Inside China Today: Q&A with Dr. Robert Oxnam

tahmed32#34
I too am a supporter of pragmatism and do not like communism one bit. This is why I support what China has done. My point is that China followed the right course in loosening economic stranglehold while regulating the political discourse, while the Gorbachev approach of letting go of the political controls while keeping economic control in place has proved to be less attractive. Most of the Chinese I know are quite happy to accept some constraints on their freedom of speech and dissent as long as they are free to make money. But the Chinese too will have to ultimately move towards one form of democracy or another; indeed, China is a much more relaxed society now than it was 20 or 10 years ago and it will, in all likelihood, be freer in ten years than it is now.

dost-mittar #33 The fact that living conditions deteriorated after the fall of the Soviets can, I think, be compared to the withdrawal symptoms that a drug addict goes through when trying to kick the habit. Drug withdrawal symptoms can be quite severe, leading to death at times: but drug addicts are willing to take that chance. So, after 70 years of the drug habit where people lived in a hallucigenic world of the Worker`s Paradise, some withdrawal symptoms are to be expected. And some ex-communists did not even suffer much withdrawal symptoms (poland, czech rep., slovakia and the baltic states for example). The significant thing is that while some Russians (the egotists. obviously) miss the days when they had the glories of being a superpower, there is no serious movement to bring back the controlled economies of the communist era.

The watchword in economics, I think, is pragmatism (within the limits of certain universally accepted values like respect for life, belief in human progress) rather than ideology.
Pragmatism is rooted in the truth that we humans dont understand the complex forces that shape economic activity over time, and then dealing with things on a case by case basis over time within the constraints of certain basic values.
Ideology, any ideology, is rooted in the falsehood that some Big Brother who came up with the ideology Knows It All. And that is why I think the US has survived the Great Depression and later won the Cold War - not through force of arms, but through (as I said earlier on chowk) force of ideas, the ideas of pragmatism and human values.
Which brings us to india and pakistan: Bhutto nationalized banks, thus ruining a dynamic sector of the economy. His motivations were partly ideological (in those days, socialism was fashionable), and partly pragmatic BUT without the constraint of universal values (i.e. control of the nations purse-strings by the political leader Bhutto, rather than by individual businessmen driven by the dynamics of market competition). And so he ruined this sector (and for this alone, he deserved to be hanged). I think Indira was driven by similar motivations in nationalizing banks in India, but you would know better.

stuka #31 You say stiffling dissent frees the government to make ``decisions that are populist but harmful to economic engine``. This is true in the case of special interests influencing government policy. Washington thus has sackfuls of lobbyists for various economic interests (big business, big labor, environmentalists, and the most powerful being the association of retired persons). In a society where dissent is suppressed, the ruling clique, and the ``chain of bureaucrats`` down the line has performed this function.
The former, admittedly imperfect system, has nevertheless worked better in practice than the latter. In no small part because dissent is permitted, and the debate on important issues is in the open in newspaper columns and so forth.
Agreed that the Red Chinese and even the Soviets did some things right in the economic field: emphasis on education being the major one. Even here, the suppression of free thinking ultimately kept these societies backward. The most laughable case was the soviet genetecist Lysenko who flourshed under Stalin because his crackpot theories (that you could change plant species by chanign the environment) were considered more useful to State policy, and who single-handedly put russian biology in deep-freeze. The nazi scientist opposition to einstien`s theories (which einstein famously put down by saying if these people knew what they were talking about, only one of them would be enough to prove it) is another example.
My basic point is:
Aside from having delivered mass education, ``command and control`` economies have in practice proved to be failures. The control you need is in the legal framework (property rights in particular), and in its execution. This is what distinguishes the prosperous countries from the failed economies. And this in practice has been the case in developed economies - failed economies had their ``command and control`` in the form of direct interventions.
Anyway, my two cents here. This is of course a complex subject, and I am not saying that there are not elements of truth in what you write. But I think the bottom line is, that you can have what it takes to prosper without killing dissent. Even the East Asian Model and the talk of Asian Values that came out of Korea, Singapore has been toned down after the East Asian Crisis, and now they are focussing on strengtheing the legal framework (Korea having been the most advanced to date on this in terms of tightening controls ont he banking system) rather than on trying to prove why Big Brother knows whats good for you.

tahmed32#28
Sorry I didn`t get back to you earlier.
Stuka has answered some of your criticism. Here are some more points.
The citizens of the former soviet union were happy when they got their freedom from communism but were soon disillusioned. In Russia, there was a common feelings that living conditions were better for the common man under the communist rule. This situation continued during the free-for-all phase of Gorbachev/Yelzin. Putin has adopted a more pragmatic course and Russia now seems to be set on the road to development.
As regards China, it is true that some provinces and coastal areas are doing much better than the interior regions. As Deng had said, in new China, some people will become richer sooner than others. But I wouldn`t be surprised if there are more disparities in Pakistan, if not in India, than in the China of today. The point to note is that the poor in China are, in general, better fed and clothed than the poor of India.
As for the Chinese repression of its muslim province and Tibet, I think it would have been better for India and Kashmiris if India had made up its mind whether to be tough or democratic, being neither here nor there simply lands you into ``Na khuda hee mila na vasaal-e-sanam`` situation.

Tahmed:

``I find it hard to imagine why stiffling dissent is relevant to economic growth. ``

It frees the government from making decisions that are populist but harmful to economic engine in general.

``Indeed, a focus on economic growth alone is no guarantee that it will take place:``

Well, yes it will. The communist system was focused on removing class inequality more so than economic growth. China shed it`s ideological baggage and focused on pragmatic economic policies that were growth oriented. TheIndians are trying to do the same but dissent and democracy makes the system much more ponderous.

In Pakistan, Bhutto was pretty much the only leader who talked of economic issues. He however adopted socialism as the course of action. Assuming Bhutto had lived and pragmitically realized that the loosening of state control is good for growth, the Pakistani economy could well have transitioned into something else.

Now, you mention the issue of confrontation with India. Mind you, when I said Kashmir, I was not talking about the actual costs of the Kashmir policy. The Pakistani economy can easily sustain that. What I meant was that Kashmir gave a disproportionately large say to the army thereby creating it`s own institutional and corporate interests. That is harmful for economic growth. However, even now, if the Army said decided to concentrate on economic reform alone, the situation could well change in the future, provided it keeps a lid on the political discourse.

I just wanted to respond to Shammi at # 9. I hope he / she is able to read this. The delay in responding is regretted. I also request that if any one sees this message, please remind Shammi to go through it just to see that I responded.

Batcha Khan was truly a great person from Pakistan side of the divide. But the generation that I belong to gained awareness at the time of Afghan Jihad. So naturally I did not have that kind of loyalty towards Khudai Khidmatgaars (surkhposh) as my parent had. The process of their fading away started at that time. But more I read and hear about him more I think that my parents and us (me and my siblings) belonging to two different worlds altogether. As I have been exchanging views with romair and zakk somewhere else, I think that in todays violent world, he would have found it very difficult to carve a niche for himself.

The biggest tribute to him and his followers would be like some one said, each and every thing they predicted at the time of Afghan war came out to be true. However, the world was not kind to him. He never won any accolades like the Mahatama or Nelson Mandela did. But his followers, dwindling in numbers, remain a voice of peace and sanity in the turbulent world of Pakhtoons.

Btw, it was great to know you through your brief message. I will not be actively participating on this website for some time due to an off the map travel assignment, but will peep in from time to time and leave my email address also on my intro page.

Once again, if your grandfather and Batcha Khan were to see the new generation of Pakhtoons, they will be shocked at the marginalization of peace and sanity in our Pakhtoon world.

May the Lord bless you in many ways.

stuka #21 I dont see how exchanging cheap insults and crowing about oneself (or the community one identifies with) can be called entertainment. I think a couple of monkeys pissing at one another in a zoo are probably providing a higher form of entertainment than these gentlemen.

stuka #23 I find it hard to imagine why stiffling dissent is relevant to economic growth. Indeed, a focus on economic growth alone is no guarantee that it will take place: the entire communist system was focussed on economic growth (everything else being seen as either the opium of the masses, or condemned as bourgeoise), and yet it failed. Agreed though that confrontation with India is costing Pakistan heavily in terms of direct and indirect effects in economics, politics, and even social development.

dost mittar #24 Personally, while I too have a love for panjabi culture I dont think it is very important. I think the really important thing is values. While it is nice to see kids growing up in US retaining a love for aspects of panjabi culture (dress, folk dances), what is really important is that they retain some basic values.
As for the breakup of the Soviet Union, I dont think there was anything sacred in that. The individual citizens in countries resulting from the break up of the Soviet Union are I think definitely better off than the people in China. In China, prosperity is limited to certain areas in the west only (e.g. the Guangdong province, and of course Hong Kong). Things get worse as you go further east - and there are actually people living in caves in certain parts (I saw pictures of them in a slide-show that a colleague presented after visiting those parts). And Sinkiang the muslim population is seething underneath the surface calm. And the same is true in Tibet, of course.
So, Tiananmen may have kept China intact - but all it gave the average Joe (or the average Chou) was continued state repression. And I think, the ultimate success of a society is in what there is in it for the individual. Not in whether it managed to expand or retain its political borders. But, that just me rambling on ;-)

ali87 #25 Agreed. This has been Pakistan`s mosfortune. I know of one expat pakistani who was invited by Bhutto to be his economic adviser - after one year, the man came back after having fallen out with Bhutto who refused to implement the land reforms this man thought were essential to move the rural economy forward in Pakistan. East Panjab has thrived after the land ceiling was set at 6 hectares, while West Panjab has fallen behind (although to some extent it has made up for this by small and medium scale industries started at private initiatives and no thanks to the government).

#20 by tahmed32 on April 7, 2003 8:49am PT

While comparing Pakistan and India we should not forget one of the main differences. Dismantling of fedual influences and land distribution. Even in japan land reform led to the beginning of a middle class.

While India was Ideologicaly predispsoed towards this and did achive some success Pakistans Ideology found no place for land reform. I feel even now this is the single most important reason for pakistan`s present state.

Wasey, China is more pwerful than India, and India considers itself the aggrieved party. Yet we have put the areas like the border dispute on the backburner and work on areas of complementary interest.

Why cannot India and Pakistan do the same?

TAhmed:

``single-minded and focussed leadership willing to subjugate dissent and to ignore the western noises about their less-than-perfect human rights record``. (If this was true, Pakistan would be WAY AHEAD of Singapore today.) ``

You ignore the most important part of Dost Mittars statement. If the leadership of Pakistan had been single minded and focused on economic development then yes, Pakistan too would have been way ahead of where it is. I will not compare it to Singapore, since each country has unique pecularities.

Pakistan`s leadership has been single minded only in terms of Kashmir and maintaining power. Chinese leadership too has maintained power with a single minded focus but beyond that their energies have been devoted to economic upliftment. There is a vast difference in the Pakistani and Chinese worldviews, though the two countries have good relationships.

tahmed32#20:
I too have a very good experience with my Chinese friends. A major difference I have found between Indians and Chinese is that they seem to have a lot of inner pride. Unless many of us who are always flaunting the superiority of our morals and religions, they are quietly confident about themselves but extremely careful not to cause offense to their host societies. While our children (and here I am talking mostly of Panjabi Indians) rarely know our language, I have seen even third generation Chinese fluent in their language; they also tend to have two names, one like Frank, Dave or any such common name by which they are known to their colleagues and neighbours and another, a Chinese one, which they use at home.
But I hold on to my views about the role of the Chinese leadership and system in achieving their miracle growth. If they had not taken the tough measures during the Tinanmen Square crisis of 1989, China would have in all probability gone the way of the Soviet Union. Conversely, if Gorbachev, like the Chinese, had retained a tight political control over the Soviet Union while loosening controls over private enerprise, the Soviet Union would be a far more formidable force today.
And do not discount the gains made by China during the Mao dictatorship. As you are probably aware, the orthodox soviet communist leadership was against a peasant led revolt in China but Mao succeeded. He has, in fact, turned the Marxist theory of the historical evolution on its head and showed that a dictatorship of the proletariat can indeed be very useful in a socially (not culturally!) primitive society to breakdown the social barriers to mobility and growth.

Tahmed:

``We will always have idiots to fight their paper india-pakistan wars on chowk``

well, yeah but this is entertainment. I am surprised that Ahmadzai actually takes posts from Indians on chowk that seriously. He should depend on Indians he interacts with in day to day life as an example. Any wanker can write anything on an internet forum..an one can see from posts :)

dost-mittar #19 Good to hear from you. OK, agreed that generalizations (even positive ones, as in this case) about a community are bound to prove so full of exceptions as to be meaningless. And true that Chinese were once considered opium smokers - however, that was during the 19th century and early 20th century only. Remember also, that opium was foisted on the Chinese (hence the Opium Wars) as a means to pay for tea imports from China by the Brits. But for thousands of years before that, and ever since the early 20th century, China has been a leader in world civilization. Admittedly again with brief dips, like Mao`s cultural revolution.
I have had some personal experience working with Chinese emigres (Chinese-Indonesians, Chinese-Malays, Chinese-Philipinos, and of course Chinese-Americans), and they have always struck me as a down-to-earth, hardworking, and friendly people.
While leadership does indeed play a decisive role, I think that you go offtrack when you think that this leadership means ``single-minded and focussed leadership willing to subjugate dissent and to ignore the western noises about their less-than-perfect human rights record``. (If this was true, Pakistan would be WAY AHEAD of Singapore today.)
The leadership a country needs to move forward, I think is one that has a sound and practical vision of the kind of SYSTEM that best fits ones needs: thus, in China, Deng-Tsao Ping quietly rolled back the communist system (which had proven its ineffectiveness) and adopted some basic features of the capitalist model of the US. The large and rich Chinese expatriate community then was attracted to invest its energies and funds in China. In Pakistan and India, I think the key is to free up these economies from the bureaucrats - in India, e.g., they say the IT industry took off because the Indian bureaucrat had not figured out a way to screw it up with rules and regulations (trade that goes over the internet is not as easily controlled as shipping ports and airport warehouses, for example. And thus there are no kickbacks to be given). In Pakistan, I think the population is no less industrious than the Chinese or Indians - the problem has been nationalizations (starting with the Bhutto era and ending with Nawaz Sharifs first prime ministership), and of now now the political insecurities due to ethnic and religious extremists in karachi, and religious extremists in the rest of the country.