The next 50 years: More of the same?

Business Recorder has come a long way: from an 'also read' tabloid to a 'must read' twenty pager. During this 50 year journey it saw the rise and fall of several rivals. It also successfully maneuvered the 'game changers' of the day: government advertising and newsprint quota. It held its head high. It brought in professionalism. The readership grew.
It seems to have been a less glorious period for Pakistan. A singular dearth of vision led to the loss of its biggest province. The Constitution survived, buttressed by 21 amendments (in comparison, over its 226 years the US Constitution has been amended 27 times, including the ten amendments constituting the Bill of Rights) but Democracy, even our version of it, was made to play hide and seek. And our slide down almost all global indices - from transparency to human rights to competitiveness - read like the Chronicles of a Death Foretold.
During this period the State, whose conceptual framework was firmly rooted in the 1935 Government India Act (until that zephyr of 18th Amendment - even if it was unmindful of the 'change management' imperative) refused to go against its grain. It 'managed' the provinces through the All Pakistan services, controlled the use (if not ownership) of all resources, and until the re-robed Chaudhry court started to assert itself, it could always count on the law of necessity - Kelsen as interpreted by Justice Munir.
The State was all over the place - from school text books to rewriting history. It even arrogated to itself the right to be the arbiter of a citizen's faith.
Ironic, then, that its power frayed at the edges. Its writ weakened, almost in direct proportion to the travelling distance from Islamabad. The greatest casualty was a systemic weakening of institutions. Army alone retained its shining armour, even as it faced charges of being bigger than the State.
The menu of disillusionment offers a veritable smorgasbord. Hard to choose from. But if I must, I would choose two: erosion of societal values and growing inequalities.
To progress as a nation its citizens have to share certain inalienable values. No economic might, no nuclear prowess, no health potion, not even the miracle of good governance, can substitute for certain basic norms and values that society, as a whole, believes in and is willing to make sacrifices for. Rule of law, tolerance and respect for the rights of others, insaaf and fighting for the just cause, respect for the weak and succor to the disadvantaged.... You take away the quintessential value system and you have a 'dog eat dog' disposition. Children are encouraged to use unfair means in exams, eschew truth, hanker after 'lucrative' government jobs. Being honest becomes a pejorative term. Sifarish seeps in. Good governance becomes bad politics. The whole concept of meritocracy is jettisoned.
Are we becoming too selfish a nation? I come first?
It is now an established fact that the full potential of a country cannot be unlocked when there are glaring inequalities: personal, regional or gender-based. Every government claims to act in the name of the poor and the downtrodden; it says it will reduce inter and intra-regional disparities; it promises rights to women. And yet we end up with more poor (conveniently, percentages are used to mask the growth in total numbers), access to education has become more challenging for the girl-child, and Pakistan has certainly become a two-speed economy.
The good news is that the average reader of Business Recorder will have to walk several miles to come across someone who is worse off today than he was fifty years ago. No, there is no real contradiction between this and the earlier statement of the number of poor growing. The sprawling, tax-unencumbered, informal economy, not the remittances, has made the number of affluent grow. Conspicuous consumption happily subsists with rank poverty that cling-wraps it.
How did we come to this sorry pass? There are many worthies to compete for the title of the worst offender. But as a minor incident in the lives of others I must accept my share of the blame. Yes, alibis can be found, but the bottom line remains unassailable. 'Where did we go wrong?' is a question that my colleagues and I often ask. After all, in a manner of speaking, we controlled the levers - from Planning to Finance to Education to Health - and trust me, it wasn't because our heart was not in the right place. Also, quite a few were as good as they come in competence and integrity; some wore the OSD'ship as a badge of honour.
Good people trapped in a bad system? Too few to make a difference? The competence-differential between the senior and junior tiers of bureaucracy? The sheer enormity of the challenge? Or, the villain of the piece: didn't have enough power?
It is interesting how people out of power always bemoan that they did not have enough power when they were in power. Ask Musharraf.
It is also instructive how transient the 'policies' of the Titans have been: Ghulam Mohammad's one unit, Ayub's architecture of democracy, Bhutto's capture of the 'commanding heights of the economy' (that included flour and ghee mills!), Musharraf's devolution and 'eliminating the Deputy Commissioner'. Jury is still out on Zia's theocratic incursions and the Catholicism of Sharif's privatization mantra.
It appears an appreciation of the power-policy coefficient eludes Pakistan's leadership. While making policy is the province of those in power, power alone cannot lead to durable policies. There is a secular difference between using power to develop a coalition of interests and using power to rule through fiat. The difference is between leading and commanding, between building consensus and fearing dissent, between stakeholder ownership and the received wisdom. Judicious use of power builds institutions; fiat destroys them. And what defines genuine power is that ultimate red line: no compromise on basic principles and morality, no matter how high the cost. A wise Prince will also not look askance upon effective checks and balances. This ensures justice, and makes his policies last.
Civil Service is an essential element of the power apparatus. While it will be facile to argue that the bureaucracy doesn't deserve its less than savoury reputation, it makes little sense to throw the baby out with the bath water. You can't expect someone to perform well in the hailstorm of abuse and mistrust, compounded by an aura of insecurity that disincentivises decision making.
It will be educative to see why the Army succeeds where the Civil Service fails. It is not about compensation per se - yes, they have the Defence Societies but several civil servants too have several plots. It is about asymmetry between authority and compensation. It is not about quality of human resource - at entry levels Civil Service is much better endowed. It is about constant re-tooling and proactive career planning. It is not about the Army Act vs the Civil Servants Act. It is about how effectively you use the code.
But what really distinguishes the two is that the Army manages its own affairs. The Civil Service does not. What could be more telling than to have non-civil servants heading the Public Service Commission that selects civil servants, and the National School of Public Policy that trains them? Rules of Business, mandated by the Constitution, become farcical when the Secretary serves entirely at the pleasure of the Minister. Establishment Division can hardly do any succession planning when it is not allowed to find the right man for the right job.
Unless we revitalize the Civil Services we are destined to suffer more arbitrariness, more government through fiat, more poor governance. The world has moved on. You can hold civil servants accountable without amputating them. We need to put in place a proper Performance Management System (along with a forced bell curve to sift the really good from just average). We need to give reasonable space to the Civil Service to manage its affairs.
So, will the next 50 years be more of the same? I don't think so. Not for the Nation; not for Business Recorder. Not only are people beginning to find 'voice', they are also finding ways to be heard. In ways that are hard to articulate people are somehow putting the pressure on. A safe majority in the Assembly is no longer the ticket to completion of the term. Perform or perish seems to be the message. This augurs well for Government's accountability to the people, even if the road is long and full of pitfalls. But, as Kafka put it, life is more than a Chinese puzzle.
With the advances in technology, that make news stale before it can go to press, I see Business Recorder going back- in- time to a four-pager, with comments and analyses migrating to blogosphere, or some such variant. Hope BR becomes the must-go-to search engine for business and finance in Pakistan. Good luck.
Rules of Business, mandated by the Constitution, become farcical when the Secretary serves entirely at the pleasure of the Minister.