THE state of governance disarray over the years has triggered a cycle where each power player tries to legitimise their control and consolidate power by using a different tactic: empower this party, disempower that one; remove this man, install that one; empower local governments, disempower provincial governments — in fact, let’s try the other way around — disempower LGs, empower provincial governments; form this government, overturn that one; pass this law, shelve that one. The list goes on. The result is a system in constant flux — calculated, yet chaotic — and, not least, exceedingly expensive.

The cost extends far beyond transactional politics and coercive tactics typically employed to exert command and control; those are just peanuts. The real cost lies in the neglect of systems, structures and institutions established by these disoriented actors that ultimately turn into white elephants — abandoned with every shift in power. The examples are countless: LGs empowered under Musharraf’s rule stand ineffectual today; the civil service has been subjected to innumerable reform attempts; parallel authorities and task forces are created to suit those in power; planning functions are shifted between ministries and ad hoc bodies; and accountability mechanisms have been weaponised rather than institutionalised. The result is multiple parallel systems marked by overlapping mandates and competing power centres that, rather than complementing one another, vie for authority and resources. This results in a drain on limited public funds.

The inefficiencies created and introduced through these systems continue to burden the state in the form of rising salaries, pensions and other operating expenditures. Operationalising or keeping these parallel structures afloat escalates the cost of governance, leaving little room for focus on meaningful development.

Moreover, such systems and institutions are often instrumentalised or misused by power actors to keep any dissenting voices under check. This, in effect, crowds out any room for significant opposition or participatory politics, keeping power concentrated in the hands of a select few. The presence of multiple bodies with overlapping mandates further creates more entry points for political interference, thereby heightening the risk of manipulation for partisan gains.

Those in power must clear the mess created by previous regimes.

The damage inflicted over the years due to this confused state of governance must now be addressed with urgency. Having stepped back from the brink of war, it is time to turn inward and focus on economic recovery and building systemic effectiveness for sustainable economic development. We must confront the faults in our systems and strengthen institutional capacities to withstand external shocks, while ensuring greater efficiency.

In the greater national interest, those in power must clear the mess created by previous regimes. As a priority, they need to consolidate and streamline existing governance structures to reduce institutional redundancies and enhance coordination across all tiers of government. The practice of establishing parallel bodies, task forces, and authorities — often to bypass existing institutions — must be curtailed to avoid duplication of mandates and wastage of public resources. Instead, efforts should focus on strengthening core institutions and defining clear lines of authority. After proper identification based on thorough technical needs’ assessments, several of these bodies should either be dissolved or integrated to form a single autonomous body with strong resistance to political pressure.

Administrative hie­rarchies across provinces and districts remain highly fragmented and inconsistent, both in structure and function. This fra­gmentation is ref­lec­t­­ed in the uneven distribution of responsi-bilities, varying chains of command, and differing institutional setups, often within the same sector. Such disparities create confusion in implementation, blur lines of authority, and make it difficult to coordinate policies or monitor outcomes effectively. Standardising administrative frameworks through clearly defined roles, consistent vertical reporting lines and well-coordinated institutional models would significantly improve the quality of governance and accountability.

Lastly, governance structures must be insulated against instability and interference. No competing political actors should be able to use distinct bodies to serve their own agendas. There should be clear rules and boundaries to ensure that government institutions serve public interest, not individual agendas.

True legacy lies in fixing broken systems, not using them for personal gain and embellishment.

The writer is a senior research associate at the SDPI, Islamabad. The views are the writer’s own and do not reflect the SDPI’s position.

X: @AroojWDar

Published in Dawn, June 4th, 2025