it comes to reducing expenditures, they never flinch when our oligarchic rulers slash pro-poor subsidies, health, education and other social sector spending.

By the TINA metric, the US should take more IMF loans and adopt conditionalities than any other country. In 2021 alone, the US fiscal deficit was almost $3 trillion. But Washington will never go to the IMF and beg for loans and then take on policy conditionalities accordingly because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency and the rest of us fund its deficit. In short, ‘structural reform’ is essentially a rinse-and-repeat political slogan that serves the interests of global investors, firms and the most powerful states.

TINA fiction continues to thrive in Pakistan because our political and economic imagination has been stunted by ‘experts’ who claim to be acting on the basis of ‘objective’ economic facts which, in fact, are largely ideological. None of the explicitly political players in this nauseatingly repetitive story is interested in putting the brakes on unrestrained capital accumulation and the pillage of what remains of the commons.

In our case, all parties who have held the reins of government in recent times, and of course their khaki patrons, prefer to engage in blame games against one another rather than offer substantive visions of an alternative economic order.

The IMF pretends to be politically uninterested and offer what it claims only to be ‘technocratic’ solutions. All donors — including the Chinese whose ‘Beijing Consensus’ is often described as a direct challenge to the ‘Washington Consensus’ — demand ‘structural reforms’ to suit them whilst claiming they have no political interests of their own.

Progressive movements in Latin America offer a clear counterfactual: there are meaningful alternatives to neoliberal orthodoxy that can repeal at least some of the privileges of financial oligarchs and state elites and thus meet the needs of the mass of people, whilst also making some concessions to future generations. Even in North America and Western Europe, where progressive discourses have made a comeback, TINA slogans are increasingly passé and redistribution is back on the agenda.

Yet Western states and multilateral donors continue to outsource neoliberal orthodoxy to Asia and Africa, even as the contradictions of our prevailing political-economic order become acute. We are supposed not to link the growing intensity of earthquakes, forest fires, cyclones and floods to the no-holds-barred accumulation regime that links domestic and global profiteers alike.

We are supposed not to ask too many difficult questions about the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been given back to real estate moguls like Malik Riaz through the collusion of Pakistani and Western officialdom. We are supposed to take for granted that only Russian oligarchs are bad, while all others are to be cheered on in the interests of ‘nation’ and its ‘development’.

News that the IMF programme was being restored was swiftly followed by Chinese and Saudi guarantees. Is this cause for celebration? Our ruling class, khakis at the helm, do not want young people to imagine politics as anything more than dole-outs, profiteering and hateful rhetoric. But the unbridled power of oligarchs, home and abroad, will not remain unchallenged forever.

Modi designed Kejriwal’s template for Delhi win years ago in Gujarat

The amazing thing about AAP is not that it fell back on conventional wisdom, but how quickly and eagerly it embraced the rules that it set out to change writes YOGENDRA YADAV in The Print

Aam Aadmi Party supporters celebrate AAP's win in the capital 

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. This is one of the oft-quoted statements from Karl Marx, which alerts us that the re-occurrence of an event carries very different meanings in history. The Aam Adami Party’s repetition of its grand victory in the 2015 Delhi election is neither a tragedy nor a farce. In many ways, it does more to alter the equations of national politics. But it is no longer the victory that could change the established models of governance or the ways of Indian politics.

Judging by the craft of electoral battlefield, this is undoubtedly a memorable victory, bigger than the previous one. Coming at the end of a full term marred by a hostile central government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, an electoral victory is rare and should call for compliments. Repeating the unmatched scale of victory — nearly 54 per cent votes and about 90 per cent seats — in the wake of a washout in the 2019 Lok Sabha election, a central government determined to deny the AAP another term, one of the most aggressive and vicious campaigns by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and a diffident Election Commission makes it even more historic.

Add to it the special sociology of voting. India Today’s exit poll that provides social break-up of votes confirms that the AAP actually consolidated its vote share among women and poor voters. It seems that the AAP lost a 4-5 per cent votes to the BJP but made up for it from the gains it made from the Congress. In terms of education and class, the correlation is straightforward: the poorer and less educated the voter, the greater the AAP’s lead over the BJP. That suggests an enduring alignment of voters that is here to stay. Arvind Kejriwal must be complimented for holding his nerves during this campaign and guiding his team to this success.

While the AAP’s victory in 2015 was a one-off exception that did not alter the national equations, the 2020 election result brings good news for the entire country. Since 2018, Delhi is now the ninth successive assembly election (Karnataka, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Haryana, Maharashtra, Jharkhand and Delhi) where the BJP failed to win, despite being a serious contender (excluding Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Mizoram where it was not). This may not be an indicator of a decline and eventual fall of Narendra Modi from national centre stage. Nation-wide opinion polls attest to the continuing popularity of Modi. Opinion polls in the run-up to the Delhi election had shown that most AAP voters prefer Modi as the national leader and BJP as the party of their choice for Lok Sabha. Yet, another defeat in state assembly elections would puncture the narrative of BJP’s rising tide. It would also mean stronger federal resistance to the Centre’s attempts to ride roughshod over states. 

Cause for relief

This defeat of the BJP carries a bigger message. The BJP’s election campaign in Delhi was a new low in India’s electoral history. From national leaders to local minions, this was a full-throttled communal polarisation. Short of officially calling for Hindu-Muslim riots, the BJP leadership did everything that it could — branding its opponents as terrorists, anti-national, Pakistanis and whatnot — as the Election Commission made polite noises. Had this model succeeded, this would have become a national template — incite-hatred-win-elections — with ethnic, caste and regional variants. Its defeat may not put an end to the polarisation strategy. The BJP may well read the increase in its vote share as an indicator of the success of polarisation. And the party is bound to try this in West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh. But this result would surely sow seeds of doubt in the minds of those who argue for this. That is a cause for relief.

Yet, it would be misleading to compare this victory of the AAP with its path-breaking electoral debut in 2013 and 2015. At the time of inception, the AAP promised nothing short of a new model of governance, even if the contours of that model were yet to be worked out. Its ideology of swaraj promised a new vision for India, breaking free of ideological rigidities of the past. Above all, it promised a new kind of politics that would challenge the established rules of the game.

This second victory is not a realisation of that promise. Instead, it confirms that this new player has learned the rules of the game better than the older players, and proven that you don’t need a new model of governance or vision to succeed in India’s politics.

Far from inaugurating a new model of governance, the AAP has replicated, more successfully than others, what is by now a box standard template of re-election. The template was designed by Narendra Modi himself in his second and third assembly elections in Gujarat, replicated and refined by chief ministers like Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Raman Singh, Nitish Kumar, and Naveen Patnaik. This template of re-election for an incumbent government comprises three elements: assured delivery of select welfare measures that directly reach the people, high-decibel publicity of these measures and the leaders personality to amplify these policies, and a strong election machine to convert these into votes.

 AAP’s template

Arvind Kejriwal used this template better than those who designed it. Free or cheap electricity did provide real relief to the poor and lower middle classes. Education may not have improved, but school infrastructure did. Mohalla clinics were mostly a start-up, but these did hold out a promise of accessible health services. These tangible gains were amplified through very simple and powerful communication, both official advertisements and party political publicity.

As a result, it became an article of faith that Delhi government was about education plus health. Everyone forgot about corruption, employment, pollution, transport and liquor. Arvind Kejriwal managed his image very deftly where it mattered most, the ordinary voters, without bothering much for the opinion-making classes. He too discovered that the public has a very short memory. All this was converted into votes through a powerful and well-oiled election machine, with some assistance from Prashant Kishor. This is not to take away from the brilliance and perseverance of the AAP leadership in executing and improvising on the template. It is just useful to remember that this is not a new model.

The same is true of the AAP’s political strategy. Far from rewriting the rules, the party has reaffirmed the existing rules. One, you cannot do politics without mobilising political entrepreneurs who are agnostic to political principles. Two, vision and principles are for the chattering classes, you don’t need to bother about these much. Three, a political party is all about winning elections, which is a necessary and sufficient test of political success. Four, a political party cannot work without a ‘high command’ that follows a single leader. The amazing thing about the AAP is not that it fell back on this conventional wisdom, but how quickly and eagerly it embraced the rules that it set out to change.

Many of these learnings paid off in the 2020 Delhi election. It could award ticket to every winnable candidate without any moral or ideological hindrance. The ideological flexibility allowed the AAP to quickly adjust to the Right-ward shift of the political spectrum. From welcoming the dilution of Article 370 and abolition of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to welcoming the Supreme Court verdict on Ayodhya, the party quickly shifted to the middle-Right. It managed, brilliantly, to remain ambiguous on the CAA and Shaheen Bagh through its campaign. Finally, it could limit the contest to the local issues of Delhi and paint itself as the only alternative at that level.

And this is the real irony: the party that was formed to break the tyranny of TINA (there is no alternative) won because there was no alternative to it.

So, the question is not whether these strategies work in elections. The AAP has shown that they do. The question we need to ask now is whether these can help us fight the larger battle to reclaim the republic.