Powers of influence

The powers of influence can be of two kinds-overt and the unseen. These bases of power are used to exert power and to influence the methodology of working in society. Governance is a special case of that exertion of power and influence. In Pakistan, no one to my mind has ever tried to examine the basis of this use of influence.
An earlier article by me was titled 'The liability to persuasion' and the responsibility was squarely on the Secretary of the Federal government. The social scientists training in this country have imbibed the western system of quantification and have never bothered to examine the methods of influence.
The success or failure of governments depends on these two systems that have been aforementioned. The unseen ways that influence works has never been considered at any length. The others may have been described in opinion forms. The ultimate source of power is thus to be linked to these powers of influence.
Force is the crudest method that can be used and the power or force utilised is equal to the power and use of force by those who choose to take the law into their hands. The present case of use of force by a state agency is indicative of the power of the terrorist and this then becomes a special case. It is the most despicable form when used in ordinary work places.
Threats and bullying behaviour is almost always visible. The Musharaff government used NAB for this purpose and by now the use of such tactics by the then-PM Shaukat Aziz have been narrated. Personal suffered from idiotic statements like if you are not with us, then you are our enemy and the state's. Senior personal were removed from their jobs by prejudices that played with the loyalty factor. That is the ultimate that a tyrannical powerful person can and usually does.
Misplaced loyalty cannot be brought into the mainstream of economic thought. Criminal activity usually comes under this. But can this be controlled or managed now that the genie is out of the bag? Even democracy has taken on this role and one can indicate many such roles of institutions where threats and dire consequences are the normal and usual fare. Governments in a hurry usually have this problem, or institutions that come to the fore without a regular democratic basis.
The armed forces by the very nature of their work have to be centrally controlled and decisions go to the very top. The entire training is to get the people to give their life for their country and countrymen. That is the ultimate sacrifice. They are not trained for civilian work and do not understand the complexities of the social aspects of civil life and the compulsions that follow. The result is that the rule of the armed forces is then applied to civil governance with terrifying consequences.
The loss of East Pakistan can be attributed to the lone military functions where the West Pakistanis were allowed to use the East Pakistani market towards their own ends. The economic, political and social consequences were never understood. A much square peg in a very broad round hole was the result. Every time the saviors have come, Pakistan has lost a part of its country.
The complexity has been such. Governance as a result of Pakistan is not an easy matter and when the option has run out over time the use of force is imperative. That use of force will always leave deep wounds difficult to heal. Use of force in wars tends to be short-lived and usually ends up in a numbers game - so many of the enemy are killed and therefore the headcount enables one to state that the war is either won or well on the way to winning.
As a society develops, aesthetics and the rule of reason prevails over that country and organisations become more and more involved in other forms of influence. When status is thrown around and name dropping takes place, that is a way of influencing. In our society that is one way of pressurising a particular way of getting decisions. The military rulers used Presidential directives to get things done, the way they wanted to.
It was a simple, do it this way or get out. The democratic way is more subtle in as much as the directives do not follow but the political policymakers involve all kinds of personal to come and discuss issues and once the issues are discussed, then the matters are taken to their logical conclusion through a process of iteration, a far more involved way that allows decisions to be taken and absorbed by the doers of the policy. The procedure is never roughed up but the hurdles on the way are removed.
At the moment, in Pakistan, policies are roughed up by the individuals who take pleasure in their negative influence and who bottle up files only for some ulterior motives. Pakistan's bureaucracies, amongst others, have to be retooled for the purpose of understanding the negative and positive aspects of policy. I have used the plural form in the bureaucracy element because the reforms of Musharraf did the system much damage and now there is no one culture that prevails in the bureaucracy.
In fact, organisations now have that famous word that was associated with the Post offices, where the unclaimed letters were sent to the Dead Letter Office [DLO] for no further action. All that the lower functionary has to do is to raise innocuous and insolent maters on paper and the policy, otherwise useful, is taken to the graveyard. They start sending reminders and these reminders are then put up to the power black as indicative of insolence.
Let me however take you back to the power of influence in its positive format and not mention how the decision-making is perverted and was perverted by certain other telltale signs. There are occasions when the policymakers understand the charisma of each other and take decisions based on that charismatic magnetism that allows for trust and respect to be furthered.
That comes with a considerable amount of living experience and a reputation that one develops over time. Reputations in a pluralistic society do not come easily and there are always cynics and torturous individuals around that keep on bad mouthing even when they do not know the individual that they are talking about.
That is common in a society that has not come to terms with itself and wants aggrandisement at the cost of some one else. It is a particularly eunuch attitude that you tell the practitioner what to do when you yourself may never have done it that way. Take the sporting scene and one commentator added that the captaincy of Imran Khan left much to be desired. He himself had never played cricket. His responsibility levels never came into play.
I have digressed a bit for when a conceptualisation is done, examples do make the understanding more fundamentally easier. There are macro-levels of influence and micro considerations and if the two have to live together than a more reasoned way has to be followed. The influence factor is based on humans and the complexities that they bring to bear on a worldly situation.
Economists have really never grappled with this aspect of development and the impact that this has on the development process. The Civil Service to which one belonged was an institution in which mutual respect enabled policy makers to understand but alas over the years the individuals recruited by the FPSC left much to be desired.
The long terms result was that the bureaucracy had self-serving individuals in it and they forgot the cardinal principles of life and of governance. The end result is that they are found on the rubbish heap and the country has all kinds of mavericks without a single culture in positions of authorised responsibility.
Rhetoric is not going to get things done and that is a certainty. The political personal comings from their constituency have a different linkage with the rural areas and have a different need assessment of their areas. Suffice it to say that much is required to be done yet in this arena of credibility and how it has to go forward.
The ways of the west will not work and the concepts there and here are at variance. Try locating the variances. No country will develop you it has to be done here and by us. You can and are at liberty to take any technology but taking technology on its own will not help. Reason must prevail and not some diseased reasoning. Take it as it comes and reason on your own. Some introspection needed. Yes.