Daily Times

It would be hard to find a politically aware person who does not insist that the people of this country want change. Many of them place their trust in Imran Khan because they think he stands for change. A few of them wonder what kind of change he will bring about. Others remain unperturbed because, having placed their trust in his good intentions, they anticipate that his agenda will take form as he goes along. Regardless of what he will say or do, discerning people must grapple with the nature and quantum of change society needs.

The common man wants improved access to the necessities of life. He wants safe drinking water, reasonably nutritious food in adequate amounts once if not three times a day, a roof over his head, a modicum of healthcare and education, and a way of making money to pay for all of these amenities. At present, these are not within his reach and life is hard. This is the case largely because of incompetence and corruption on the part of those who have been charged with managing society. These impediments cannot be abolished but their incidence can be reduced. Given honesty and dedication to duty, the existing arrangements could produce results that are more satisfactory. But that is a lot easier to demand than to deliver.

Unless he is unalterably lazy and unmotivated, an incompetent person can be sent back to an appropriate school to relearn the tools of his trade. Corruption is altogether a different matter. It grows out of greed accompanied by lack of commitment to the public interest. It is thievery. When an income tax officer reduces a taxpayer’s liability in return for a bribe he has accepted, he has taken and given away money that belongs to the public exchequer. We do not need new legislation that forbids graft, for it has been on the books for more than a hundred years. It is not enforced except selectively against officials who have displeased their superiors for one reason or another.

Remedies to the problems named above are in the nature of improvements to be made within the existing system of governance. We also hear voices to the effect that the system itself needs to be changed. Some observers contend that we need a presidential system in which a single individual is both the head of state and its chief executive. He appoints his ministers, who serve during his tenure. They cannot be members of the legislature at the same time. This system partakes of separation of powers and checks and balances. The legislature makes laws, and the president and the various offices under his direction have the responsibility for implementing them. This is a concise description of the US presidential system that has been in place for almost 220 years. Versions of it exist in Latin America, but not in Europe or Asia. Ayub Khan instituted an authoritarian regime, which he called presidential, but it was not well received here. The same may be said of the subsequent periods of military rule. Folks in Pakistan are conversant with the norms, modalities, and mechanics of a parliamentary system and they will settle for none other. If it is not working well at the present time, that is not because there is something intrinsically wrong with it but because an accident of history has placed a leadership in power that is both corrupt and incompetent. The next election may show that the voters have learned better.

Advocacies of change extend beyond the formal arrangements of governance. There is for instance the matter of meeting the system’s operational costs. Proceeds of taxes are normally expected to provide funds for this purpose. Surprisingly, that is not entirely the case. A large majority of governments in the world have borrowed money from domestic and international lending institutions. The public debt in Pakistan, internal and external put together, runs into trillions. Service charges on this debt amount to nearly one-half of the government’s revenues annually. This tax regime profits certain segments of society. Income tax is deducted at source from the salaries of individuals who work for public authorities and modernised business houses. Persons who make money in the stock market, a variety of farmers, vendors of all sorts and traditional shopkeepers, who do not issue receipt for the sales they have made, do not pay income taxes. Most of the government’s revenue comes from the proceeds of indirect taxes, mainly a sales tax, which is regressive in as much as it hits the wealthy and the poor equally, especially when it relates to the necessities of life. Farmers in many cases receive subsidies from the government instead of paying taxes. They should be treated like the rest of the population. Those who earn less than a designated amount of money should be exempted from paying income tax as others in the same category are. However, there is no justification for exempting those who make more. It should be emphasised that when speaking of farmers, we do not have the little peasant in mind who owns, let us say, less than five acres of land. We are talking mainly of persons or families that own scores, even hundreds of acres of agricultural land managed by their appointees while they live in high style in their majestic mansions in the big cities.

The number of situations that a bit of change will improve can be infinite. But one might also recall the old New England saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Change, when it is too frequent and indiscriminate, will produce chaos. We need change but we also need stability that makes for predictability without which we cannot plan and organise our lives. Human capacity to create a ‘brave new world’ should not be exaggerated. Current patterns of human interaction were not invented in one single outburst of action. They are the product of the learning experience of uncounted generations of our ancestors. Change, yes, but deliberate and not whimsical or impetuous.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is currently a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics. He can be reached at dranwar@lahoreschool.edu.pk