Reforms and reformers have not left us alone at any instant in our national history. In many situations, they have made their presence felt even more vocally than the social ills themselves!
WHENEVER a new regime mounts the throne, the first step it takes is to initiate reforms in all cardinal directions. For this vital task, it acquires the services of a plethora of reformers of varied kinds.
One should not confuse such reformers with stalwarts like William Penn, Francis Bacon and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. Unlike these figures who had made their lives a living example of a purpose-oriented struggle and principled actions, the present breed views reforms as nothing more than a packaged deal. It is disappointing to find that continued deceleration of societal upliftment has been largely caused due to crosscutting reforms by succeeding regimes. Narrow-minded and contextually ignorant reformers were the spearheads of these disastrous approaches. Reforms and reformers have not left us alone at any instant in our nation’s history — in many situations they have made their presence felt even more vocally than the social ills themselves! Although no scientific means hitherto exist to distinctly classify these types of reformers, some are visible on the basis of their repeated appearances.
Initiation of reforms process usually begins by the ascent of a new regime. It prepares a list of changes that it wishes to bring about under the banner of reforms. A bunch of individuals, who claim to philosophize such acts, cling together under fashionable nomenclature prevailing at the time. In the past, they were referred to as “commissions”, now mostly called “think tanks”. These people are eloquent speakers with a quality of creating such rhetoric that sounds very pleasant, but remains essentially hollow. Neo-regime, after escalation to the power — through ballot, bullet or parachute — as the case may be, summons them immediately. Sometimes, the regime itself seeks a justifiable argument from the said think tank for its raison ‘d’etre.
Slowly, they win the trust of the regime and embark on the job of creating colourful slogans, catch phrases and programmes using the most abstract of delineations. ‘Republicanism’, ‘decade of development celebrations’, ‘roti, kapra aur makan’ (bread, clothing and shelter), ‘Islamic socialism’, ‘Pakistan 2010 Programme’, ‘Champions of reforms’, and lately ‘Sub se pehley Pakistan (Pakistan first)’, are some of the coveted works of such breed of reformers. The head of the regime very happily uses such buzzwords as the tag of his/her reforms package. After the regime descends, such phrases become the hottest jokes among all and sundry!
In order to show to the outside world that care is given to scientific wisdom, the regime picks up an obscure breed of professionals in a bid to launch reforms in science and technology. Usually, most of these professionals have spent their lives following a minutely carved branch of science. For example, a biologist who focused his whole career learning about the fourth leg of a housefly or a geologist who was a member of the mission that carried decade-long explorations in Antarctica, normally make ideal choices! Scientists and professionals with such credentials are chosen to head task forces, committees and even ministries to bring about revolutionary changes in the overall realm of science and technology. The regimes also pick utterly incompetent and tested goofs, who could not succeed in their professional lives to steer such committees. Obviously, this lot possesses the over-riding merit of up-to-date connections or family relations in the ruling echelons.
An evergreen and ‘always available to serve’ breed of reformers hail from the retired military and civil service cadres. They are all believed to be mostly founders of laying down prophetic injunctions, with respect to all the sectors of national performance, certainly irrespective of their own field of past services. Whether these fellows spent their lives in positions no higher than that of section officer of a ministry or the logistics wings of any of the armed forces, they instantly become ready made authority on crucial issues — such as ideological discourses, political process, trade and economic pacts with other countries, foreign affairs and even development. Unabated loyalty to the regime remains the superseding qualification of this breed of reformers.
In such courses of actions, certain self-styled intellectuals also align themselves to the newborn reformist agenda. They use their imaginative capabilities first to figure out the vices, ideological and practical errors of the past regime — including those to which they too were a party — and then craft a ‘rejection of the past’ syndrome. In the process, they develop fantastic interpretations of good and wall-meaning deeds of the members of the regime for public projection. Sometimes, they even succeed in deriving virtues from the legal and ideological sins of the regime. Such efforts seldom go waste — they are adequately rewarded in the form of national honours, grants, trips as members of delegations and direct employment in some cases.
Certain opportunist expatriates, after minting plenty from abroad, converge back to the country hearing the drum beats of reforms. They claim to bring with them the wealth of foreign connections. They also carry reminders of certain essential changes in the prevailing setup which are needed to cause advancement in certain fields of development. Incapable of judging the merit and substance of such self-proclaimed technocrats, the regime falls prey to their intentions. After getting a foothold, these technocrats start spreading their tentacles, thereafter getting quick approvals for the specific project they always had as their inner agenda. Whether they are of benefit or detriment to the nation, such projects are initiated even at a very high cost. Lyari Expressway — a transportation fiasco in Karachi — is an example.
Donor-driven programmes push many a foreign consultants into the scene. Some of these consultants acquire the status of reformers in their sectors. The ingress of such consultants is based on the principle of ‘take a loan — get a consultant free’ type arrangements. With their skin deep expertise, possibly in one sector, but in entirely heterogeneous contexts, these foreign reformers quickly prescribe solutions to age-old social, economic and administrative ailments.
These solutions, which are in entire conformity with the donor’s agenda and normally against the larger societal interests, are readily accepted. Whenever implemented, the results have been mostly disastrous. For instance, the Community Based Sanitation Project in Orangi, in 1983, by a donor consultant and agency miserably failed. In the same area, low profile, but indigenous, Orangi Pilot Project evolved to become a worldwide success story. Such examples have repeatedly proven the fact that useful work is normally done by appropriate understanding and continued research of the ground realities — not foreign expertise.
Lateral entrants into the cadre of reformers are NGOs. Many of them act as contractors, flag bearers and microphones of reformers. They are usually ready to take up any task, without even the slightest of review of the nature, philosophy, approach and content of the so-called reform package. Their sole concern is the grant received or other benefits accrued from it. As reward of the services rendered in the line of the reformist agenda, NGO chiefs are sent to conferences, workshops and other similar excursions, either directly on state expenses or donor sponsorships with a liability on the state. By preparing glossy reports and organizing colourful workshops, seminars and retreats, the NGOs fulfil their assigned term and disappear. The reports so prepared end up in shelves and later in record rooms or governmental archives, to be scrapped by the forthcoming regimes. So much for the worthy contribution of the NGOs.
The Father of the Nation had a clear vision about the country, which was specifically communicated through his various discourses. Honest, tolerant, progressive, hardworking and God-fearing people — democratic, just and forward looking state (and its institutions) — and a cohesive society were some key ingredients that the Quaid had wished this part of the world to be. With this clarity of vision, Quaid’s dream required translation into workable guidelines based on the indigenous realities of the contexts, with local aspirations and desires incorporated into it. What followed was almost an absolute deviation from the worthy prescriptions of the architect of the nation. This happened in every walk of life, including economics and finance, trade and commerce, agriculture and state crafts, social sectors, industry, labour and manpower, production and communications. Even a review of the most apparent parameters confirm that the ill-targeted changes brought in the name of reforms were the worst for national progress and people of Pakistan. Some reminders of such misdeeds quoted as reforms shall act as eye-openers for us.
Pakistan received a partitioned Punjab in 1947. This province was termed as the granary of the subcontinent due to its abundant agricultural produce — all achieved through indigenous means. The agricultural output not only matched the staple diet needs of the natives of subcontinent but also catered to the needs of raw materials for various agro-based goods manufactured in the industrial estates of the colonial masters. With independence, the whole outlook of our agricultural managers and their advisors got twisted. A ‘reform’ was sought with no imminent basis of its own. Suddenly, it was found that the agricultural production must be switched to ‘modernized’ (Western, in other words) modes of production.
Based on the experiments carried in the Nordic lands of the North, an agrarian change was sought in the name of ‘reform’. Chemical fertilizer, artificially grafted seeds and mechanical aids replaced almost overnight the indigenous modes of production, under the high-grade reformers, who hailed from research institutions of America. The net result of this glorious effort was that the granary of the subcontinent could barely feed its own natives. From food-exporting region, Pakistan conveniently allowed itself to become a food-begging nation for most part of its history. Mass scale unemployment and social dislocation from farmlands was another major outcome.
Education is an essential ingredient of a civilized society. True, very few educational institutions and very low literacy prevailed at the time of independence but the direction of educational system, as setup by several educationists, was prevailing to set the right course. From primary schooling system to higher/professional educational system, tried and tested indigenous models of education were available, which required scaling up after appropriate modifications. However, confused attempts were made towards education — mostly in a bid to reform — which could not be found better than a third-rate change of aimless nature. Creating a divide between public and private sector curricula, the establishment of English and Urdu medium schools only resulted in creating a massive class divide, tinkering with the admission policies in the name of quota-based provisions in universities — all led to the rapid deterioration in the educational standards. Another band of reforms is underway that now seeks to privatize at least the higher education in the guise of improvement, aimed to eventually result in the closure of doors to the lower and lower-middle income groups.
Economy, economic development and management, plus all that goes in this category of enterprise, has been the most fortunate to have received the maximum of attention — hence, most reforms! The managers of economy sought the easiest way out for themselves by converting the country into an orphanage house — always begging. In the economic sector, perhaps, the country was most lucky to have received the most gracious cheque of support. From a respectable nation, we have turned into a begging tribe! Reform packages in quick succession have followed, with changes carrying only improvized nomenclature — each simply adding to the burden of misery of the common people. Outcomes can be gauged from the basic problems that now appear impossible to be addressed.
Statecraft also received the lion’s share in the booty of reforms since independence. Ever since 1958, when the simple parliamentary democracy was shunted aside to give way to an autocratic regime, there has been no end to the mindless changes. Basic democracies, partyless elections (to later create parties within) and referenda of sorts, all were executed in the name of reforms. Bureaus, commissions, councils, Majlis-e-Shoora, consultative bodies and a hoard of similar mosaics were created in an attempt to perpetuate a single person’s rule on the nation. Vital civil institutions were also made to group, break and re-group, in a bid to satisfy the regime’s agenda.
The results have been disastrous. Reduction of institutional capacities to a degree of total impotence and addition to people’s sufferings are only two of the many negative outcomes of this state of affairs. In short, such reforms have done a lot more harm than good, in a number of ways. One, it gave rise to turning back to the most rudimentary aspects of governance by acts of replacements without repairs! In other words, we, as a society, have been trying to invent the wheel by rejecting entirely all the progress that the predecessors have made. Two, the basis of reforms — which have been no better then unqualified changes — has been the wishful advises of the nears and dears of the regimes. No recourse has been tangibly made to any scientific way of fact-finding and analysis. Nor was decision-making related to key specialized fields, such as health, education, economy or technological development made through impartial information and knowledge. Three, a total lack of trust has been shown by each regime in the deeds of the previous regime.
However, this has been in theory, most of the times. In practice, the prevailing regime adopts the past developmental deeds by adding its own buntings. For instance, the former Prime Minister’s Housing Scheme has been very conveniently embraced by the newly-created Pakistan Housing Authority. Motorways, which were initially pointed as ‘near cancers’, are also being negotiated around. Three, due to the changed course of action by the state institutions and by the vanishing of certain institutions themselves, people have lost faith in the acts of the state itself. The declining participation in the voting process and other similar acts is an indicator in this respect. It has also led to the destruction of certain vital institutions. And four, the entire act of reformation is initiated without any consideration to time and resources. No planning is done to match the deeds with energy that is required to complete it. When a new regime comes up, it instantly scraps the said ‘reform’, only adding to the accounts of wasted resources and efforts.
It is not that reforms are unwanted or should not be sought for. The logical manner to seek reforms is through scientific fact-finding, analysis and open decision-making. The need for reforms should essentially evolve from the society — not from the top of the ruling echelons. Besides, it must be borne in mind that the planned process of change that would cause reforms should be indigenous — not imposed from outside.
As obvious from the current approaches to privatization, the tips have come from abroad and will not benefit the people of the country. Any regime which is faithful to its peoples shall always keep the larger interest of the society atop anything else. Sadly, that has been seldom experienced. Unless our rulers learn to respect the interest of the common man and keep it at the highest priority, no reform of any sort will succeed.
Reforms and reformers have not left us alone at any instant in our national history. In many situations, they have made their presence felt even more vocally than the social ills themselves! 
