AT the height of the Cold War, both sides indulged in a regular exchange of rhetoric, characterising each other in less than flattering terms. The capitalist West termed the Soviet Union an ‘evil empire’ leading a godless Eastern bloc, while the communists berated the ‘decadent, imperialist’ West. The verbal exchanges were of course apart from the much more dangerous nuclear posturing and proxy wars across the planet. Now, it seems the ghosts of the Cold War have been revived as Russia and its Western nemeses indulge in a fresh bout of verbal jousting. Delivering a major policy speech in Moscow recently, Russian President Vladimir Putin issued a stern warning to the West, telling it not to cross a “red line”, adding that Russia’s response would be “asymmetrical, rapid and harsh”. Last month, US President Joe Biden had, in rather tough fashion, called Mr Putin, a “killer”, to which the Russian leader acerbically replied: “it takes one to know one.”
There are numerous global hotspots where Russia and the Western bloc’s policies are diametrically opposed. These include Ukraine, Belarus and Syria, to name a few. In the post-Soviet period Russia has been alarmed by Nato’s expansion in the former Eastern bloc countries, which it considers part of its ‘near abroad’. On the other hand, the US-led West has been critical of a resurgent Russia throwing its military weight around in places such as Crimea and Syria. Up till recently the situation in Ukraine remained tense, as Moscow had amassed a large number of troops near the former Soviet republic. Both camps need to realise that Cold War-era posturing and a combative relationship do not bode well for global peace. The US must come to terms with the fact that Russia is a sovereign power and must be handled with respect. Moscow, on the other hand, should also communicate to its European neighbours as well as Washington that all outstanding issues should be resolved through diplomacy instead of sabre-rattling.
Never-ending poverty
PRIME MINISTER Imran Khan has long been stressing the need to ramp up efforts to reduce poverty in the country. On Thursday, he once again reminded his administration that the performance of his government will be evaluated by voters in the next elections on the basis of its success in tackling poverty, and claimed that KP had re-elected the PTI because it had managed to lift a large number of people out of poverty in its first term in that province. Unfortunately, for all his emphasis on giving relief to the people, Pakistan has been losing the fight against poverty. The number of poor living below the national poverty line has actually grown rapidly under the PTI owing to the ongoing economic slowdown made worse by the Covid-19 pandemic. The IMF has recently predicted that the percentage of population living in poverty will grow to 40pc from (as per official claims) 24.3pc in 2015. Other global lenders too have made similar projections. Thus, we may soon see nearly 85m Pakistanis living in poverty, up by 30m from around 55m only five years ago. It’s a big jump by any standard, especially when we have a party in power that claims to have lifted a large number of poor people out of poverty in KP.
Pakistan has a long history of formulating and implementing poverty reduction programmes. But the rising poverty levels reflect poorly on the strategies adopted to fight a deep-rooted problem. Besides poor policy formulation, the lack of resources, bureaucratic lethargy and inefficient execution of so-called pro-poor interventions are also to blame for the failure of efforts to bring down poverty levels. Moreover, successive governments have mostly concentrated on immediate results to get political mileage rather than addressing the multidimensional vulnerabilities that perpetuate poverty. For example, the disbursement of cash among the poor under the Ehsaas programme is important for reducing hardship and supporting income. It is, however, foolish to expect that it will alleviate poverty. Little wonder then that we see socioeconomic vulnerabilities increase over time as the poor continue to be denied access to education, health, capital, drinking water, sanitation, etc. Indeed, the country has witnessed the number of poor decrease in periods of higher economic growth. However, increasing socioeconomic vulnerabilities and inequalities mean that an unexpected shock like a sudden dip in growth or a pandemic such as Covid-19 would push the vulnerable groups back into abject poverty.
For a sustainable reduction in poverty the government must formulate a long-term, comprehensive programme to attack different dimensions of poverty through increased pro-poor expenditure rather than focusing on income-support interventions only. Many a time, the prime minister has pledged to ‘learn’ from the successful Chinese experience of dealing with poverty and replicate it in Pakistan to get the same results. Now is the time for him to walk the talk.
Shehbaz’s return
AFTER nearly seven months in jail, PML-N president and leader of the opposition Shehbaz Sharif has been released on bail. As he is welcomed home, the days ahead will bring an enormous challenge both for his party and the larger opposition. With his return, two critical points need to be addressed.
The first is the power dynamic within the Sharif family. Shehbaz Sharif was arrested in September 2020, just days after the opposition united against the government to create the PDM and his older brother Nawaz Sharif made a scathing speech against the top brass of the security establishment. In the PML-N president’s absence, Maryam Nawaz was the face of the party, filling in for the senior Sharif brother with both her public appearances and her narrative.
It is understood that the senior Sharif will now take over from Ms Nawaz, and lead the party in its anti-government movement. Given Ms Nawaz’s mass public appeal and authoritative rhetoric, are the party and its support base prepared for a switch in tone? It is no secret that Shehbaz Sharif does not subscribe to the PML-N’s stinging narrative about the role of the security establishment in politics. In the past, his preference has been to choose the path of least resistance — a position that contrasts sharply with the mood of the party today. Will the opposition leader be able to reconcile with the direction the party has taken since he was jailed? Undoubtedly, it is a tough situation, and though the narrative of the party may prevail, it remains to be seen how much he will assert himself at this pivotal moment.
As Shehbaz Sharif confronts these changes, the larger challenge of a fractured alliance and warring opposition also looms. A lot has transpired in the period that he was away. The PDM went from being a formidable force to a shadow of its former self. The very public spat between the PML-N and PPP and the latter’s departure from the alliance, too, has diluted the impact of the anti-government drive.
Mr Sharif’s release also coincides with a deepening crisis in the country, as inflation and the coronavirus batter the economy and life itself. The challenge for Mr Sharif is considerable: not only does he have the task of configuring family dynamics ahead of him, he must also reconcile party viewpoints internally — all the while holding the government accountable in his role as opposition leader.
