Basic services missing
Reforms and remedies have been discussed for years, but improvements have been limited in number, scale and duration
The writer is an economist and international development consultant
With the exception of a few fortunate communities across the country, the citizens of Pakistan do not have access to reliable basic services. The failure of the state to provide these services is well known, and so are the afflictions of the state structure that have led to this failure. Many of these services are generally provided by local governments in mature democracies, but in Pakistan, they have been retained within the remit of provincial governments. Local government is a provincial subject according to the Constitution, and there is no evidence that the provinces are keen on nurturing robust local governments. The existing state structure, therefore, is not only ineffective but also incomplete: it lacks the vital lowest tiers through which the state serves the citizens for day-to-day purposes.
Reforms and remedies have been discussed for years, but improvements have been limited in number, scale and duration. The situation today is that not a single district or city in the country has access to the resources it needs to enable people to live with a modicum of security and comfort, pursue their legitimate interests efficiently, and contribute smoothly to state and society. Demands and promises have been made repeatedly, but there is no compelling reason to believe that the system will correct itself on its own, and that the existing centralised structures will be made more responsive to citizens’ needs and effective local governments established. Thus, islands of privilege aside, the country’s growing population faces a bleak future, unless practical alternatives are put in place soon.
There are signposts across the country that merit consideration on a larger scale, for they are possible alternatives for many in society as well as the building blocks of a process of change in the state structure. They suggest approaches for affordable and reliable services that have been demonstrated by those who are usually called innovators in a process of change, whether the change is technological, institutional or one of ideas. If these approaches are communicated widely, they may be adopted by some others, the early adopters, and then the late adopters, often with adjustment that suits their own particular needs. Even after a long time, however, some will not change and will be left behind. The concept here is that ideas are infectious and tend to spread like epidemics, initially slowly, and then picking up speed as more and more people are infected.
The innovators in basic services are those who devise new approaches, work within the law, and serve local needs without partisan, proselytising or ulterior motives. They are active in many sectors of interest to the public and come from diverse backgrounds, including the civil service, the private sector, and civil society and religious institutions. It is seldom, however, that they are brought to the attention of a national audience. The result is lack of inspiration in thinking about alternatives and a feeling of helplessness among large segments of society. This contributes to a psychological barrier, the belief among people that they do not matter, that it is up to others, mainly the federal and provincial governments, political and traditional leaders, and a few well-known institutions, to bring about change.
A second barrier to change is informational. Innovative approaches that could be systemic solutions to local issues are rarely, if ever, documented for easy access by those who might benefit from these examples, including political leaders and workers, business and professional associations, and civil society institutions. For example, the operational methods of innovators, how they make things work, are known only to those who are closely involved with their initiatives. There is also a lack of knowledge of alternatives from other countries. The third barrier is organisational, reflecting inability to work with each other, and with partners in state and civil society institutions. The fourth barrier is financial, which is self-explanatory, and tends to recede once the first three barriers are overcome, as innovators have demonstrated.
Given the state’s inertia in matters of reform, its attempts to improve basic services are likely to yield little for most citizens. Therefore, it is worth considering a process of social action and advocacy for reform, building on innovations available from Pakistan and other countries, evolving within prevailing laws and with the consent of relevant policymakers. This process could address the barriers mentioned above: successful innovations have shown that this is possible. A realistic starting point would be districts and cities where the prospect of change appears to hold the greatest promise. Action and advocacy in these locations would be led by those whom local people trust, and these change agents would be facilitated by support groups that help them address the barriers to change. Some observations will be presented in my subsequent articles to discuss the potential for local action and policy reforms.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 7th, 2016.
Reforms and remedies have been discussed for years, but improvements have been limited in number, scale and duration. The situation today is that not a single district or city in the country has access to the resources it needs to enable people to live with a modicum of security and comfort, pursue their legitimate interests efficiently, and contribute smoothly to state and society. Demands and promises have been made repeatedly, but there is no compelling reason to believe that the system will correct itself on its own, and that the existing centralised structures will be made more responsive to citizens’ needs and effective local governments established. Thus, islands of privilege aside, the country’s growing population faces a bleak future, unless practical alternatives are put in place soon.
There are signposts across the country that merit consideration on a larger scale, for they are possible alternatives for many in society as well as the building blocks of a process of change in the state structure. They suggest approaches for affordable and reliable services that have been demonstrated by those who are usually called innovators in a process of change, whether the change is technological, institutional or one of ideas. If these approaches are communicated widely, they may be adopted by some others, the early adopters, and then the late adopters, often with adjustment that suits their own particular needs. Even after a long time, however, some will not change and will be left behind. The concept here is that ideas are infectious and tend to spread like epidemics, initially slowly, and then picking up speed as more and more people are infected.
The innovators in basic services are those who devise new approaches, work within the law, and serve local needs without partisan, proselytising or ulterior motives. They are active in many sectors of interest to the public and come from diverse backgrounds, including the civil service, the private sector, and civil society and religious institutions. It is seldom, however, that they are brought to the attention of a national audience. The result is lack of inspiration in thinking about alternatives and a feeling of helplessness among large segments of society. This contributes to a psychological barrier, the belief among people that they do not matter, that it is up to others, mainly the federal and provincial governments, political and traditional leaders, and a few well-known institutions, to bring about change.
A second barrier to change is informational. Innovative approaches that could be systemic solutions to local issues are rarely, if ever, documented for easy access by those who might benefit from these examples, including political leaders and workers, business and professional associations, and civil society institutions. For example, the operational methods of innovators, how they make things work, are known only to those who are closely involved with their initiatives. There is also a lack of knowledge of alternatives from other countries. The third barrier is organisational, reflecting inability to work with each other, and with partners in state and civil society institutions. The fourth barrier is financial, which is self-explanatory, and tends to recede once the first three barriers are overcome, as innovators have demonstrated.
Given the state’s inertia in matters of reform, its attempts to improve basic services are likely to yield little for most citizens. Therefore, it is worth considering a process of social action and advocacy for reform, building on innovations available from Pakistan and other countries, evolving within prevailing laws and with the consent of relevant policymakers. This process could address the barriers mentioned above: successful innovations have shown that this is possible. A realistic starting point would be districts and cities where the prospect of change appears to hold the greatest promise. Action and advocacy in these locations would be led by those whom local people trust, and these change agents would be facilitated by support groups that help them address the barriers to change. Some observations will be presented in my subsequent articles to discuss the potential for local action and policy reforms.
Published in The Express Tribune, September 7th, 2016.