The existing system is elitist in nature, stifles initiative, creates a negative mindset, and refuses to accept fresh ideas. Imaginative outlook is anathema to it. At all levels, decision-making takes place by default, and there is a premium on inaction. Where do we go from here?
GOVERNMENTS come and governments go. With the installation of each new government, the hapless nation used to hold its breath in the hope and expectation that things were at last going to change, change for the better, that is. It is true no more. With the promises made by previous governments having remained a pipedream, only the nave still shows faith in the ability of an incoming government to eradicate poverty, punish the guilty and root out corruption. Nothing changes, and everything remains the same. It’s business as usual. In some cases, things deteriorate even further.
The question is, why things do not improve in Pakistan? Why we continue to be underdeveloped? Why the poor stays poor? Why we can’t control the rampant corruption and the increasing crime rate? Why our social indicators remain so pathetic?
A number of reasons are adduced to explain the dismal situation we are in. The most convenient alibi is lack of resources. Some people think things would have changed had there been ample resources. There are others who cite lack of leadership as the main cause of our poor performance. Another reason cited is that intermittent dictatorships. Many in the urban middle class even agree with the right-wingers that the main reason for our backwardness is that we have become westernized and do not strictly enforce Islamic injunctions in our daily lives.
Another ‘favourite’ reason among our intelligentsia is feudalism. They are emphatic that we cannot develop unless we banish feudalism from our land. They consider our present democratic dispensation as ‘sham’, and a ‘tool’ in the hands of powerful feudal lords.
Let us examine some of these arguments.
Those who go for the ‘lack of resources’ argument basically ignore three facts. One, Pakistan is not a resource-poor country. Two, there are countries that have not developed (economically or socially) in spite of their huge oil reserves (Nigeria is a classic case). Three, there are countries that faced major economic downturn after having achieved the status of high-income countries (Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela top the list in this category).
Those people who believe that a charismatic leadership would have solved all our problems, forget that we have had our quota of such leaders — Jinnah, Liaquat, Ayub, Bhutto and, lately, Benazir and Nawaz. But where are we now? It is interesting that some of these leaders left the country in a greater mess.
So far as the question of dictatorship is concerned, one can quote the example of Asian Tigers who were able to transform their economies under dictatorial regimes. Some people also cite Ayub’s famed Decade of Development in this regard.
It goes to show that economic development is not linked with any form of government. Countries can prosper under any system of government — democracy, kingship, dictatorships, even communist totalitarianism — provided there is a vision and total commitment.
The issue of Quran and Sunnah is a sensitive one, but one can safely argue that in recent history Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan are some of the countries that have enforced Sharia laws, but can hardly be described as models of social and economic development. We also tried our hand at introducing some Islamic penal laws, but have little to show for such efforts.
In all these countries, Iran’s case is unique. There, the clergy very bravely fought against the power and tyranny of the well-entrenched Shah, and brought about an Islamic revolution, which was, indeed, a rarity in the history of revolutions, because almost all the others in modern history were led by leftist forces.
But, two decades of the clergy’s misrule has disillusioned the Iranians. Now economic prosperity is their priority. Having got tired of the rigours of dogma and dictatorship, they want to revert to a tolerant, liberal and forward-looking regime. Tough struggle between the hardliners and the reformists indicates that a major change may well be in the offing.
About feudalism, our intelligentsia has fixed notions. They refuse to accept that the dynamics of social change has greatly impacted Pakistani society, and forces of urbanization have unleashed new processes, introduced new actors, and created new stakeholders. It is strange that on the one hand they say that whatever economic development took place in Pakistan was in the early period — when feudalism was very dominant — and, on the other, they argue that feudalism and development cannot go together.
If this is the position, then what are the causes of our continued underdevelopment, increasing poverty and crumbling law and order?
The basic argument here is that while other factors may have been peripherally relevant, basically it is the conventional mould of governance, poor management, and dominance of the vested interests and powerful lobbies that have brought us to this juncture. The main characteristics of the existing system are that it is elitist in nature; stifles initiative; creates a mindset that is afraid of change; and refuses to accept fresh ideas. Briefly put, imaginative outlook is an anathema to it. At the political level, it shuns institutionalization and survives on personal whims, whereas at the bureaucratic level it is shackled by red-tape, precedents and conventions. At all levels, decision-making takes place by default, and there is a premium on inaction.
When Pakistan came into being, we inherited an administrative setup that was evolved to meet the needs of our colonial masters and was exploitative in nature, but undoubtedly it was one of the best in the world. It not only delivered services, but also maintained peace, and provided justice. If our rulers were wise enough, they could have improved the system with certain changes to meet the needs of a sovereign and independent country. Thereafter, gradual improvement should have been made to meet the needs of the time. But they did not accept the challenge, and accepted the colonial legacy lock, stock and barrel. Even the 1935 Act was accepted as the interim constitution.
But later, with ulterior motives and for personal power and pelf, they started tinkering with it. In the process, they made a mockery of all rules and regulations and even flouted the constitution with impunity. All institutions were gradually subverted. Personal whim became the dominant factor in decision-making. Cronyism and jobbery became the order of the day. Neutrality and independence of public servants became a thing of the past, and soon the ruling elite started to treat them as personal servants.
This is the mode of governance we are stuck with. On the one hand, ground realities have changed; there are rising hopes and expectations; new demands and new pressures. Forces of globalization and cut-throat competition are knocking at our doors. Our ruling classes, on the other hand, refuse to rise to the occasion or learn from their failures. Instead of modernizing the system and bringing it to international standards, they continue to harp on the old tunes and refuse to move forward.
To illustrate this point, we will take four areas, and see why things either remain the same, or, after the initial exuberance at the installation of a new government, are back to square one.
Take education first. Everyone knows that more than sixty per cent of our population is illiterate. Forty per cent of our children can’t go to schools, because there are no schools for them. Then there is a very high dropout rate.
In public schools, where the majority of the children go, quality of teachers is abysmally poor, and the text books used and teaching methods employed are substandard. The problem is further compounded by high level of teacher absenteeism and poor environment. Then there is the problem of ‘ghost’ schools.
However, it is not difficult to improve this situation, provided the new government understands these issues clearly, has the political will to implement its decisions, and takes professional input in addressing the defects of the system.
But what actually happens is that soon after the initial exuberance, the well-entrenched education bureaucracy that has powerful vested interests, takes control of the situation and starts telling the new minister that the real issue is not governance or management, but lack of money.
For this, they suggest that foreign donors should be approached. Very quickly all attention is diverted towards finalizing a new education policy through foreign funding. On the ground, the situation does not change at all. Everything continues in the old mould. Soon the minister gets bogged down in routine things — transfers, postings, appointments, promotions, meetings, seminars, symposia and workshops. Everything about the reform agenda is forgotten. This is the conventional mould we are talking about.
Next, take law and order. The new government invariably promises to make Pakistan a peaceful place to live. Its pronouncements would say that all dacoits, thieves, robbers, murderers, gangsters and patharedars will be nabbed, and no stone will be left unturned in maintaining law and order with an iron hand. For some days, surprise visits to lockups and police stations are also made by governors, chief ministers and ministers. Some SHOs and DSPs are suspended; some SPs transferred. Solemn declarations are made to introduce a new culture in the much-dreaded police stations.
But what happens after that? Slowly the bureaucracy regains the initiative. A series of meetings take place. Presentations are made showing charts and impressive graphs. Senior police officers open up by saying that contrary to press reports, the overall crime situation is better than last year’s.
Then invariably they produce a comparative statement of police force in Delhi, Bombay, Washington, Karachi and Lahore, and claim that police in Pakistan is working in very adverse circumstances. The discussion ends with demands for more money. And the surprising thing is that, more often than not, extra funds get sanctioned. It is another matter that during the last 55 years neither the condition of police stations has changed a wee bit, nor the lot of the ordinary policeman has improved. Most of the money is used either for purchasing costly vehicles for the officer corps, or recruiting additional force that is not required.
The same thing happens with the security of, and protocol to, the VIPs. In the initial days, everything is relaxed. Some of the VIPs even start stopping at traffic signals like ordinary mortals. But soon the intelligence agencies start referring to the ‘blue book’ and the dangers of mixing with the common man. What do we see then? The same nauseating practice of blocking the roads, long motorcades with shrill siren, and strict security ring which cuts off all links with the ground reality.
Let us now move on to our foreign policy. There was a time when prime ministers of this country used to frame the foreign policy (although this claim in itself is not beyond argument, because from day one Foreign Office babus were in cahoots with the army top brass which decided that Pakistan’s interests lay with the US, and the babus willingly became its partners during the Cold War). Now, the foreign policy has become the domain of the intelligence agencies.
The conventional mould does not appear to have a stronger hold anywhere but in terms of our foreign policy. We are obsessed with notions of strategic depth, pan-Islamism, and our ‘principled’ stand on Kashmir. Our confrontation with India continues unabated, regardless of the cost the people of Pakistan have to pay.
We refuse to budge an inch from these fixations. If there is any meek attempt to change course, the ‘permanent establishment’ comes into action immediately, and very soon we are back to square one. Perhaps they are afraid of what would happen to their interests if peace breaks out. It is another thing though that they are quick to take a U-turn when the pressure comes from the world’s sole superpower. How can we survive in the fast changing world with our outdated and myopic policies based on wrong assumptions, specially when new alignments and new emerging realities stare us in the face?
An interesting case study can be made of the strategies our planners and economic managers have been using for the last five decades. You will find very little change in the overall approach, although new jargons are used after every ten or so years, and new faces introduced. Everyone knows that all the policies are dictated by the IMF and the World Bank, and our economic wizards are there simply to implement them. Can one expect spectacular results from these borrowed approaches?
Similarly, one can see that the Planning Commission of Pakistan, our provincial Planning & Development Departments, our executing agencies, all have fallen in a rut. On the one hand, we are handicapped by shortage of funds for Public Sector Development Programmes (PSDP) and other developmental activities, and, on the other, the process of planning and development is so faulty that only 20 per cent benefit actually reaches the target groups.
It is distressing to see that for the small development outlay, the cost of governance has slowly crept up to 80 per cent. Resources for the social sector are scarce, but the more unfortunate thing is that we do not have the institutional capacity to fully utilize even these meagre allocations. A powerful nexus has developed between the consultants, engineers and contractors who routinely hijack most of the development funds. Focus is only on brick and mortar and achieving targets — quantity, not quality. In most cases, there is over-designing in projects and over-estimation of costs. Neither there is any transparency in the system, nor anyone is held accountable for wastage and substandard work. The would-be beneficiaries are excluded from the whole process of planning, designing, implementation and maintenance.
The late Dr Mahbubul Haq was not far off the mark when he said in the mid-eighties that each year about Rs80 billion were stolen from annual development programmes through kickbacks, commissions and wastages.
Each new government makes tall claims about involving the communities in the development process, introducing cost-effectiveness, transparency and accountability. But soon after, it falls into the old trap, and nothing changes — only the rate of corruption goes up. We are back to square one. This is the strength of the conventional mould.
These are just four examples. But anyone can make his own list. There is hardly any doubt that with some noble exceptions, deterioration in public services is rampant and cause of much concern for everyone. Whether it is police, judiciary, tax collecting agencies, education, civic services or utilities, the story is the same. But no one is ready to take the blame. If you start discussing the reasons, the buck would quickly be passed on to someone else. Every department would claim that there is nothing wrong with its working. It is always ‘somebody else’ that is responsible for the rot.
There cannot be two opinions that we are in desperate need to review our mistakes and chart a new path as the world around us has changed and continues to change very fast. There are some meek efforts to start a process of reform, but the main problem is that for improving governance we have to depend on the same degenerated, status-quo-oriented, inward-looking, conservative and indecisive machinery that itself is responsible for the deterioration we are faced with. To top it all, is the stranglehold of the well-entrenched vested interests who think any change will harm them immensely. How can they commit hara kiri by bringing about far-reaching reforms?
Everyone admits that the people of Pakistan are facing innumerable problems. Unemployment, poverty, and increasing rate of crime has become the bane of life for the majority of the low-income and poor people, both in urban and rural areas. Now even the middle class is facing the crunch. The unfortunate part is that we do not see any sign of new leadership emerging in the near future that may be capable of taking stock of the situation and accept the challenge of ushering Pakistan into a new era. What then is the alternative? There are no simple answers to this multi-million dollar question.
The only silver lining in the whole scenario is that the continued decay and deterioration has created a general awakening in the masses and there is a strong urge for change. Right now, they are disorganized and powerless, and apparently lack courage to jettison the well-entrenched setup. But the process of social change will take its own course, and as time passes people will become vocal and get more organized. When it gains enough momentum, a countervailing force is likely to emerge that will make the government(s) accountable.
The existing system is elitist in nature, stifles initiative, creates a negative mindset, and refuses to accept fresh ideas. Imaginative outlook is anathema to it. At all levels, decision-making takes place by default, and there is a premium on inaction. Where do we go from here? 
