LAHORE: In any nation striving for progress, punctuality is more than a personal virtue; it is a marker of discipline, respect for others’ time and institutional efficiency. Yet this principle is routinely neglected in Pakistan.
When the prime minister or a chief minister calls a meeting of senior bureaucrats and arrives late, the delay has far-reaching consequences. Every wasted minute diminishes the productivity of officials tasked with solving citizens’ problems, slowing down the entire machinery of the state.
Equally frustrating is the frequent practice of summoning bureaucrats to remote venues, including political leaders’ residences, rather than holding meetings at the secretariat — the very workplace designed to facilitate governance. This not only wastes officials’ time but also drains state resources. If our leaders truly valued efficiency, they would travel to the secretariat themselves rather than mobilising an entire team of bureaucrats to meet them elsewhere.
Such practices raise uncomfortable questions about the capacity of Pakistan’s institutions. Frequent high-level meetings, often called at short notice, expose the weaknesses of the very organisations these bureaucrats lead. If our governance structure were robust, functioning institutions would resolve issues systematically, reducing the need for constant intervention from the top. Instead, bureaucrats are routinely micromanaged and, at times, directed to perform tasks that are not only misaligned with their core responsibilities but also legally questionable.
This style of governance amounts to a hidden tax on ordinary citizens. Decisions taken on a whim — even with good intentions — often backfire, resulting in economic losses, service delivery failures and institutional paralysis. Administrative orders, no matter how frequent or forceful, cannot substitute for competent, independent institutions. Indeed, a strong and accountable bureaucracy would be able to refuse unlawful instructions, even from the highest office.
One shining example of institutional independence is the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP). Despite relentless pressure from political leaders and business groups to slash interest rates, the SBP’s Monetary Policy Committee has maintained a prudent stance. This has helped stabilise the Pakistani rupee and build confidence in monetary policy. The SBP shows what is possible when a state institution is empowered to act independently and in the national interest.
Unfortunately, such examples are rare. Across the country, bureaucrats have frequently bent rules to accommodate political pressure, often with disastrous results. Consider the luxury housing schemes built on flood-prone land. Laws clearly prohibit construction in riverbeds, yet some officials, succumbing to influence or commercial incentives, allowed these projects to proceed. The result has been catastrophic: entire housing societies submerged, lives lost and public trust in government shattered.
Mismanagement is not limited to urban planning. When natural disasters strike, Pakistan’s administrative apparatus is often diverted to a single crisis, leaving other critical areas of governance to decay. During the recent floods, the bureaucracy was heavily mobilised, yet price control mechanisms collapsed, educational institutions stagnated and public healthcare became a rent-seeking enterprise rather than a public service.
The fundamental flaw lies in a governance model that prioritises control over institutional capacity-building. Instead of empowering bureaucrats to manage their departments with competence and integrity, leaders have chosen to centralise decision-making, often bypassing legal frameworks. This culture fosters dependency and undermines accountability.
Pakistan cannot afford to continue down this path. A country grappling with deep economic challenges, social unrest and a climate crisis requires strong, independent institutions more than ever. The lesson is clear: punctuality, respect for process and institutional empowerment are not minor administrative details; they are the foundation of good governance.
Until that lesson is learned, every delayed meeting, every unlawful order and every mismanaged disaster will stand as a stark reminder of a governance model that prioritises optics over substance — and citizens will continue to pay the price.
