How Pakistan can become Singapore

henever there is a new government in Pakistan, something begins to happen to my friend Zafar Rathore that can only be described as an itch to render advice on how to govern the country. Some people never change and he is certainly one of them. He continues to believe that those whom fate or tanks or votes bring to power are keen to read books and learn how good government is run. He refuses to believe that the chosen ones do not read books, do not think they have anything to learn and do not believe that a day will come when there would be a knock on their door and in would walk a messenger who would say, “The tea party is over and your baggage is in the truck.”

I thought Rathore would restart his evening walk instead of pondering over the intricacies of statecraft in the light of history, but I am afraid the nature of his affliction is terminal. He has once again come up with a primer that he hopes the new rulers will follow. So let’s see what the sage of good governance has to say this time. The Pakistani state, he declares, is in a crisis because of its inability to make its writ run, its taxes collected, its laws maintained or its institutions operated. This is bad news, but like all bad news, it is true. The failure is said to be the fault of the ruling class, which considers itself “enlightened and Westernised.” In spite of being responsible for the creation of Pakistan, it has been thrown on the ideological defensive by both religious reactionaries and the proponents of the latest American idiom.The ruling style of this class has been arbitrary and erratic, which in turn has compounded its insecurity and alienation from the people. It is precisely this arbitrariness which makes the executive authority to monopolise power.

According to Rathore, a classic example of the arbitrary and delusional exercise of poweris the Devolution Plan introduced by Gen Tanvir Naqvi, the Gorbachev of Pakistan. Eight years ago, a well-argued critique of this scheme was presented to its framers, which they never even looked at. Since 1947, rather than building upon the legacy of a limited, predictable and effective state, successive Westernised rulers have greatly expanded the scope of government and undermined autonomous institutions that were a check on their desire to exercise unlimited power. In 1949, secularism became its first casualty. In 1955, the provincial governments of West Pakistan were arbitrarily abolished by the executive and the judiciary invoked the doctrine of necessity to justify it. In 1958, Iskander Mirza, the civilian constitutional head of state, conspired to abrogate the constitution rather than face defeat in elections. Those who followed continued to rule arbitrarily and beyond the pale of law.

Rathore believes that democracy is merely a constitutional device for periodic and relatively peaceful transfers of power from one party to another. What occurs between such transfers is up to the wisdom and character of the political leadership that happens to be in power. The collapse of law and order in society is directly related to the inability of the servants of the state to operate without excessive and often unlawful arbitrary interference by powerful members of the executive. Unless this arbitrary interference is substantially reduced, the rulers will continue to find themselves surrounded by incompetent sycophants. Such individuals serve their masters of the moment principally to magnify their limitations and deficiencies and thus contribute to their downfall. It is in the enlightened self-interest of the rulers to limit their arbitrary propensities and cultivate the rule of law and merit. Rathore believes that if it is not done this time around and politicians fail yet again to manage, the consequences will be dire. I suppose by dire he means another speech on the telly beginning “ Meray aziz humwatno …”

According to Rathore, the mechanism through which the executive exercises power is the bureaucracy. In Pakistan, the bureaucracy has lost its esprit de corps, is polarisedalong ethnic or sectarian lines, is characterised by nepotism and servility, and disregards the merit principle.

And what is a meritocracy if not a hierarchy of intellect and character based upon moral relationships between those who work together? Sadly, with us, intellect, character and moral relationships are precisely the virtues that are incompatible with advancement. So what is the answer? Rathore advocates the establishment of an autonomous and neutral body, comprising eminent persons to handle the recruitment, posting, transfer and dismissal of government servants at both federal and provincial levels. Working in conjunction with the federal and provincial Public Service Commissions, this superior body could ensure that merit remains the basis of recruitment and promotion.

Rathore recommends that a higher administrative commission should handle all promotions to senior positions and the chief executive should follow those recommendations. Similar provincial commissions with identical functions should deal with junior cadres. Those who serve on their boards should have security of tenure. Two of the board members should be from the ruling and opposition parties. To help their work, inspection commissions should be set up at federal and provincial levels to evaluate the performance of civil servants for promotion, posting and accountability. But what to do about Gen Tanvir Naqvi’s gift to the nation: devolution? The rollback of the Naqvi system, he maintains, should not mean blanket restoration of the old status quo but a measured restoration that places elected local governments, etc, under constitutional protection to ensure that arbitrary interference in their affairs is contained. The functional local government structure inherited from the British should be restored and all provincial sources of revenue, not just land revenue, should be placed under district collectors. District magistracy, which should be abolished from more developed urban areas, should be separated from collectorship, as in India, and the executive powers of the district magistracy should be vested in the local head of police as is done in most other countries.

Will the Rathore recipe make a Singapore out of Pakistan? Yes, but in a week of Sundays.