The writer is a PhD candidate and coordinator of the South Asia Study Group at the University of Sydney
Essentially, five years today is equivalent to 15 or more years of the 1990s in terms of productivity, connectivity and ability to accomplish policy promises and goals. However, while the world, technology and sense of time around us has changed, the politics and nature of government functioning remains stagnant since the dawn of the Westphalian political order (1648) — something that now appears to be crumbling under the weight of obsoletion.
It doesn’t make sense why the elected governments in this day and age require a five-year tenure to develop a vision, implement their programmes and deliver results? Put another term of five years, and we are talking about over 10 years of tenure of the same political party, headed by the same person doing the same thing over and again, expecting a different result. The digital age equivalence of that would be a 30-year tenure from the standards of the 1990s.
It is not only bizarre at the philosophical level to have a five-year tenure to deliver in today’s world, but also a hindrance on the circumstantial level in terms of undertaking much-needed reforms, policy changes, providing public service delivery to citizens and most importantly changing lives of people during their lifetime — not in their grandchildren’s lifetime.
It isn’t the 1990s. In fact, it isn’t even 2000s anymore when there was no WhatsApp, and the idea of moving human civilisation to another planet was laughed upon by the scientific community. This is 2017 and in this age, if we are not evolving fast, we are not evolving at all — the problem that is at the centre of Pakistan’s political crisis that is likely going to grow with time.
The generation that is coming to take hold of Pakistan is that of the digital age that has easy access to everything, requires quick responses to emails and messages, and that has the options of ‘blue-ticks’ and ‘last seen’ for transparency and accountability. This generation has zero tolerance for same politics, same face, and same pace. Politics is only going to get unstable in Pakistan if the obsolete five-year government tenure is not reduced down to three years — a decision that can practically speed-up the reform process.
Limiting the tenure to three years essentially means that the government will have no time to waste and have to deliver on goals and promises immediately, otherwise, stand to be defeated in the next elections with voters memory still fresh. Second, with pressure of delivery in three years the government will be forced to bring talented and top notch professionals to run the affairs of the government or risk losing it all. In a five-year tenure the government has a lot of time at hand to play and delay, eventually to blame some political crisis for their lack of competence and delivery.
More importantly, however, the quick turnover rate of governments, and politicians under the three-year tenure basically means that Pakistan will have a fresh crop of politicians taking leadership positions more quickly in the careers. A three-year tenure is likely going to force political parties and the government to strike a balance between loyalty and professionalism.
Last and perhaps most important, quick turnover in the election cycle will only strengthen democracy and essentially weed out dynastic politics from Pakistan by disrupting the very cycle that promotes dynasties to flourish. With elections every three years, family politics and patronage structures will evolve giving way to a true representation.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 13th, 2017.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ