Will populism ruin us?

Pakistan suffers from rampant populism pushed by TV channels, Urdu columnists, the army, and opposition leaders, joined in a collective assault. Given the fact that Pakistan is a weak state with declining governance, this passion for the ‘common man’ and the ‘poor masses’ may actually spell its doom.

Populism most often rejects the laws of economics. Our judiciary resorted to it, flying in the face of supply and demand, and worsened the sugar crisis. It had earlier undone the privatisation of the Steel Mill, costing billions to the treasury later on. The army, with its ear cocked to the “majority” opinion shaped by TV channels, wrongly rejected the Kerry-Lugar Bill. More economics was defied by the Punjab government when it opted for “sasti roti”. In politics and foreign policy, populism has been even more lethal.

First let us define populism. The Encyclopaedia of Democracy says it is: “A movement that emphasises the interests, cultural traits, and spontaneous feelings of the common people, as opposed to those of a privileged elite”. In Pakistan, the other name for populism is “ghairat”. This is aroused mostly vis-à-vis America and India. The UK might also be its target, if it speaks in favour of India.

British Prime Minister David Cameron went to India and said a double-faced Pakistan could not be allowed to help terrorists both westward and eastward. TV channel Dunya’s “get Zardari” anchor
Dr Moeed Pirzada was unprofessionally judgemental about the visit of the president to the UK immediately after Pakistani “ghairat” had been violated by Mr Cameron. (Columnist Haroon Rashid described his style as “bahut roay”.) On the same channel, however, Najam Sethi was less populist, refusing to join the frog chorus.

The subject of populism as a “disease” of democracy has been discussed in “Populism, Pluralism, and Liberal Democracy” by Marc F Plattner, (Journal of Democracy, Volume 21, Number I, January 2010). Under “ghairat” an isolated Pakistan is required to fight the world on a fast diminishing resource-base. If Ahmadinejad in Iran, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia and Rafael Correa in Ecuador, are doing the “ghairat” bit, they have either a good resource-base or smaller populations to nurture. Pakistan has to be more realistic.

TV channels in Pakistan are the purveyors of populism today. They are supposed to take the popular pulse and report it. Given the crises enveloping Pakistan, this means reporting calamity while encouraging the common man to curse the government. In 2005, after reporting adversely on the earthquake, our TV channels were embarrassed to see the world outside actually praising the Musharraf government for its rescue and rehabilitation efforts.

The floods of 2010 have been well covered, but the populist trend has distorted the final picture with negative reporting. The contrast with foreign channels such as the BBC is glaring. The neurologist calls it “judgement extremism”. Discussions have focused on a president “who ran away while his people were drowning”. A lateral gloss could be Zardari will offer relief — and thus win gratitude — to a domestically besieged, callow British PM hurting from his first gaffe in India.

Former-Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar keeps saying America needs us more than we need America — may God never put that to test — and therefore we should put on more populist “ghairat” while dealing with Washington. But columnist Thomas L Friedman was more concessional towards his country when he said that America was paying Pakistan for being double-faced; if it became single-faced it would be totally hostile. By allowing Pakistan to be double-faced, it was giving itself the right to be equally double-faced. And thus a “realistic” double game is being played.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 8^th, 2010.