As flies to wanton boys are we to gods/ They kill us for their sport -Thomas Hardy

The crisis of governance that afflicts Pakistan is multi-dimensional; its causes are many and deep-seated; and it pervades all aspects of national life.

Having identified the main symptoms and dimensions of this crisis in my last article (March 28), it would be pertinent to probe its underlying causes and structural underpinnings. Although there may be sector-specific problems, this article seeks to focus on some of the generic issues that lie at the root of the problem.

Political uncertainty and turbulence have plagued Pakistan since its inception. Fortified with the vision and ideals of the Quaid-e-Azam in the early years, the new-born country was able to tide over its teething problems despite the cynical indifference of the departing colonial rulers and sinister hostility of its irredentist neighbour. However, since the untimely demise of its founding father, the country has been oscillating between democratic and authoritarian forms of government and helplessly groping for a stable, progressive and truly representative polity.

Poor quality of political leadership, coupled with self-serving machinations of the establishment, have prevented genuine democracy from striking deep roots in the country, while the midwifery of state organs to promote vested rather than public interest has undermined the rule of law and good governance.

At the heart of the crisis of governance lies a polarised polity, marked by vertical cleavages between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the underprivileged, the dominant elites and the faceless masses on the one hand, and horizontal divisions along ethnic, tribal, sectarian, and political lines on the other. The stratified structure of society, together with the failure of state institutions to enforce rule of law, has obstructed the social and economic development of the country.

The social and state structure in the country, modelled on the colonial pattern of master and subject, has not changed even after independence. The relationship between the ruler and the ruled assumes different forms in political, social, economic and administrative settings but remains unchanged in its essence and substance. The wielders of power in different spheres compete with one another for parochial gain but are united in the furtherance of common class interests. Barring a few exceptions, political, social and economic power remains vested in closely-knit personal and family networks, to the utter exclusion of the silent, suffering majority of people.

The force of public opinion, on the other hand, remains weak, fragile and unsure of itself. It is not so well articulated through mechanisms within the general public to be able to exert pressure on the multiple and mutually reinforcing centres of power and restrain them from sacrificing public good at the altar of personal or class interest. The self-styled leaders of public opinion have developed their own class interests on the periphery of the centres of power and act as safety valves for letting off steam rather than serving as catalysts for mobilising the people.

The civil society itself is marred by lack of awareness of common goals and collective action. There is a great proclivity towards individualistic pursuits and self-interest. The social fabric is riven with ethnic, sectarian and social cleavages. As a result, people are not able to coalesce for the pursuit of common objectives. The civil society could rightly be described as a sack of potatoes. The thwarted awareness of civic rights and responsibilities among the populace lies at the root of the malaise.

That is what keeps rule of law from striking deep roots into the soil of this country. That is what makes it an empty slogan rather than a real, vibrant force protecting people against the depredations of power. That is what encourages the strong and discourages the weak; that is what makes the rich richer and the poor poorer; that is what leads to the abuse of women and children; that is what makes the plunder of national resources possible.

Rule of law is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. In the first place, there is no dearth of laws that are discriminatory in nature and have been framed over the years to promote and protect the vested interests. Numerous laws have been enacted to serve immediate and short-term objectives and without due deliberation. The speed and gusto with which we framed some laws of the land must have made Lord Macaulay revolve in his grave with an awful sense of irony.

Second, the enforcement of laws has also been scandalously weak, partisan and discriminatory. Those who can buy off or pressurise law enforcers slip through the net. The reach of the long arm of law does not go beyond the weak and the underprivileged. Those trapped in legal processes slug through inordinate delays in disposal of cases and are forced to pander to the insatiable avarice of the custodians of the law.

Last but not the least, rampant corruption and favouritism have crowded out merit and competitiveness in all matters concerning government dispensation, be it recruitment or promotions, award of contracts or economic incentives, disposal of state land or public procurement. A culture of nepotism has become the order of the day and the concept of merit-based competition a cry in the wilderness.

The author is a former cabinet secretary.

Email: [emailprotected]

Originally posted here:
Anatomy of misgovernance - The News International