The country’s failures some partial, most total are clearly visible. Governance sinks as corruption soars. Indices of economic stagnation, poverty, low literacy and educated unemployment are shameful even by third-world standards. Hope is fading as five million new mouths arrive each year, while agricultural land and water resources dwindle. Partition was a distant nightmare for some, but the future will be apocalyptic for all.
We focused on peripheral matters as the waters rose to chin height. Our rich and powerful rulers, with odd exceptions, are solely to blame for the crumbling state. Admiration for Lee Kuan Yew and Mahathir Mohammad was confined to the cameras. Amazingly, these failures were overseen by nearly 20 presidents/governors-general, two dozen prime ministers, 12 elected parliaments and numerous chief justices. Most rulers were content jousting like Don Quixote to display movement.
Clearly, elections are not the answer to the country’s problems because the mindset of rulers is similar. Is there a solution to redress the situation? Yes, there is the perfect out-of-the-box solution from the state of Utopia, but it is impractical for the pure land. However, a dream today may provide the answer tomorrow and, as Conceicao Andrade rightly said, “Imagination is the essence of life".
Please note that our constitution, statutes and rules are splendidly impartial and objective in text, but the mischief begins with the actual operation of these laws. The operation of the laws and their application to specific cases is the job of appointed judges, bureaucrats, technocrats and professionals. For obvious reasons, those appointed are not always the most competent or honourable choices. With a few exceptions, the chosen ones bow to the rulers’ whims.
Devising and implementing sound policies demands genius-level intelligence, deep patience, the ability to withstand strangulating pressures and personal deprivation. Rulers, therefore, have seldom performed. When pressure mounts, they turn populist, hoping that demagoguery will win them public support. Loss of popularity means loss of personal discretion along with its accompanying benefits. No wonder the political, economic and security conditions in the land have spun out of control. A common faith and a written constitution were of no help. Nothing is sacrosanct anymore. Emptiness is pervasive.
To survive in good shape for the next 50 years, with a population nearing 400 million, now looks impossible. The ‘system’ is not just failing; it is almost afloat belly-up. Structural reform of governance entities cannot be delayed any longer; otherwise, we face the abyss. Another 18th Amendment-type measure would drown us quicker. Good governance is only possible by reducing discretion and enhancing accountability.
In Thailand, there was a think tank consisting of 101 members which assembled to offer policy solutions during times of serious political crisis. Such an innovative and revolutionary proposal could be considered here to ensure that the best options are chosen for policies, programmes and projects. Could Pakistan turn to such umpires to choose the best? A game theory. A publicly acknowledged ‘Committee of 99’ (in deference to the 99 attributes of the Almighty), whose advice on appointing regulators would carry great weight. An impartial group could select the ‘99’ electronically.
The regulators, in fact, are the powerful ones who shape and implement law and policy. This is where the state meets the people. These regulators include the superior courts, the Election Commission, the ombudsman, state corporations, the FBR, investigating agencies like NAB and FIA, the Public Service Commission and Services Tribunal, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Monopoly Control Commission, vice chancellors’ selection bodies, sectoral regulatory authorities and their provincial counterparts. In reality, all these agencies constitute the real power of the state and the quality of governance largely depends upon them. Since they are both the spine and eyes of the state, they must function strictly under the law and remain under no obligation to anyone for appointing them.
This ‘Committee of 99’ in the imaginary Utopia would remain the ‘conscience of the nation’, consisting of impartial persons of acknowledged brilliance and integrity who, under oath, would offer expert recommendations to select the regulators. Till such time as squabbling politicians, lobbyists and bureaucrats arrive at an acceptable consensus on major issues, a limited caucus of ‘99’ honourable men and women from diverse fields could informally function as a think tank. The primary responsibility of the 99 would be to offer advice to the government and opposition on critical non-elective appointments and on important policies in the executive, judiciary and legislative spheres. (Selection of individuals for civil awards would also be their responsibility.)
If ever a similar convention were to develop here, the ‘99’ honourable members would represent different professional groups from business and industry, engineering, law, medicine, accounting, media, academia and religious scholarship, as well as retired civil and military personnel. Their opinions would carry more weight than those of political parties, even though the advice would be non-binding.
It may be mentioned that, even in a non-Utopian setting, all state-funded development programmes and projects should be prioritised according to their economic and social viability and their fair distribution among provinces. To temper absolute discretion in approving projects and policies, there is a pressing need to include impartial experts from outside the government in economic and financial decision-making bodies such as the central/provincial development working parties, the ECNEC, and the Economic Coordination Committee of the Cabinet. Had such a system existed earlier, the financial atomic bomb of the IPPs Policy of 1994 and the thermal energy projects that followed would not have devastated our economy.
This imaginary prescription is no more than an informal advisory body requiring no constitutional or statutory amendments. The alternative is a hybrid version, and my all-time favourite remains General Park Chung Hee of South Korea (1961–79); just study the remarkable transformation of the country under his rule.
The writer has served as the chief secretary of KP, Sindh, AJK, and GB, as well as the chairman of Wapda. He can be reached at: [email protected]
