WHEN the PTI government was ousted through a vote of no-confidence, Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari exclaimed: “Welcome to purana Pakistan.” Little did we know that the clock would be turned back a little more than desired and we would end up in a very purana Pakistan that closely resembled the Gen Zia era when basic rights were constantly under threat, general elections remained elusive and the will of one man became the law.

Caretaker set-ups are a brainchild of the same era. Gen Zia introduced the idea, which was later endorsed by political governments and passed into law. The reason given then was that a sitting government could manipulate elections in its favour, and therefore, a caretaker government should conduct the elections.

This argument is faulty because a caretaker set-up can be used to engineer elections even more as it is much easier to manipulate hand-picked individuals than elected ones. The fact that by-elections take place without any such set-up further highlights the redundancy of caretaker governments.

Ironically, it seems redundant in either case, ie, when an electoral body is fully empowered and independent and when it is not. When the electoral body tasked with conducting the elections is fully empowered, the constitution of the land guarantees enough powers for it to go about its business independently, and when it is not fully empowered — which is often the case in Pakistan — then a caretaker set-up would naturally be under the influence of the same power centre that controls the election commission.

Everything legal is not legitimate.

Some might argue that if the concept was so useless, why did no elected government get rid of it through appropriate legislation? On the contrary, the recent PDM government enhanced the powers of the caretaker set-up. One can only comment that everything legal is not legitimate and that everything legitimate is not necessarily legal. Also, there is a built-in conflict of interest in politicians empowering the caretaker government, as these set-ups usually allow their lesser politically active relatives to enjoy the perks of being in government if they are hand in glove with the powers that be.

Now let us come to the caretaker alternative, keeping in mind the ground realities of the country. To explore that, we must consider the following questions: who are the people with hands-on experience in running the government? The civil servants obviously. They say bureaucracy is the steel frame of government and composed of unglamorous, boringly dressed individuals who do not have guns or golf courses under their sway — but who do make important decisions and keep things from going haywire. Imagine if an empowered bureaucracy had been in place at the time of the IPP agreements; we would not have been crying foul over the botched deals today.

The secretary of a ministry who happens to be a bureaucrat is the person that advises the politically appointed minister in running the ministry. The secretary in turn is advised by his whole team comprising seasoned individuals who have spent a lot of time dealing with government affairs in their career. Most of this consultation is written and very well recorded, because that is how the bureaucracy works.

So, in the absence of a political government, like at the end of the term of an elected one, the powers of the minister’s office should be delegated to the secretary. Since the individual has a career spanning decades and a reputation to protect, he will not comply with illegal orders. He remains accountable even after his stint is over as he would still be part of the civil service, unlike the selected caretaker ministers who are answerable neither to the public nor to any institution.

Similarly, the powers of the chief minister should be delegated to the provincial chief secretary. The highest political offices should remain vacant till the elected representatives of the people occupy them. This arrangement would also ensure the sanctity of the highest office of the government. Just like the army chief or the chief justice of the Supreme Court cannot be selected from a pool of absolutely random individuals, the highest political offices in the country should stay vacant till the representatives of the people are elected. One can argue that any outgoing political government will appoint civil servants of their choice in such positions but since the Election Commission is fully empowered to make transfers and postings, this can be easily reversed.

Lastly, a question for all readers. Who is more likely to make better caregivers, those who actually are selected, trained and groomed for such a role over the course of their careers, or any Tom, Dick and Harry selected on the basis of individual loyalties and sycophancy? I rest my case.

The writer is a former civil servant.
syedsaadatwrites@gmail.com
Twitter: @SyedSaadat55

Published in Dawn, September 8th, 2023