1
THE role of a government of technocrats in forging economic and social progress has now surfaced once again in public debate. It is a recurring controversial issue in the corridors of power that continues to haunt — however with much less intensity — the present civilian government.
One can only hope that the discourse will lead to a better understanding of the issues involved and reconciliation of divergent views in the realm of policymaking to avoid future pitfalls.
The valuable inputs technocrats provide in formulating and implementing the development strategy are widely recognised. But there are persisting problems of serious social and economic vulnerabilities that defy solution at the level of experts because there is a world beyond the entrenched orbit of technocracy.
For example, eminent development economist William Easterly quotes the World Bank’s Press Office stating that the global body of technocrats is “legally” barred by its own charter of 1940 not (repeat not) to use the word democracy. The observation appears in his latest book The Tyranny of Experts — Economists, Dictators and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor.
The World Bank does deal with the issues in governance whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship. Perhaps in the state of the world around the middle of the last century, the World Bank’s charter then could be justified for promoting economic development that ultimately leads to market democracy.
Economic policies are evolved primarily through interaction of various domestic stakeholders, particularly the movers and shakers of the economy, and often under the deep external influence in a country which is heavily dependent on foreign ideas, technology and money.
Civil society, pressure groups, public intellectuals, economists and other social scientists loosely form the ‘development community’ and have varying degrees of influence over state policies, either helped or hampered by social and political waves.
Politics and economics involve the ‘choice between conflicting and competitive ends — different needs of different people’. There are numerous stakes in an expanding pluralist society which, largely and generally, remain outside the usual gaze of technocrats.
And because of the rising tide of populism worldwide, to quote Canadian philosopher John Ralston Saul, “politics is back as a social force”.
Although economics is a social science, populism and politics have virtually no place in the dominant brand of technocracy but for rare exceptions in the works of some forgotten development economists.
Technocrats play largely a supportive role irrespective of whether key polices are progressive or regressive. With the help of technocrats, Gen Ayub Khan carried out “the most difficult” land reforms (as he states in his book Friends, Not Masters), “first” in the “chain” of all his intended reforms, to clear the path for rapid industrialisation and create a middle class in the rural society.
In a sharp contrast, Gen Ziaul Haq annulled the second phase of “feudal” Bhutto’s land reforms to gain political support of big landowners against the country’s first elected and deposed populist prime minister.
Of course, there were also many in the establishment who held large landholdings and their interest had to be protected. But more importantly, Gen Zia claimed that the army was the guardian of the country’s both ideological and physical frontiers. That defined the subordinate position of both Islamic scholars and economists versus the powerful generals. And the technocrats were at the beck and call of both Ayub and Zia.
Social science reminds us that economics remains glued with politics, however much the present technocracy may detest and condemn it day in and day out because political economy is at work all the time, more so in turbulent times.
Barring a segment of the liberal school of thought, the enrichment of economics as a social science has suffered from a lack of creativity, unbridled pragmatism in policymaking (outside the four walls of basic principles embedded in still valid theories) and the triumph of market orthodoxy over social science in its own phase of critical, theoretical development.
The deviation of any thought from the “political centre” is rejected outright. It is liberalism that allows some space for fresh thinking.
The economic and political vulnerabilities created by orthodoxy ultimately lead to the collapse of dogmatic thinking. Historical record shows that Gen Ayub had to exit from power when he refused to give up the unitary system —anchored on a strong centre, parity and One Unit — that he had so painstakingly and passionately built over a decade. Time and tide had bypassed his policies.
His successor, Gen Yahya Khan, dismantled One Unit and restored the four provinces of then West Pakistan while the country lost half of its national market. That opened the door towards fiscal, legislative and administrative autonomy of the provinces.
Technocrats did successfully help Ayub in the country’s rapid industrialisation, but with very poor appetite for equity which aggravated the disparities in incomes and assets between poor and rich households as well as economically backward and advanced regions in the country.
That produced Bhutto’s socialism and consequent flight of capital from the country.
In the corporate world, the replacement of family managers by professional management has modernised corporate businesses, but the professionals’ entire focus on creating value for major shareholders has been the main obstacle in widening business and industrial ownership.
That explains so few investors and excessive speculative activity in a shrinking number of listed companies and floating stocks.
William Easterly’s book exposes “the technocratic illusion that poverty results from a shortage of expertise, whereas poverty is really about shortage of rights. The problem of emphasis on the problem of expertise makes the problem of rights worse… We have to reopen the debate on the rights of the poor”.
And he suggests that the greatest global debate of all should be on “conscious design of development by experts versus spontaneous solution by individuals”.
An objective analysis on technocrats’ role in the socio-economic development will help resolve mounting social and economic vulnerabilities.
