Daily Times

According to Wikipedia, political doctrine is “[a] policy, position or principle advocated, taught or put into effect concerning the acquisition and exercise of the power to govern or administrate in society. And clearly to enforce a global doctrine, its expounder must necessarily enjoy the authority and wherewithal to dictate abject acquiescence from its vassals.

Accordingly, across history, enforcement of political and economic doctrines have been the sole prerogative of imperial powers, now referred to as super powers in general parlance. The necessity behind pushing a particular doctrine, however, is best showcased by the Cold War era during which competing super powers, threatened by the proliferation of opposing ideologies, forced their own doctrine within their areas of influence, their empires. And why do super powers feel threatened? In a flat world, alliances matter and eventually a declining area of influence, political and economic, will marginalise the respective super power status. Without delving into the veracity of this conception, let us focus on its effect.

The conflicting doctrines of the Cold War are perhaps best summed up by the Kennedy Doctrine, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Also the Brezhnev Doctrine, “When forces that are hostile to socialism try to turn the development of some socialist country towards capitalism, it becomes not only a problem of the country concerned, but a common problem and concern of all socialist countries.”

Ironically, both super powers argued that replacing the opposing governance system, elected or selected dictatorship versus democracy, with the other was fundamentally justifiable since it lead to freedom for the populace and was strategically astute since their respective ideology bred peace and stability. To the victors belong the spoils and pretty soon the world was split between the two doctrines or variants thereof, depending upon who conquered which country financially or physically. And while there were nations that claimed to be non-aligned, as asserted frequently by those in power: “Either you are with us or against us.”

Pakistan, for economic and security considerations, ended up in the democracy and capitalism camp during this phase of history. Accordingly, freedom became a buzzword and for the next few decades the nation struggled with implementing universal suffrage and electing a democratic government, coupled with enforcing capitalism. And while the nation was still struggling to get it right, suddenly the world capitulated into a sole super power status. Fortunately, or unfortunately, it was the side Pakistan’s leadership had gambled upon.

Left with no other options, Pakistan’s ruling elite, tormented by threatening developments in and across the region, and near economic bankruptcy, finally relented and adopted the Pax Americana; eight years of uninterrupted democracy, unbridled access to domestic marketplace, free flow of capital and vehement enforcement of the copyrights regime — ultimate acquiescence to the winning doctrine. Unfortunately, in an ever-changing, uncontrollable world, coupled with a fickle super power, an everlasting alliance was a pipe dream. Even after doing everything, the call remains “to do more” while payback remains meagre or rather negative in the form of more debt. Fortunately, the liberal west started counting their chickens before the fat lady finished singing; the world has started getting cold again and there is once again a second option.

Dear readers, it would not be possible in a column’s limited space to pre-empt the expected critique and contradicting arguments in detail. But a couple of obvious misconceptions need to be touched upon. Obviously, capitalists have to insist that China has adopted capitalism since otherwise they have to admit that there exists a system that works better than theirs. And the next-door neighbour is as good a democracy as any other. Kicking around democracy, after all, is still a can of worms in these current, misguided euphoric times. Albeit, whether or not democracy is a wolf in sheep’s clothing has no bearing on the discussion today.

“It seems, however, that instead of learning from other people’s mistakes, some prefer to repeat them and continue to export revolutions, only now these are ‘democratic’ revolutions. Just look at the situation in the Middle East and Northern Africa already mentioned by the previous speaker. Of course, political and social problems have been piling up for a long time in this region and people there wanted change. But what was the actual outcome? Instead of bringing about reforms, aggressive intervention rashly destroyed government institutions and the local way of life,” said Vladimir Putin, the president of Russia, speaking during the 70th session of the UN General Assembly in New York, September 2015.

The battle lines are drawn again; Mr Putin insists that democratic revolutions failed and most likely the part about “instead of learning from other people’s mistakes” is pure rhetoric. The truism that nations aspiring to be global super power status, whether solely or jointly, need to export their political and economic ideology within their allies and across their area of influence exists in perpetuity and continues to be pertinent.

Once again, Pakistan, for economic and security considerations, has ended up being aligned but this time with the camp that disagrees with democracy and freedom of speech from the core, and has no qualms about sending tanks to destroy those deemed to be imbecilic notions. And maybe there can be a debate on China and Russia pursuing capitalism but there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that both are not democracies.

A few facts: while China flexes its muscle in the South China Sea, Russia engages western powers in Central Asia and the Middle East. China is challenging the dominance of the dollar and has already established a parallel World Bank with a parallel IMF probably in the offing, depending upon the outcome of certain events. China is loosening its purse strings to finance its South and Central Asia Strategy, whatever that might be. Pakistan is the beneficiary of this policy in the form of a $ 46 billion-dollar commitment for the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and is building a working relationship with Russia.

In conclusion, it appears logical that the Rus-Chi Doctrine will be the new sheriff in town; after all, they are the ones who will be balancing Pakistan’s budget in the near future so let us keep them happy.

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