As the world turns bipolar

AT PENPOINT

While Prime Minister Imran Khan said the Chinese system was better than Western democracy, he was perhaps conscious that he was making an expression of choice, but he seemed to once again be haring off after some system that would give him an assurance of power. What he also did not seem to see is that the dichotomy had created was perhaps false, in that the Chinese system is a kind of ‘Western democracy’.

Both Western democracy (capitalism) and the Chinese system (communism) were developments of the 18th century Enlightenment. Communism is best seen as a critique of capitalism as it manifested itself. The philosopher of Comminism, Karl Marx, was an economist, but his contribution to philosophy was dialectical materialism.T hat made the communists materialists. That was behind the cry of ‘godless communism’ that bedevilled Soviet communism throughout its existence. Imran’s position of wanting the Riasat-i-Madina does not gell with this.

Perhaps he is more interested in the fact that the Communist Party rules unchallenged. Before seeing the PTI in that role, he might remember that the Communist Party of China was initially helped by6 the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which at that time was the only party to have established a state, the USSR. It collapsed in1992. Going by that timeline, China should have collapsed or be approaching collapse, instead it is emerging as the main challenger to the USSR.

To a certain extent, this is just the result of the 1911 Revolution in China, which toppled its monarchy and allowed the Chinese people to unleash their energy.

It should be noted that the CPC has played an important role in this, but it should not be forgotten that this was done at the cost of imposing uniformity on Chinese society. It was also done in the context of a one-party state. There was no competition from any other party.

Another point should be noted: the CPC did not have any competition from the military. The CPC was able to build the Peoples’ Liberation Army from its cadres, and enforced the institution of the political commissar, a party official in uniform, who approved every order made by the commander, thus ensuring that any attempt at a coup would have to be made without the political commissar signing off on it. Besides, the commander would be a party member, for it was impossible to progress beyond a certain rank without being a member of the party.

While Pakistan observes the convention where government servants are not members of any political party, in China the reverse is true. Indeed, that ensures that the bureaucracy is totally aligned with the party, not any particular government. Most importantly, the civil service does not develop an individual ethos, as in Pakistan. Of course, the civil service ethos here is because of it roots in the pre-Partition ICS.

Compared to the CPC, the PTI does not really have much ideology/ However, the CPC, because it is composed of so many people, has used precisely this ideological depth to shift course. One reason for the transformation has indeed been visionary leadership, spread over more than one generation, but also because there was mass support for the change from a state-controlled economy to the quasi-ca[ita;ist one of present, called euphemistically ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics.’

So if you remove both ideology and cadres, what remains of this vanguard role? Monopoly over power? This is something that Imran sought even in his playing days: he brooked no interference over team selection, what to speak of tactics on the field. However, building an instrument like the CPC takes decades, and at no time was it a political platform for any individual. However, Imran may find attractive the concentration of power in the hands of the CPC, and the fact that elections are not allowed to interrupt the country’s progress.

Has Imran perhaps got it wildly wrong? Is the cause of Chinese stability, and the permanence of the CPC, the prosperity that it provided the Chinese people? This would imply that Imran’s government would need to deliver in order to survive. That seems to be the case, with the CPC first fulfilling certain prerequisites before the great push forward. Food security was ensured. Imran has only taken notice of the harsh punishments for corruption, but did not notice that this was part of the general movement to establishing security and the writ of the state. Poverty was also alleviated.

These were perhaps more crucial steps in China’s rise. He should also remember that Pakistan may not become a world power even if the Chinese model is followed sedulously. Is he forgetting that one reason China can exert itself is because it has such a huge population, and thus the state is able to generate large surpluses.

It is a little surprising that, for all his talk of Riasat-i-Madina, Imran has not done anything to build support for a revolutionary system based on Islam, involving debt repudiation. However, such a system might not guarantee him office. It is as if he is forgetting that he came to office by election, not while leading a Chinese resolution. And the talk is just that. Talk.

Imran should also look at the ages of Chinese leaders, and when they came to power. He might find that there is not so much promise for him, precisely because the CPC is noone’s handmaiden. He became PM at 65, and can take heart from the examples of Deng Xiaopinmg and Zhao Ziyang, who were older than him, at 74 and 78 respectively. However, Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao, the present leader’s two predecessors, were respectively 63 and 62, while the present incumbent, Xi Jiping, was 59.

Deng was the first to retire, after 11 years in control. The present incumbent is suspected of working to buck the pattern of about a decade in power, and then retirement. He has passed on, but all three of his successors are still around. However, Xi has had the term limit on the Presidency removed.

It should not be forgotten that Imran’ statement will play a role in the US-China jostling now going on. Pakistan is not alone in the world in wishing to stay out. It is perhaps a sign of China’s rise that so many countries feel China is an alternative to the USA, that they wish to remain friends with both.

Pakistan has been counted as in the US camp for long, and has been a sort of free-enterprise economy always. China never attempted to impose its system on Pakistan, much as the USSR did not in India (where socialism was tried under Nehru, who had learned his Fabian socialism in the UK). It has also been accounted a firm friend of China, more because both have an antipathy to China, than because of any systemic affinities.

One current issue is the US need to have bases in Pakistan. Imran has ruled them out, and it would seem that at present, China would also prefer that it got no other foothold in the region. Pakistan cannot afford to be blacklisted by FATF, or forced off the IMF package. Therefore, its establishment will need Chinese money, perhaps through the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

It is a little surprising that, for all his talk of Riasat-i-Madina, Imran has not done anything to build support for a revolutionary system based on Islam, involving debt repudiation. However, such a system might not guarantee him office. It is as if he is forgetting that he came to office by election, not while leading a Chinese resolution. And the talk is just that. Talk.