Daily Times

Most definitely all aviators reading this column (wishful thinking here considering that aviators would rather be flying planes than reading columns) can best relate to what exactly is a call sign. For the uninitiated, in simple terms, it is a nickname given to pilots such as Maverick from the movie Top Gun. Today, the call sign is being used as a synonym for an economic thought or a political camp; the original title of jumping ships was rejected purely because of the related optics. Good mannerism should remain foremost, even in a democracy.

While watching any talk show on the idiot box is not a cherished pastime, in order to keep abreast with recent developments, shuffling news channels once a day assumes the shape of a necessary evil. Albeit there are times one wishes to have been afflicted with the cricket bug, especially when everyone else around you is passionately discussing and only concerned with the matches being played in Dubai. To venture a guess, anytime Pakistan is playing a semi-final with the not-so-friendly neighbour in an international tournament would be the best time for the establishment to wreck havoc since nobody would be interested until the match is over. Perchance, if Pakistan should win, there would be no interest thereafter as well. Cricket is definitely more important to Pakistanis than democracy.

Most recently, the abominable activity of flirting with news channels spotlighted a bearded gentleman rather aggressively and loudly criticising the party whose motto is change. On a separate note, for some reason it has become the norm for all participants on talk shows to try to talk louder than everyone else, and continue talking and interrupting with gibberish in a free for all to score points. It is rather amazing that these talk shows survive, which does not say much for the collective ingenuity of the audience unfortunately. On the other hand, loud mouthing and a clueless audience are not characteristics that can solely be attributed to the domestic environment; watching the US presidential debates is an eye opener. The promises made and the accusations thrown around shame even domestic politics, and the fact that the ratings in the oldest democracy favour those who have the money to fund their campaigns and can be deemed anything but budding statesmen prove the argument that elections are a farce and by default so might be democracy.

With a promise to take off child gloves and really bash democracy as the best system soon enough, let us get back to the bearded gentleman. His heartfelt and loud criticism of the change party and the vehement defence of the status quo in itself was not an aberration; after all, everybody supposedly should have a right to their opinion albeit some of us do feel that most opinions are best not broadcasted. What, however, came as a surprise was that the very gentleman, one could distinctly and clearly recall, was an active supporter of change just a few months, if not weeks, ago. Remarkably, he was as loudly badmouthing the change agents now as he used to defend them back then and, even more remarkably, his arguments made no sense then and now. One has always felt that loyalty was one of the three necessary attributes of professionalism but one also concedes what Mr Keynes had to say about changing opinions, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” The key word, however, is again change and quite evidently nothing has changed in the recent past except that we continue to enjoy the great benefits of a thriving democracy.

In isolation that particular about turn might not have ignited any neurons; after all, fickle uninformed experts are the accepted norm and never took any of them seriously. As previously pointed out, in the absence of any qualification to discuss diverse issues ranging from the economy to nuclear assets, any opinions offered are not worth the salt. However, this month’s report from a financial think tank did get grey matter churning. That particular organisation has been emailing their monthly fact sheets, unsolicited, on a regular basis for which one remains obliged to them. Till last month they had been rather critical of the economy and the reforms’ package even going to the extent of labelling statements made by the international organisation dictating the reforms as incorrect. Being apolitical in nature, perhaps a characteristic bred by the inherent aversion to universal suffrage, and believing that universal suffer-age is a better sobriquet for the said system, the fact that the reports were critical to the status quo was not the reason behind their diligent perusal. The reports included concise and precise analysis, supported by facts, which generated interest and strengthened the belief that positive criticism is the best catalyst for debate and accountability, with the latter having been always showcased as a pillar of democracy.

This month, the report suddenly changed colours, or call sign. From previously asserting that the cotton crop has failed, which will reduce the GDP growth rate, the number of poor is increasing annually by over three million, it is unlikely that the load shedding situation has improved to the extent claimed and warning that the programme could end prematurely the authors take a position that there are clear signals that the economy has stabilised due to favourable external developments and internal policy actions. They also now believe that the current IMF programme must continue to maturity in September 2016 and that premature disruption may be detrimental to the economy. Leaving aside the right or wrong part, the first impression was: what changed in a month? Well, apparently, not the owners of the think tank, and one month is too short a time for any economy to go from bad to good, ignoring the discovery of huge commercial national resources perhaps. The only answer can be that this is the beauty of democracy.

As far as right or wrong is concerned, for a layman the economy is to complicated an animal to even begin to understand. Mere mortals cannot begin to digest the assertions of the pundits, especially when the latter apparently cannot decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong, and keep changing call signs. Personally, one has not concluded yet whether the IMF does have the best interest of Pakistan at heart since the general perception about them is that they favour international creditors over developing nations, and whether the Chinese are actually working in our interest or theirs and if the interests can in fact be common. So the bigger problem is if the experts keep sending missed signals and keep changing call signs, what exactly is right or wrong? Worse, imagine if the literate members of society cannot ascertain right from wrong, how does the illiterate majority fare with the screaming matches on the idiot box and everybody changing position, and call signs repeatedly? Perhaps this is the gift of democracy!

The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. He can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com and on twitter @leaccountant