AS the federal government belatedly turns to filling a range of senior appointments in various government and semi-governmental organisations, it appears to have forgotten its own advice and promises. As reported in this newspaper yesterday, a pattern is emerging of the government selecting individuals for top posts who are past the age of retirement and whose services are either retained or hired on a contractual basis. That very practice was so fiercely criticised and opposed by the PML-N during the last PPP government that a senior PML-N leader Khawaja Asif moved the Supreme Court to help stop it. Now, the government is lamely defending its U-turn by claiming that while the PPP’s appointments were done on the basis of nepotism, cronyism and corruption, the PML-N is making its selections on merit and within the laid down criteria. Of course, since the eligibility criteria for certain posts have been specifically relaxed to allow individuals over the age of 60 to apply, the PML-N’s defence is weak at best.

What all of this unseemly manoeuvring comes down to is two things. One, governing through favourites. What exactly does the new Pakistan Tourism and Development Corporation head bring at the age of 65 that someone below the age of retirement cannot bring to the job? If the new managing director really does possess a unique skill set to manage some extraordinary challenge at the PTDC, why not tell the public what those are? Even where an attempt is made at giving some kind of explanation, it is scarcely credible. For example, perhaps the DG, Intelligence Bureau does have a reform agenda that only he can see through and which necessitated an extension in service — but what does that say about reforms themselves if they can only be pushed through by one individual? Surely, little of lasting effect can be achieved. Those are but two recent examples of a list that is growing worryingly long.

Two, the PML-N’s utter lack of interest in institutional and structural reforms. While the government denies that is true, it also claims that what is needed are quick results, which is another way of saying that the slow and painstaking work of nuts-and-bolts institutional reform can wait until the economic and security situation of the country is stabilised. All of this the country has heard before — and seen the results too. A growth spurt is engineered, the veneer of security is created and then, three to five years later, the game of illusions ends and the country has to bear the cost of the focus on short-term gains. It is not as if politicians as a group, including the present government, are unaware of the risks, but there is little pressure on them to choose the more responsible, and difficult, path.