THEY tried devolving it but the courts and coalitionists blocked them. They’ve been starving it for funds but it still hobbles along. Now they want to bring it to heel.

It has been this way for the Higher Education Commission (HEC) ever since the 18th Amendment devolved the federal role in education to the provinces two years ago.

The most recent manoeuvre was a federal notification placing the commission — ostensibly an autonomous body — under the auspices of the recently created Federal Ministry for Professional and Technical Training.

The whispers around town are that the constant harassment of the HEC is revenge for the degree verification controversy that elected members of parliament were subjected to from 2008 to 2010. The 18th Amendment made that a non-issue. It would not be surprising if the whole matter really did boil down to plain old vendetta politics. However, there are legal and political factors here which need exploring.

Whether the government has the authority to place an autonomous body (as per the Higher Education Ordinance, 2002) under a federal ministry without an act of parliament is a question better answered by a legal expert. Once the dust settles and all sides have taken a chance to review the latest move there may well be legal challenges.

There are perhaps more complicated politics at play than simply revenge for the fake degrees issue. Politics everywhere is about power and patronage. No polity is able to successfully abolish patronage entirely. Successful ones find ways to limit this through systems of checks and balances. That tussle between checked and unchecked power may explain a significant portion of what is going on with the HEC.

The University Grants Commission (UGC), the precursor to the HEC, was created in 1974 by an act of parliament. At the turn of the century, it was largely a sleepy organisation that doled out federal monies to public universities, handled degree verifications, transfer of student documents and other such things. It had very little regulatory influence on the academy. A federal authority with limited ability to police practices at public universities, most of which were run with local political influence over administrative and academic affairs. You can imagine how powerless the UGC was.

The HEC, more than anything else, represented a challenge to the system of patronage and unprofessionalism that had emerged in public universities under the benevolent shadow of the UGC. The HEC was endowed with the power to not only establish a regulatory framework, standards and a set of best practices for universities to follow, it was also given the teeth to enforce these by withholding funding from non-compliant public universities. Its power was simultaneously enhanced by the greater visibility of foreign scholarships as well as the university-ranking system.

Private universities, some of which were already moving towards international standards, grumbled about the added burden of reporting requirements and having to meet certain criteria, while public universities were shocked by interference from Islamabad. Initially, public universities and their employees responded with barely disguised indignity. Over time, however, a system started emerging. Seniority within your institution will be linked with your qualifications (degree), experience and work (publications, etc.) and not the whims of political influence. Your income will be linked with these measures.

Professors have to meet certain criteria before they will be allowed to supervise graduate work. When they do they will get paid extra for the commitment. A credit hour means X number of taught classroom hours. So many credit hours need to be completed before you can say you have a Bachelor’s degree, a Master’s degree or a doctorate. A system — flawed, perhaps — emerged that replaced the nepotism and ad hoc administration that existed before. Standards began developing.

Granted there have been some compelling criticisms of the focus on expansion (more universities, more PhDs, more publications, etc.) as opposed to improvement in quality in the sector. On that front, there has been no independent, empirical evaluation of the impact of the creation of the HEC on the overall quality of higher education.

At the time when the government considered devolving the commission, university leaders, who had vehemently opposed it only eight years before, lined up behind the HEC in unified support. They were now protected (to a certain degree) from political influence. They could refuse political appointments and blame the HEC. And when they did appoint an unqualified person, the HEC would come knocking and ask questions.

There had been a shift in the politics of power and patronage. This is why when devolution was on the table, provincial bureaucrats and politicians were looking forward to getting hold of the portfolio. Now some national politicians and bureaucrats will be rubbing their hands in glee. It is in their nature to want things under their control, rather than elsewhere.

There is no logical argument that the government has presented for placing the HEC under ministerial control. No one was consulted and no debate was had. It is difficult in such circumstances to label this move anything other than a blatant power grab; more influence, more patronage to dole out.

This is likely to be confused by the ‘province versus centre’ and ‘civilians versus establishment’ narratives that will most likely take hold in certain circles. After all, the HEC was created by a military dictator’s undemocratic regime.

It is not clear what the government’s long term intentions are with the HEC, yet. It is possible that we are coming to the end of an experiment in higher education policy, the central aspect of which was independence from political influence.

The writer is an Islamabad-based policy analyst.

asifsaeedmemon@gmail.com Twitter: @asifsaeedmemon