What’s Problem: Elusive Governance, Political Cu…
A few years back, the 18th Amendment was introduced with the promise that devolution of power is necessary to solve the people’s problems. It was necessary to empower people and bring resources to the ground level to positively impact their lives. The devolution of power was promised through the establishment of strong local governments.
However, devolution stalled at the provincial level. Provincial governments refused to grant the promised autonomy to local governments. Moreover, local governments do not have financial autonomy at all, which is a prerequisite to empower them. For example, political parties at the provincial level use it to get maximum financial resources and autonomy, but refuse to devolve it to local governments. Therefore, instead of benefiting people and the country, it has added to problems. Now, it is on the verge of collapse. Many voices ask to roll back the 18th Amendment, and they are justified.
Now the debate has started about creating new provinces, and the size of provinces is portrayed as a problem, as devolution of power and local governments were portrayed before the 18th Amendment. However, before creating new provinces, there is a need to learn from the failure of the 18th Amendment. It is necessary to analyze the reasons for the failure of the 18th Amendment. There can be many reasons, but the most prominent ones were governance and political culture. Thus, there is a need to first understand these before venturing into creating new provinces.
What is governance? There are different ways to define governance, but for me, “governance is an art and a science for satisfying people’s needs, building institutions to protect their interests and life, and keeping people’s aspirations or dreams alive. Governance is a basic ingredient of state-building and sustaining it; rather, it shoulders the existence of the state. Why? Because it ensures justice and social justice, provides security, and protects people from injustice and security threats. It holds true from ancient times to modern statehood. Hence, it is used to measure a country’s success and failure.
Over time, humans have developed different models of governance. In modern history, there are three prominent models: Western, socialist, and empathy-based (Islamic) models. The Western model, based on Liberal democracy, prefers democratic governance, which hinges on elections and accountability. It works through the slogan “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Unfortunately, over time, this slogan and accountability began to weaken, and elections alone remain the main component. Moreover, manipulation of the election process and the use of money further weaken the system, as marginalized people get pushed out of the system. Popular slogans, identity, ethnicity, and hate become the driving force.
The socialist model is based on the slogan of people-centric governance and the whole-process people’s democracy. People-centric governance means all policies and actions must be people-oriented, and outcomes must serve the people and bring positive change in their lives. The whole process of people’s democracy means that the interaction between the state and the people is continuous, not just at election time. Moreover, the merit and character of governance actors are determining factors to ensure people-centric governance. This model was invented in China and is practiced there, where it has achieved remarkable success.
The Islamic model hinges on three fundamental pillars: empathy, people, and accountability, in accordance with Sharia law. Empathy and people must be the focus of all policies and actions at all levels. People’s say must matter at all levels. Accountability must be ensured at all levels, without any discrimination. Famous incidents of Hazarat Umer (RA) and Hazarat Ali provide the true essence of accountability and governance. Lastly, the actors of governance must have the highest virtuous character and should not engage in any form of prejudiced behavior. Unfortunately, it is not practiced anywhere in the contemporary world.
From the above comparison, it can be inferred that despite differences in philosophy and actions, the goal of each model remains the same: to serve the people. Serving the people is the key to sustaining power and the state.
Unfortunately, Pakistan does not follow any of these models. Pakistan has its own style of governance, which is a mix of everything, and we cannot say exactly what it is. However, the most prominent features of our governance are relationship-based networks, misuse of power, and a money- and power-driven system. The system is devised through complicated webs of laws, rules, and requirements. It makes the system prone to corruption and rent-seeking behavior, exclusiveness, and clubs of interest groups, which have become common elements. The system operates through money in exchange for favors, business deals, or power and influence, and is facilitated by relationship-based networks.
It has given rise to a new type of governance model: elusive governance. There is no systematic way to plan and execute the plans. Plans are being made for short-term gains, not with proper planning or a futuristic approach. Haphazardness has become the most prominent feature of governance. People and people’s interests are largely missing. Let’s try to understand it with an example from Islamabad, the seat of government.
A few years ago, the Pakistani government initiated the Safe City program. The government spent billions of rupees to complete the Safe City program. It was sold as a program to secure the people. After that, a new government came to power and initiated the construction of signal-free corridors by building underpasses and flyovers. The government again spent billions of rupees to build the signal-free corridors. People were told it was being done to serve them by facilitating mobility. The process is still going on.
After spending hundreds of billions on the Safe City program and signal-free corridors, the government one day decided to install check posts at major points. The installation of check posts severely disrupts traffic flow and puts the lives of hundreds of people at risk across the city every day. Now, a common-sense question is: why do governments spend hundreds of billions on Safe City and signal-free corridors if they have to install check posts? Is the investment in Safe City and signal-free corridors a total waste of public money?
Economic governance is another classic example. For decades, Pakistan’s economy has been on the decline. Instead of fixing the problems, Pakistan is busy with eyewash or ad hoc adjustments. Patchwork is being done in the name of reform. Therefore, problems still persist, and businesses struggle to flourish. Inefficiency, time-consuming processes, and rent-seeking behavior are deteriorating the business environment. These factors have also shaken the trust of investors and foreign investors. Therefore, Pakistan is unable to fully exploit the potential of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). CPEC has the potential and the ingredients to turn around the economy and put Pakistan on the path to sustainable development.
On the other hand, the political culture of Pakistan does not follow any global standards. Dynasty or bloodline politics is a prime feature of our political culture. There is no merit system or structure that can produce refined politicians. Party leadership is inherited without any political or governance experience, only on the basis of genes. Even at lower levels, MNAs, MPAs, or actor of local governments want their kids as their replacement.
In this context, the question is, will creating new provinces solve problems? Absolutely not. In the prevailing situation, the size of provinces will not matter; Pakistan can create as many provinces as it wants. Because globally, there are many examples where big provinces are delivering. For example, Xinjiang is twice the size of Pakistan, but it is growing leaps and bounds. Thus, a change in size will not fix it automatically; to fix the problem, Pakistan will have to address shortcomings in governance and the political system.
What will matter is how Pakistan structures its governance system and refines the country’s political culture. Unfortunately, we have reached a point where reforms will not serve the purpose. There is a need for a complete overhaul of the system. There is a need to overhaul the bureaucracy, political culture, businessmen, forces, and society. Books can be compiled on how to do it and what should be done.
However, there are two fundamental areas that will define success or failure. First, the capacity and character of governance actors. The actors must have capacity, but most importantly, character (integrity, will to serve, dedication, patriotism, empathy, and belief in equality, the rule of law, harmony, people’s rights, common prosperity). Second, ensure merciless accountability according to Islamic principles. Otherwise, an elusive governance model will haunt Pakistan, and the creation of new provinces will not help.
In conclusion, the rulers must present themselves as role model. Thus, they should exhibit the highest standards of character and present themselves as accountable at all levels. The rulers must have one goal: to serve people and take care of every creature under their rule. As Hazrat Umar (RA) said, if a dog dies of hunger on the banks of the Euphrates River, he would be held accountable by God. It means the ruler has the duty to ensure social justice to everyone, care for the needs and security of people and creatures, have a sense of self-accountability, and be accountable to everyone, and most importantly to Allah.
