Pakistan is celebrating its 79th anniversary of independence. A long list of achievements fills us with pride. We survived existential threats just after independence and fought bravely to defend our freedom. We have become a formidable military power with nuclear weapons, missiles, and other technologies. We faced off against the best intelligence agencies and foiled their plans to snatch our freedom. Operation Bunyan Marsoos established Pakistan is an emerging power, and the Makkah Agreement stamped Pakistan is a net security provider for the Ummah.
Pakistan is viewed as a refined and trusted diplomatic power, determined to sustain global peace and order. Pakistan’s role in Iran-US war and leading the diplomacy at a critical time, when the world was on the verge of destruction, further consolidated our credentials. Now, Pakistan is considered a reliable player.
At the same time, Pakistan is entangled in multifaceted problems. The dream of a prosperous welfare state remains a dream. Bad governance, the mother of all problems, has derailed the dream. Why blame governance only? Governance determines whether a state is welfare-oriented, democratic, people-centric, or otherwise. How? Governance ensures justice and social justice, protects people from internal and external threats to life and wealth, and provides a safe environment for enjoying life. Failure of governance sabotages every plan, policy, and dream.
Unfortunately, Pakistan failed to develop a good governance system; instead, it moved in the opposite direction. Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi described this as the collapse of governance system. Let’s use Islamabad’s Safe City and signal-free mobility projects to understand why he concluded the governance has collapsed.
A few years ago, Pakistan spent billions of rupees on the Safe City programme and signal-free corridors with underpasses and flyovers. People were told these initiatives would make life easier. The process is still ongoing, and the same federal minister recently announced plans to build new underpasses and flyovers. However, after spending hundreds of billions on these programmes, the government installed check posts at major points. Check posts severely disrupted traffic flow and put hundreds of lives at risk.
Now, the question is: why did successive governments spend hundreds of billions on Safe City and signal-free corridors if they still have to install check points? Is the investment in Safe City and signal-free corridors a waste of public money? This clearly indicates a lack of planning, forecasting, and vision, which are prime ingredients of a collapsing governance system.
The state came up with the idea of creating smaller provinces or unis to revive governance. However, literature shows examples of large geographical areas developing rapidly while smaller areas worsen. The most prominent examples are from our neighbourhood: Xinjiang province of China and Afghanistan. Xinjiang is twice the size of Pakistan, but it is developing by leaps and bounds. While Afghanistan is smaller than Pakistan and has 34 provinces, it has higher poverty, food insecurity, health, and law and security challenges. These examples show size alone does not matter; governance matters. Xinjiang is developing due to China’s governance model.
Now the question is: What is China’s governance model that helps Xinjiang develop? China practices a people-centric governance model. It is based on the philosophy that people must be the focus of all policies and actions, and that the government must deliver welfare and a secure environment to the people.
However, China did not borrow or copy this model; it developed it. China developed systematically through efforts of successive generations and leaders. After its founding, China immediately began searching for a better model of governance. In the early 1950s, China identified three bottlenecks, the Three Evils: corruption (bribery, misuse of power, embezzlement of resources by officials), waste (spending public resources without planning), and bureaucracy (arrogant, inefficient, detached from people and the cause of other two evils). China deemed it necessary to address Three Evils to develop a governance system that spurs economic growth and improves people’s welfare.
Thus, the Party launched a comprehensive movement against Three Evils. The Party decided to permanently resolve the issue of bureaucracy and adopt a zero-tolerance approach to corruption and waste. To tackle evil of bureaucracy, China deployed Party officials at all levels to create a system of checks and balances. The Party implemented an anti-corruption policy and created mechanisms that have been fine-tuned and strengthened over time. Now, President Xi has intensified anti-corruption campaign. He is sparing no one, and every corrupt person must pay, regardless of their position in the Party or government. To control waste, China adopted a comprehensive planning and execution system. The process of developing Five-Year Development Plan illustrates the system and practice.
China developed a unique democratic model, “Whole Process People’s Democracy,” to maintain close, continuous contact with people and avoid bureaucratic detachment. China adopted the principle officials must live in society, not float above it, as articulated by Comrade Chen Yun.
China built a vibrant local government system. Local governments are central to decision-making. For any policy or plan, local governments’ input is sought, and appropriate inputs are incorporated. They are also highly empowered to take action and implement plans.
These factors, along with others, helped China create and practice a people-centric governance model, which has delivered for people and the country.
Pakistan can draw three major lessons from China’s experience. First, Pakistan will need to identify its own evils, as China did. Second, Pakistan should devise its own model of democracy based on ground realities, as China developed Whole Process People Democracy. Third, local governments are critical to implement people-centric governance.
In conclusion, Pakistan should focus on real issues, take concrete steps towards long-term solutions, and avoid slogans or short-term fixes. Otherwise, Pakistan will not be able to revive a collapsed system; problems will persist or deepen, and creating new provinces will not help.
We can learn from the failure of 18th Amendment and SIFC’s inability to deliver according to expectations and goals. The reason is one: Pakistan could not devise the right governance system.
