Nawaz Sharif, What Would Make Me Trust Him, And Costly Signals

With Pakistan in the midst of unmitigated political turmoil, I want to turn my attention to one of the central protagonists in this drama: Nawaz Sharif.

First, some background. Regular readers know that I consider Nawaz Sharif to be a blatant opportunist, a power-hungry hypocrite, a sharp political mind, and dangerously close to religious right-wing forces.

I find it troubling -- to say the least -- that the man whose supporters stormed the Supreme Court a dozen years ago to obviate a case being heard against him is now the so-called champion for the independence of the judiciary.

I find it bizarre that the same man who stuffed the bureaucracy, the courts, the police and the military with supporters; the same man who had journalists such as Najam Sethi kidnapped and beaten; the man who proclaimed himself Amir-ul-Momineen (Supreme Leader) and attempted to rush through a Sharia bill in an attempt to aggrandize yet more power is now the man who stands up for the rule of law and constitutional democracy.

I find it laughable that the man who took the first opportunity to flee the country rather than suffer in jail is now hailed -- primarily by supporters of his party -- has standing up the forces of dictatorship when in fact he did quite the opposite: cut, run, and jump back into the fray at an opportune moment.

Lastly, as a secular liberal, I find Nawaz Sharif's dalliances -- and that is putting it charitably -- with the religious right to be harbingers of an institutionalized religiosity enacted (or magnified) by the state and society, an outcome which I would prefer to avoid.

To sum up: the spectacle of Nawaz Sharif assuming the position he has in the discursive space in Pakistani politics is akin to George W. Bush returning to politics at some point in the future on the platform of being against torture, tax cuts, dumb wars, and religious conservatism. It is, to put it mildly, cause for cognitive dissonance.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

All this aside, I am not a partisan, but an empiricist. If someone can convince me with evidence that Nawaz Sharif really has changed -- that he is not in fact simply chasing power, but is truly fighting for principles to which we all would like to adhere to -- then more power to him, in all senses of the phrase. I have nothing against the Nawaz Sharif the person, nor do I have anything against the PML-N per se.

The problem that we as observers of politics face is simple: at first glance, there is simply no way of knowing which interpretation is correct. Given the evidence available, partisan supporters of Nawaz Sharif and the PML-N can claim that he truly has changed, and actually believes that 'I am again ready for reconciliation only for restoration of the deposed judges, supremacy of the judiciary, repeal of 17th amendment, charter of democracy and bright future of the masses and country. I am not demanding any portfolio but seeking safety of the country and its dwellers". On the other hand, those who tend to be more skeptical can dismiss these words as exactly that: all talk, covering up a deep desire to return to power at any cost.

How do we solve this quandary? In other words, what mechanism -- if any -- will allow us to tell for sure whether Nawaz Sharif is a reformer (as he says) or a power-hungry opportunist (as I say)?

Some elementary game theory proffers a potential solution.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Before we go any further, let us consider two fairly different phenomena: courtship and college.

When talking about courtship, it might be useful to lay down some simplifying assumptions. Let us assume for the moment that there are two types of men in the world: assholes (who only want sex) and good guys (who are willing to commit). Let us further assume that women would like to go on dates only with good guys, and would like to reject the advances of assholes. Finally, let us assume that when a single woman meets a man, she is completely unaware which of the two categories the man she just met occupies. These assumptions are obviously not completely accurate, but they are reasonable enough for the exercise at hand.

The problem the woman faces in this situation is similar to the problem we face with Nawaz Sharif: not enough evidence to make a conclusive judgment. So if the man asks the woman out, how is she to respond? Should she say yes, or should she say no?

One thing that can help the woman decide is if the man uses "costly signals". If the man does something that is "costly" to him, this can help signal to the woman that he is committed. The important point is that whatever the cost is, it has to be high enough for the assholes to not want to do it, and for the good guys to want to do it. In game theoretic terms, the cost has to be high enough to lead to a separating equilibrium (as opposed to a pooling equilibrium). So what the woman is basically looking for is for the man to do something that a good guy would surely have no problem doing, but which would be beyond an asshole's capabilities.

Are there examples of such actions? Sure. Consider the act of buying flowers, and walking over to the woman's house and giving them to her personally. This act is costly, in terms of money (the price of the flowers), time (going to the florist, and then the woman's apartment), and energy (all that walking). It is so costly, in fact, that assholes -- by virtue of being assholes -- would never consider doing it. By contrast, good guys -- by virtue of being good guys -- are prepared to pay this cost. Ergo, if the woman sees the man in question at her doorstep with flowers, she knows he's a good guy, and consequently will agree to go out with him. [Again, this a highly stylized view of the world, but I would submit to you that there is a degree of insight here, so it is ultimately useful]. What the good guy has done, in this instance, is send a costly signal to the woman of his "type": he is telling her, in effect, that he is not an asshole, but a good guy because he has done something that only a good guy would do.

Now consider college. People go to college for many reasons, to be sure, but one of them is to get a job after college that pays well and provides a relatively comfortable lifestyle. It is no coincidence that many lucrative careers are available only to those who have graduated college. And yet, there is little correlation between what we study at college and what we do in the work environment. So really, what is the point of going to college?

Some game theorists argue that going to college is a costly signal of one's intelligence. Again, go back to the courtship example, where we had two types of signal senders: assholes and good guys. In this example, let us again assume that there are only two types of people in the world: stupid people and smart people. Let us further assume that when an employer meets a job applicant, (s)he cannot tell whether the applicant is of one type (smart) or the other (stupid). Finally, let us assume that the employer would like to hire all the smart people who apply for the job, and reject all the stupid people that apply for the job. What can the potential employee do to "signal" to the employer that (s)he is smart, and thus should be given the job?

Well, going to college is the answer for some. If you agree with the assertion that completing college is easier for smart people than stupid people -- or that the cost of graduating college is lower for smart people than for stupid people -- then you must agree with the assertion that at some level of difficulty, stupid people will simply opt out of going to college because it is not worth the cost. Thus if you are facing a college graduate across the table as an employer, you are inclined to hire them -- not because the person learned something valuable at college, but because their having completed college is a costly signal of their ability. It is similar to the courtship story: by virtue of having done something that is beyond the capabilities of the other "type" (stupid people in the college story, assholes in the courtship story), you have signaled your type.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

What possible relevance does all this nonsense about college and flowers have to do with Nawaz Sharif? Well, not a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but it is important in one key aspect: for those who want to believe Nawaz Sharif when he says all these grands things, but cannot believe him (people like me), a costly signal can help allay concerns of Nawaz Sharif's "type".

So to go back to our dichotomous framework, let us assume that there are two potential types Nawaz Sharif could take: true reformer, or hot-air balloon. If he is a true reformer, he truly believes everything he says about democracy and freedom and the independence of the judiciary and the supremacy of the parliament. If he is a hot-air balloon, he is simply saying those things to get back in power and eat more jalebis.

Assuming Nawaz Sharif is a reformer, what possible costly signal can he send to us skeptics to convince us? What actions or words, put differently, will be too costly for a hot-air balloon but easy for a true reformer?
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Imagine, for a moment, if you heard the following speech from Nawaz Sharif:

Merey aziz humwatano, Assalam-o-alaikum. We are at a critical juncture in our nation's history. Our movement has been successful in restoring the illegally deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudary. For this we can all be proud. And yet, significant challenges remain.

To change the course of Pakistan's future, we must be honest about its past. To finally deal with the threat of militancy and terrorism, we must recognize where these forces came from, who supported them, and why it was such a misguided strategy. To adequately address the gross inequalities that pervade the socio-economic spheres of our state, we must first understand the structural imbalances of opportunity, education and health that have led to this deplorable status quo. To ensure sustainable and truly democratic processes, we must take heed of the people and institutions resposible for our ephemeral relationship with political freedom.

The virtues of remembering and learning from the past have been hammered into me by the events of the last two years. I have made many mistakes in my career -- and I'm not just talking about my hair transplant.

When General Musharraf fired Pakistan's Chief Justice two years ago, it reminded me of my ill-fated move against the judiciary twelve years ago. I, like Musharraf, was wrong to place constraints and impediments against the third arm of government from functioning freely. My party supporters should not have stormed the Supreme Court, and I take full responsibility for their actions that day. I should have fought as hard for Sajjad Ali Shah's independence as a judge as I did for Iftikhar Chaudhry's; I did not, and for this only I am to blame.

As I saw both General Musharraf and Asif Zardari attempt to aggrandize even more power and do away with checks and balances, I was reminded of my attempts to do the same, especially in my second term. I had little tolerance for political opponents -- from journalists to opposition parties to suspect supporters in the bureaucracy -- and sought to get rid of them. I treated the constitution and parliament with as little respect as a democratically elected figure could possibly do. I was not interested in democracy then, and seeing where my actions led has convinced me that dictatorship can come in the uniform of military fatigues as well as a crisp white shalwar-kurta. Indeed, this is why I have fought Mr. Zardari so hard in the last six months -- I have directed this movie before, and it does not have a happy ending.

Finally, a word about my opposition to the ghaddars of the PML-Q -- as well as my opposite to the late Mohtarma's flirtations with the forces of dictatorship. Once again, my opposition has roots in my personal history. My political career was kicked off as a protege of the most repressive force in Pakistan's political history -- General Zia-ul-Haq. Through the late 1980s and early 1990s, it was aided and abetted by the military and the ISI, who shared my then-indomitable hostility to Benazir Bhutto. I have learned the hard way that cooperation with repressive political forces for short-term gain has no place in a mature polity, and should be discarded as a viable option for any political leader worth their weight.

Many of the grossest and most criminally negligent of the mistakes made by Pakistan's leaders in the last three years have been committed before, including by myself. As a changed man, I have come to see the folly of my actions and, by extension, theirs. Only someone who has been to the dark side can truly claim to have seen the light. If you return me to power, I promise to uphold the 1973 constitution and the Charter of Democracy in both its letter and spirit. On this you have my word.

Pakistan paindabad.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Why do I want to see the previous speech from Nawaz Sharif? Because, as yet, I have failed to see convincing evidence of the fact that he realizes he did anything wrong in his time in power. He has blamed every which actor in Pakistani politics except for himself. He has not acknowledged his mistakes. Consequently, it becomes more difficult to forgive and forget for rational observers such as myself, because as far as I am concerned, he will do the same things again when returned to power.

Recall my discussion of costly signals and separating equilibria. The difference between a true reformer and a power-hungry opportunist is that the former doesn't care about power per se, but only cares that those mistakes not be repeated. To that end, a true reformer will feel fewer qualms about being completely upfront and honest about his or her own shortcomings, especially shortcomings that are extremely relevant to present crises. A power-hungry opportunist, by contrast, will attempt to brush over those issues, because he or she will be concerned first and foremost with securing power. An admission of mistakes made, then, can be a costly signal of Nawaz Sharif's true type: it would simply be too costly for a power-hungry opportunist to pursue with any degree of certainty, whereas it should be a piece of cake for the true reformer.

So Mr. Lion of Punjab, which will it be?