BY now, it seems to be fairly well recognised that the country’s economy is tanking[failing]. Pretty much the entire citizenry has taken a deep hit. The blows that have fallen and will likely continue to fall (one must confess that one is no expert on the matter, but going by the views of people who know far better, it’s going to get worse before it gets better) are, of course, across industry or professional lines.
Chartered accountants to bankers to engineers, most people seem to be talking about inflation, a decline — sometimes steep — in pay-scale standards, a collapsing job market. If this is the situation for so many that are amongst the most well educated in society, which translates to immense privilege, the reality of tens of millions is entirely more grim[depressing and worrying].
The media industry is a somewhat different place, and presents an interesting angle — from the point of view of scholarship. In recent months, the industry in Pakistan has seen a series of layoffs, a general tightening of belts, pay cuts, and increasing insecurity. The state of the economy has to do with all this, certainly, given knock-on factors such as falling advertising budgets (linked to inflation, a fast-dropping rate of disposable incomes, and perhaps a receding [decreasing] consumerist bubble), realities about the education sector, etc. But there’s perhaps more to the story.
There is an increasing predilection [special liking] for social media to bring home the word.
The disclaimer to be inserted here is that this article concerns itself with primarily the print media, of which some people in the profession talk gloomily [in a way that shows depression] as they discuss the possible end of the industry. This may be going too far but some perspective must be acquired. For it is not the Pakistan print media industry alone that is taking a severe hit — this trend can be witnessed in many other parts of the world too, even where the state of the economy or advertising may not be a major concern. From the US to Britain to the Continent, newspapers managers must make tough decisions, and journalists/staff are suffering.
The truth is that technology has changed. As access to the internet and smartphones have increased exponentially across many parts of the globe, more and more people (especially younger generations that have grown up with these conveniences and use them instinctively) turn towards these aids for reading the news — that is, if they want any. A number of studies carried out, mainly in the West, suggest variously that that there seems to be a growing level of a kind of war-weariness in many societies (leading to many people not wanting to or caring about the news — as it famously brings bad tidings= [news]), there is an increasing predilection for social media to bring home the word, and fast-paced lives leave little time for the perusal of daily knowledge. In the UK, for instance, serious, reliable newspapers that get their facts right may be budgeting, but tabloids are doing better. It is not entirely surprising that people might want to read about Prince Harry than the conflict in Afghanistan.
All of this is true, and the newspaper industry around the world must come to grips with [engage in a combat, نبرد آزما ہونا] it, or watch itself perhaps sadly fade away into the sunset, to be mourned endlessly. Such events materialise, of course.
Leading on from this truth, another one is that the world turns, and one must keep up with it. Newspapers have been being circulated since the mid-17th century or so, the first successful daily in Britain having been printed in 1702 (so the web tells me, proving a convenient QED). The time may now have come for this centuries-old model across the globe to be revisited and overhauled. After all, television means that by the time a newspaper is worked upon, printed and distributed, yesterday’s news is already known and been absorbed (or, as the case may be, dismissed). The internet and television, amongst other modes, are almost instant technologies to disseminate [ تلعیم یا خبروں کا پھیلانا] information, including that which is most current.
In the resuscitation [نئی زندگی پیدا کرنا، جان ڈالنا] of the newspaper industry, then, one way forward would be investigative, long-form journalism that does of course report on the stories of the day, but adds the dimension of context and analysis to a (as far as possible) scholarly extent. Journalists around the world have already been trained in such skills, and have the knowledge — or have access to it. Talk to any old hand and they provide a minefield of depth and perspective about matters of the day.
Having worked with newspapers for years, of course one is well aware of the production process and the urgency that the medium demands (though not as much as the internet or television, but the serious print media’s information often proves much more solid).
However, the world turns, and one has to turn with it.
The writer is a member of staff.
hajrahmumtaz@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, July 1st, 2019
Column 2
Conflict or compromise
Umair JavedJuly 01, 2019
IN this golden (or is it gilded?) era of one-page-ism, multi-stakeholder governance, and lofty national consensus, the idea of a cross-party ‘charter of economy’ appears appealing[that instils fears]. Its premise[the basis of an argument] is that Pakistan needs to undertake corrective measures to ensure that the three-decade-old cyclical pattern of growth and stagnation[stopping at one place], with recurring balance of payment and fiscal pressures, is broken. This requires improving productivity, catalysing domestic and foreign investment, and, most importantly, getting rid of rent-seeking practices that drag down the economy from both a fiscal and a competitiveness perspective.
While this package of solutions may be technical (or technocratic), it is, like all things associated with the economy, deeply political. It involves making swaps [ادلہ بدلہ کرنا] and trade-offs, which would inevitably make some segments worse off than they are now. Cynically [کسی چیز یا دوسروں کی نیت کے بارے شک کا رویہ] speaking, this wouldn’t be much of an issue if the only segments being made worse off were poor people with little organised political voice. The state has a long and illustrious [شاندار] history of making decisions that leave marginalised groups[محروم طبقات] worse off without so much as a second thought, and is expected to do the same at any time of asking.
This time, however, the problem is that one major aspect of ‘fixing’ the economy requires taking on historically privileged business groups that are mobilised and carry an extensive political voice, both through the party system and the civil and military bureaucracy.
While the idea of a ‘charter of economy’ might sound great at first, there are several practical and moral issues that need to be highlighted.
The theoretical downside for any party that attempts to take on politically powerful interest groups is multifaceted. The first and obvious one is electoral — groups may choose to back other parties, cutting down on financing or other forms of support for the party in government and switching their allegiances in the process. This may create internal stress within the ruling party, as its legislators start getting jittery [پریشانی] about their odds of retaining rich backers or potent vote blocs. Such complaints often snowball into forceful pressures, which helps explain why governments have backed off from taking difficult decisions in the past.
The second potential downside is the short-term impact on the economy. Here we may see status quo actors engage in more drastic measures like shutter-downs and public mobilisation (particularly for groups such as traders), or even something more drastic like capital strikes or capital flight in high-revenue and major-growth-generating sectors. While less likely to happen in Pakistan, such reactions have been seen in other parts such as India (during the 1980s) and Latin America.
A ‘charter of economy’ — an idea that was first floated by Ishaq Dar — seeks to minimise the odds of such downsides by ensuring vested groups don’t have an easy ‘out’. With all parties consenting to solve the malaise [بیماری] of bloated [پھولا ہوا] public-sector bureaucracies, rent-seeking by industrialists, and tax evasion by traders, corrective measures should be theoretically easier to undertake.
While the idea might sound great at first, there are several practical and moral issues that need to be highlighted. The first is that such a consensus can’t emerge in a heavily polarised atmosphere[ایسا ماحول جس میں لوگ انتہائی پوزیشنز پر ہوں], where the government does not see the opposition as legitimate and vice versa. Parliamentary politics may be enshrined in the Constitution, but the mainstream political culture for all parties continues to be majoritarian bordering on authoritarian in nature. This is why we see repeated disregard for parliamentary fora [فورم کی جمع], such as the committee system, where consensus-based ideas might even be developed. Instead, everyone’s busy playing to the gallery (or in our case, breaking news tickers) with masala-laden sound bites, leaving the actual process of policymaking to opaque[تاریک، جس کے آر پار نظر نہ آسکے] bureaucratic/ technocratic processes.
The second, and related, issue is that given the weakness of political parties, attempts at forging consensus may not be communicated effectively to voters. This is the likely reason why Maryam Nawaz Sharif came out so loudly against the idea; she probably recognised that a compromise would be a hard sell to her party’s voters at a time of economic stagnation. Because parties do not have the appropriate apparatus to ‘sell ideas’ to voters, they have to appear to be ‘doing opposition’ constantly. A good example from the recent past is the PML-N’s and PPP’s somewhat docile[جو بلا چوں چراں مان جائے، بے ضرر] relationship with each other between 2007 and 2013, which alienated the core voters in both parties.
The third issue is moral/ intellectual in nature. In every discussion of a national strategy to save the economy, the content retains a heavy focus on the macroeconomic side. How should we decrease the fiscal deficit? How do we ensure demand compression? What needs to be done to increase exports? One can reasonably assert that there already is a consensus on a few of these issues, given that each government over the last two decades has pursued structural adjustment in some form or the other, often with the same individuals manning finance and planning offices.
On the other hand, rarely do we see conversations on developing a consensus over social development — ie strategies to protect the most vulnerable [جس کو نقصان پہنچ سکتا ہو] from the consequences of adjustment. Should there not be a charter of social development through which every party agrees to spend what’s needed to enhance the welfare of poorer groups, and ensure a progressive distribution of the state’s resources.
Finally, related to the previous point, a successful consensus-based charter for the economy would mean that political parties are acknowledging their shared role in steering policymaking. It also means that they take ownership of the fact that their role is primary. Which is why it’s worth asking whether all political parties currently exhibit that tendency? In other words, wouldn’t such a charter first mean that those elected to do a constitutionally assigned job actually embrace this role, rather than voluntarily [اپنی مرضی سے] or involuntarily [غیر رضا کارانہ طور پر] giving it up to some other stakeholder? If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, then maybe we’ll need another charter of democracy before a charter for the economy can be operationalised.
The writer teaches politics and sociology at Lums.
umairjaved@outlook.com
Twitter: @umairjav
Published in Dawn, July 1st, 2019
Column 3
Polio: no quick-fix solutions
Samia AltafJuly 01, 2019
WHEN the polio vaccination drive in April 2019 outside Peshawar had to be abandoned because parents refused to have their children vaccinated, it was a reminder that the challenges to eradicate polio remain as large as ever. On the surface misinformation about the vaccine and resulting panic played a role in failure of this vaccination drive, the reality is that the actual failure is that of the vaccine delivery system.
During the drive in Punjab, Nasreen, a 30-year-old mother of three from a middle-class family, had refused to have her two-year-old son — born after two daughters — given polio vaccine, because no one had addressed her concerns regarding the vaccine. She had heard rumours that expired vaccine was being used. Also how did these ‘little drops’ protect against such a ‘big’ disease? The vaccinator came back in the evening with a police officer threatening arrest. The issue was resolved when Nasreen’s father-in-law, a schoolteacher, reprimanded [سخت سست کہنا، برا بھلا کہنا] Nasreen. The household will forever lose face in the community — their daughter-in-law, entangled with the police! Now during a vaccination drive, Nasreen takes her children to her parent’s house in a remote village where the vaccination teams do not come.
Pakistan’s Polio Eradication Programme and Expanded Programme on Immunisation, as vertical programmes with separate administrative structure and personnel, provide no other service except deliver vaccines. Vertical programmes are to be used when enhanced services are needed in special circumstances, or in special geographic areas. They are not to be a replacement for the fixed/ established vaccine services delivery system. Unfortunately in Pakistan, since effective vaccine services through fixed system are unreliable, these programmes remain the government’s sole strategy for vaccinating 38 million children with a new cohort [ایک بڑی جماعت] added each year.
Since vaccination drives are donor supported, with earmarked funds, vaccinators are under pressure to meet the stipulated [متعین شدہ] targets and to show ‘results’. It is up to them to convince, coax [ کوئی بات منوا لینا], threaten, bully and intimidate parents to comply. Policymakers in Islamabad assume that this strategy works, but it does not — national vaccination coverage rates on average hover near 50 per cent. At times this strategy backfires spectacularly. One step forward turns into two steps backwards.
Read: Polio vaccination teams told to focus on interpersonal relations
Religion is not the reason Pakistani parents refuse the polio vaccine.
Funded by Shahid Hameed Foundation, Lums’ faculty has recently reviewed the EPI/ polio programme in Kasur district. Distrust of the system, lack of knowledge about infectious diseases, vaccine schedule, and how vaccines work were the main reasons for parental refusals. Mothers ignorant of the side effects of vaccination, once side effects occur — fever, loss of appetite — interpret these as sickness caused by the vaccine. When they seek help, the system that two days ago was right in their homes, is not available. The health centre, if there is one in the village is closed, or the doctor is not available. ‘Why is it that when we need medicine, there is no one? Otherwise they come into our house to give these drops and injections,’ is an oft-repeated question.
Writing about a similar effort in Nigeria — one of the other two countries aside from Pakistan and Afghanistan where polio remains endemic, the New York Times in November 2012 said that in “many communities targeted by the (polio) programmes, people perceive a gulf between global programmes like polio eradication and more immediate local health needs”.
The government’s point person for the vaccination programme, Babar Atta, acknowledged lack of trust and “severe community resistance against vaccination”. Mr Atta promises reduction in the number of vaccinator visits to homes, and the number of questions put to parents during subsequent drives. And the police will not be called. Let’s hope these tactics help, but they do not address the real reasons for refusals.
This problem of distrust and ignorance about vaccines has been repeatedly documented. It is quite baffling why policymakers do not take it seriously. Why are they not able to generate a strategy grounded in an analysis of why people react the way they do to this critical preventive health service brought to their homes for free, when they spend a substantial portion of their household income and travel long distances to seek curative health services for their children? The magical thinking and quick-fix solutions proposed by Mr Atta do nothing except further decrease credibility and increase distrust of the government.
Read: Will Pakistan ever become polio free?
Eradicating polio is not easy but countries have done it. US governments’ Vaccine for Children programme — that includes vaccination for polio, was successful because vaccines were delivered to children of all income levels, not only the poor, through the participation of public and private healthcare providers, insurance companies, state and federal public health officials, vaccine manufacturers, and parents. VFC programmes built and supported ‘medical homes’ for children integrating paediatric care with vaccinations as the mainstay [بنیاد] of health services for children.
The other contributors to successful eradication of polio are a knowledgeable public and sanitary infrastructure. Pakistan’s literacy rate in women is 45 per cent and still lower in poor women whose children are the targets of the polio programme. The poliovirus is excreted in faeces, and because sanitary facilities are poor — almost 45pc of Pakistani population defecates [رفع حاجت کرنا] in the open, the virus persists in the sewage providing a continuously available reservoir. Poliovirus has been isolated from sewage water in Peshawar, Bannu, and Mardan for the past two years. It is suspected to be in the sewage of other cities as well.
In his maiden speech to the nation almost a year ago, prime minister identified high child mortality rates as major concern of his administration. His technical team should think seriously about how to protect children from vaccine-preventable diseases, the major contributor to these rates. They need to be humble about the chronicity [کسی مرض وغیرہ کا پرانا ہونا] and complexity of the problems and without resorting to gimmicky tactics, design appropriate, integrated and well-supported service delivery systems, with ability for year-round vaccination delivery and related services. Periodic vaccination drives using vertical programmes should be part of that vaccine delivery system and not its substitute.
The writer is a public health physician currently a research fellow at Lums.
Published in Dawn, July 1st, 2019
