IF there is one lesson that is emerging from the recent literature on development and long-term growth, it is about the importance of institutions and the quality of these institutions. Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson (Why Nations Fail) highlight the role of institutions in ensuring growth, development and progress, while economist Thomas Piketty speaks of the role of various institutions in curbing or limiting the excesses of capitalism effectively.

But this lesson is wasted on Pakistani governments, whose short-term interests almost always trump the need for strengthening institutions and abiding by the constraints laid down by institutional rules and regulations. Some people thought the current government, after the experience of previous dispensations since 1999, would have learnt a lesson. But, one year after this government came to power, we know better.

The latest confirmation, in this regard, has been the appointment of the governor of the State Bank of Pakistan. Other countries find the very best monetary economics and banking area experts, with plenty of experience at the senior level, for such appointments.

Janet Yellen, a famous economist, is chair of the US Federal Reserve. Mark Carney, governor, Bank of England, has a doctorate in economics from Oxford. Raghuram Rajan, governor, Reserve Bank of India, is a very well-published finance professor. Alexandre Tombini, governor, Central Bank of Brazil, has a doctorate in economics. Atiur Rahman, governor, Bangladesh Bank, was a professor and has a doctorate in economics from the University of London. Yuba Khatiwada, governor, Nepal Rastra Bank has a doctorate in monetary economics. Erdem Basci, governor, Central Bank of Turkey, has a doctorate in economics. All of them have extensive experience of monetary economics, policy, banking and/or administration.

How does our latest appointment at the SBP compare? This appointment has come in the wake of many years of poor handling of the autonomy issue at the bank and the resignations of several governors. Instead of addressing concerns relating to autonomy and right leadership at the SBP, the latest appointment has confirmed that the finance minister and his ministry need subservience as a necessary condition for the appointment of any SBP governor.

The PML-N has had many opportunities to learn from history. It had taken on the Supreme Court in its last stint at the centre and, whatever the merits of the issue, had ended up weakening the court and the judicial system of the country. Invasions of the Supreme Court and removal of chief justices under duress are not ways of strengthening the institution. When the PML-N government needed the court to rebuff the military takeover, it was no surprise that it did not find the court able or willing to stand up to the illegal moves by the military.

The issue of the SBP is not an isolated one, and it reflects the PML-N’s general style of governance. The inability to create and strengthen institutions shows up in all spheres of the PML-N’s governance. In Punjab, the decision to create Daanish schools — a poor decision and one that is often only praised by sycophants — was taken without any due process or consultation. Even today, after years of some of these schools being in operation, do we have a single study that justifies or explains the immense expenditure that has been incurred in setting them up and running them? Where the cost incurred on a child in a normal public school in Punjab is Rs2,000 or so per month, each child in a Daanish school costs more than Rs12,000 per month. The capital expenditure for setting up these schools is separate.

The same holds true for the decision to give away 200,000 laptops at the cost of Rs10 billion. The other day, we heard that the Punjab government is going to distribute another 100,000 laptops. What were the gains from the first distribution?

The Punjab chief minister is often praised for his immense energy, zeal and commitment to work. He is shown standing knee-deep in rain/floodwater supervising operations; he is the one who gets the dengue campaigns going; and it was his personal supervision and enthusiasm that got the Lahore Metro service going. These are all worthy pursuits.

But should the chief minister of a province with a population of 90 million be spending time on these issues? Is it not a failure of administration if the chief minister has to stand on top of his health officials to monitor the dengue campaign or if the entire provincial administration has to get involved in the metro service? What happens when the chief minister is not involved? Evidence suggests things stop working as soon as his attention is diverted.

When the Sikandar Hayat fiasco took place on Jinnah Avenue in Islamabad, one of the statements that had come from the interior minister was that people had no idea how limited the capacities of our law enforcement agencies were and how even he had been surprised when after taking over he took a look at the issue in more detail. When institutions are not built and merit is not followed, when institutional cultures are not allowed to develop and governance is not brought under the law, and when governance is supposed to mean that the will of the sovereign reigns supreme, is it any wonder that capacities remain low?

The writer is senior adviser, Pakistan, at Open Society Foundations, associate professor of economics, LUMS, and a visiting fellow at IDEAS, Lahore.