It is necessary to state at the outset that this is a generic and strategic analysis of the Reform Process in the context of a Nation State, and an endeavour to apply it to a view, widely and generally held by civil society, that there is a general failure of Reforms in Pakistan. This failure has been amply elaborated upon on several occasions and piecemeal solutions suggested but it must, however, be appreciated that a successful Reform Process does not come into being without a strategic consideration of the phenomena and the fundamental pre-requisites for it to be instituted in full.
A successful Reform Process is generally constituted by two main elements i.e. an effective Governance System and a high quality and relevant Reform Agenda.
Governance System.
A generic analysis of an effective Governance System would make apparent the following constituent pre-requisites for it to be established and operate successfully:
A. A process to determine an appropriate set of objectives for the organization in question, as a whole as well as at each level, and more importantly to reach a consensus on them.
B. Systems and processes to achieve these objectives.
C. A framework to ensure the successful operation of these systems and processes. This needs elaboration. It includes the institution of the necessary organizational structures, a clear statement of responsibilities and consequent accountabilities, a complimentary delegation and distribution of authority and resource, a clear delineation between the various levels of the organization, the assured operation of a sharp boundary between Executive Action and a strong function to Overview and Redirect it, and finally provisions which promote merit and competence and decisively reject marginal performance and deviant behaviors. In other words a framework converts an amorphous collection of people, ostensibly engaged in a single or set of activities, into an effective organization operating with clarity, with the ability of monitoring itself through appropriate checks and balances, focused on the achievement of its objectives with integrity and transparency. Such a framework, very importantly, needs to exist at both the very macro as well as the micro level.
D. Competence and Responsible behaviors. It is obvious that to, determine high quality Agendas with consensus and establish the systems and processes and the framework, it would require both professional and organizational competence. Unless a critical mass of such competence exists at the different levels of any human endeavor it is impossible to expect effective Governance and Reform.
E. It has to be recognized that every human endeavour has an inbuilt sense of vested interest emanating from sentiments ranging from, "protecting turf", "professional arrogance and independence" to more base ones such as "protecting corruption and nepotism", "marginal performance" and "predominant vested interests". It can therefore be expected that conditions for Good Governance cannot be achieved with full effect unless an external legitimate influence is not active to overview.
F. Governance in any entity, whether social, economic or political generally sustains itself only if it exists in a continuum and cascades, from a beginning to an end point. To explain with an example Governance in a public sector entity would be dependent upon a cascade down of standards from the relevant Department/Ministry, which in turn is influenced by standards in the Government as a whole, and ultimately the mandate set out and monitored by the State. In the Private Sector it begins with the mandate set out by the shareholders and relevant corporate statutory legislation and ends on the shop / office floor with the Board, Executive leadership and line and supervisory management in between. Governance can only be successfully established and more importantly sustained in a continuum of the necessary Governance standards. Any attempt to establish Governance in isolation will be incomplete (as many corporate leaders co-opted into the Public Sector have learnt to their ultimate dismay) lasting only till the special circumstances establishing it are eventually removed. The experience may however be different, as an exception, in case vested interests around are not strong enough which can only be in the case of marginal organizations and therefore of immaterial importance to the overall situation.
Reform Agenda
The second essential part of an effective Reform process is the presence of a high quality, relevant and credible agenda for Reform. A consideration of the current state of affairs, generally held by civil society, would give a fair estimate of the enormity of the task confronting Pakistan. It is not the scope of this dissertation to present a recommended Agenda, as there can be many alternatives equally effective, and secondly to do so would need multidimensional expertise not possible for a single proposer. However, two major common factors will have to characterize any Agenda based on a realistic evaluation of the situation - it will have to be fundamental and not incremental, and comprehensive not partial in its scope and nature. A second part of this aspect, closely linked, would be the capacity to build up credible and game changing agendas, and to acquire or create the financial, human and organizational resource necessary to successfully implement the Agenda. A clear reason for the current failure is the significant inadequacy in both areas, and therefore would need to be rectified as a priority.
It is also not the intention to evaluate performances of different Governments, (as several Governments including the current one have attempted reform and also succeeded in pockets) nor to consequently politicize this objective debate and deviate from the necessity to confront this issue as a National one.
The fact that Reform has been attempted and has been successful in pockets but the cumulative position remains grossly inadequate, is a clear indication that Reform has not been sustainable and conditions (Governance and Agenda) for a comprehensive and sustainable Reform have not been obtainable over the history of independent Pakistan. It is therefore inevitable to re-position our Reform effort against this background and apply a model Governance System which shakes us out of our historical inertia by a strongly deliberated action, which if not done sustainable and quality progress will continue to elude us.
Such a re-positioning will need to be based on an objective evaluation of the current situation. This clearly indicates a few glaring generalizations which characterize our existing situation, developed over our political history.
A macro framework and a continuum of good standards does not exist. Power is characteristically concentrated in the top echelons of the Executive neither drawn from nor shared with the State, nor delegated down to the local level. The very essence of Good Governance which is checks and balances at all levels, the residence of authority and resource where it is required, with clear responsibilities and accountabilities, is present only on paper. A very relevant analogy can be drawn from the Corporate Sector, or for that matter from any other form of organized human endeavour, as the phenomenon is generically similar. Governance always becomes an issue in the presence of an overly powerful Central (Chief) Executive which is characteristically and consequentially accompanied by a weak and compliant Board, and a deliberately placed line management typified by average caliber and poor potential incapable of significantly influencing or intellectually challenging the power base. This results in decision making and authority to securely concentrate at the top, a natural tendency for Agendas to deviate from the designated track and a perpetuation of mediocrity and marginal behavior, or in other words conditions are established for the facilitation of vested interests and the dismantling of responsible leadership and management.
The system so developed has, strengthened compromise and to support party political interest and personal vested interest as opposed to ensuring objective tough decisions to strengthen the State, and has failed to ensure Government for all, to produce competence and professional action and behaviors, and given minimal opportunity to the Constituencies and Offices of the State to establish a strong enough oversight. This in turn, as would be natural, has given comfortable room to corruption, nepotism and acceptance of marginal performance to take root firmly.
If the model for National Governance (ie, a continuum starting from the top and cascading down) presented here is accepted, any Reform of the present status would require first of all a new consideration of the various Constituencies and Offices of the State. The most important, of these, are the people of Pakistan who can elect and mandate Governments through a fair and transparent Electoral Process followed by the Parliament, the National Constitution, the Office of the President of the Republic, the Superior Judiciary, and various other Apex Constitutional Offices. Clearly the roles performed by each have not collectively been able to enforce the competence and the macro framework required for good Governance.
It is important to discover why this has been so. This may have been due to the existing roles, which may be generally inadequate and also lack the effective means to enforce mandated roles, or the will to effectively use the means which may be available and are adequately present even in their the currently defined roles, and therefore the existing dispensation responsible for shaping our National Governance requires another look in this context. Interventions by the State (or the Army) in the past have been labeled as disruptive to the development of Democracy. Agreed that Army intervention maybe so but the important question not asked is whether State intervention is harmful for Democracy or persistent bad Governance. A view of the evolution of Pakistan's political history has unfortunately shown a bias towards the former view and dismissed the latter possibility which unfortunately has been the root cause of the problem. This is due to a pervasive vested interest. Secondly such interventions have also lost credibility as they have deviated mid-stream from the original objectives of the intervention, also by becoming susceptible to vested interest and consequently failed to redirect and reposition National Governance positively on a sustainable basis. As a result whereas conditions may have improved temporarily in the tenure of the intervention, they spring back to the same or even cumulatively worse position once it ends.
It is essential therefore that any reconsideration must result in the assurance of the following attributes in the role of the State and its constituents and as a consequence of the Government, on a sustainable basis:
The State which has:
- A clear mandate to enforce competence and a macro - framework for a successful Governance System, in the Executive arm of Government.
- With the ability to ensure a system of checks and balances and the potential ability to monitor and censure Governments and,
- Finally have the effective means and therefore the capability to enforce its mandated role.
The Government which has:
- The institution of a strong macro framework for good Governance, with the appropriate systems, processes, competence and professional expertise to potentially enable it to formulate valid Policies and Agendas and the capacity to execute them effectively and transparently. This can happen in two ways. Firstly by the institution of a constitutionally sanctioned and selected technocratic and professional Government or by achieving an electoral process which significantly improves Governance in a consequently elected Government.
Fundamental to the above two sets of attributes is the recognition of the differences in the roles of the various Constituencies, and the consequent inevitability of their separation from each other with commensurate authority, and most importantly that the occupants of these Constituencies may need to be drawn by different methods (selection, nomination and election) from different segments of the body politic and civil society of the Nation. More specifically this exercise to reposition Governance has to:
1. Review the existing dispensation, to evaluate whether appropriate provisions already exist to achieve these attributes and if so what is required to enforce them more faithfully than in the past, and if not what new ones are required.
2. Recognize correctly the nature of the change required in the context of our situation, which is characterized by a persisting poor economic and social emancipation arising from poverty, low literacy and poor health, a society with a powerful feudal component and as a consequence a weak and subjective electoral system which provides no or very little entre for a progressive and successful evolutionary process to take root.
3. Recognize the urgency for the change to restore the increasing lag between Pakistan and comparable countries and its rightful position for trade and political influence in the mainstream comity of Nations.
4. Assure that the critical mass of the change is comprehensive (a continuum of Governance) and simultaneous, to assure its sustainability thereafter through a reformed evolutionary process of Government.
5. It must therefore, challenge the traditional Parliamentary System, which over history has failed to give good Governance and consider alternatives suited to the fundamental shift we require to meet the challenges of our specific situation cumulatively obtained over our unusual political history. Test vigorously other constitutional models including one which allows the induction of members of Civil Society who are professionals with proven credentials, distinguished citizens with merit in social service, and other credible citizens, into the Executive (i.e. the Cabinet and the bureaucracy) overseen by a strong elected Parliament focusing on national legislation and approval of senior leadership in Government and all significant Policy, and an appropriately enabled President to overview the Republic or even to finally lead it.
6. Strengthen at the same time the independence and competence of the apolitical Constitutional institutions of the State i.e. the National Election Commission and the Electoral Process, the Public Service Commissions, the State Bank, the Auditor General's Office etc., by reviewing the terms and process of appointment, qualifications, and reporting relationships to completely skew them away in practice from any modicum of Government Control to that of the State. If such provisions already exist they do so it seems on paper alone and need to be enabled to become effective in practice on the ground.
The final question at hand, in addition to choosing the nature of the change, is to choose the appropriate process by which the macro framework of National Governance is revamped and progressive, relevant and credible Agendas are established at every level to ensure a successful Reformation to evolve in the future.
Historically Nation States have seen three generic processes for fundamental change:
Evolution
History shows many examples, mostly Western Democracies, but by nature it is slow. Also evolutionary processes very often require phases of unorthodox interventions to ensure that evolution remains faithful to National interest.
Revolution
Revolutions are destructive, uncontrollable and reactionary and historically seen to always require subsequently, by necessity, a phase of centralized strong management to restore stability, responsible Governance, and balanced Agendas away from the reactionary and unrealistically severe ideologies of the revolution.
Managed Intervention
A strongly managed intervention with due lawful sanction and professional competence, time bound and with the sole purpose of breaking the vicious circle of retrogression and bringing into effect a deliberated repositioning for a sustainable step change in Governance, institutionalized through Constitutional sanction. This can be done,
either by:
A political Government (which would include the present one, if it so desires) based upon a genuine political consensus and having a strong focus and determination for it, with the broad and progressive mindedness to acquire professional merit and competence where necessary to drive the intervention, and finally the demonstrated wisdom to allow the charting of Government Agendas as tributaries to National interest rather than vested interest.
or
An apolitical Government with professional competence, due support and sanction of the apolitical Constituencies of the State, and time bound with a single Agenda of bringing about the step change required in our National Governance.
As final points, firstly it must be recognized that making the choice of the nature and process of the change is the most critical conundrum facing our beloved country but it has to be made, and secondly if the status quo continues it will, as is in the nature of it, lead to a state of desperate deterioration where such a choice in both would inevitably be a forced one.
Comments
Comments are closed.