How reforms can trump technocracy
Islamabad is once again abuzz with rumours about the formation of a government of technocrats
The writer is a former federal finance secretary and former FPSC member. He can be reached at awrana.rana@gmail.com
Islamabad is once again abuzz with rumours about the formation of a government of technocrats. Statements by key cabinet members and some political leaders fuelled these speculations. The recent rise to power of technocrats in Italy and Greece, prompted by the eurozone economic crisis, and China’s example (former presidents Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao and current President Xi Jinping all of whom studied engineering), have rekindled the debate about the role of technocrats recruited from outside parliament in the government. The unsubtle message emanating out of Europe, the bastion of democracy, is that democratic governments have failed to tackle the economic crisis and should be replaced with more dependable (controllable) technocratic governments.
Derived from Greek words “tekhne (skill)” and “kratos (power),” technocracy is rooted in the post-revolutionary France of the 19th century, works of Saint-Simon, as the need to put the human intelligence and expertise over the privileges of the ruling classes emerged stronger. Crossing the Atlantic, it turned into a social movement as a radical response to the Great Depression. These ideals also influenced the Soviet Union (Alexander Bogdanov’s concept of Tectology) and China (expert politics) during the same period.
Defined as a “system of governance in which technically trained experts rule by virtue of their specialised knowledge and position in dominant political and economic institutions” (Glassman 1993), it pre-supposes a complexity of tasks to be undertaken by the regime; legitimisation of the regime by reference to the Constitution; institutional autonomy of state organisations associated with experts; regime stability; and recognition of regime within a world system.
A technocratic national government is presented as preferable solution over democracy to resolve the challenges facing a country as technocrats are considered impartial and focused on finding the best solution to a problem based on expertise. Nevertheless, the common questions asked is whether or not an “oligarchy of technicians” can control and manage the administrative, economic and political arms of a given state and whether they can endure impartiality for long. Experiences of Ukraine, Italy, Greece, Romania and Bangladesh have underscored its inefficacies as well as the political ineffectiveness for systemic transformation.
A government of technocrats is hugely undesirable and, by its very nature, bad for democratic legitimacy. Appointing knowledgeable and brightest experts hardly resolves the country’s fundamental problem: the lack of a broad political and social consensus to challenge vested interests (politician-businessmen-bureaucrats-unelected actors nexus) and implement substantive reform. The myth of putting the right people in the right place will solve everything is undermined by the real centres of power, formal and informal, who call the shots and veto reform efforts that hurt their vested interests or those of their allies. While technocrat-led government in times of crisis bring a reputational advantage both in terms of knowledge and a sense of putting national interests above party political interests, the democratic process will have to be started sooner rather than later (Prof Kevin Featherstone). So it is always a short-term fix (Tony Blaire). If people no longer see their governments as being democratically legitimate and no longer see the ballot box as a legitimate way to express their grievances, they may, most likely, consider other options to express their grievances. This is particularly dangerous at a time when a country is facing the challenges of national integration, societal cohesiveness, economic mismanagement, systemic corruption and elite capturing. Technocracy will have no answers for growing popular discontent particularly when it is manned by usual suspects.
Pakistan’s problems are multiple and deep rooted. The 18th Constitutional Amendment has transformed Pakistan from a hierarchical to a participative and collaborative federation solidifying inter-governmental harmonisation through the CCI which could not meet as per constitutional requirement. With politicisation of most state institutions through appointment of loyalists, social divisiveness and alleged elite capturing, its education and health systems are malfunctioning. The critical agriculture sector continues to suffer from low farm and water productivity, low quality inputs, rudimentary marketing system and farming without any consideration to agro-ecological zones.
The power sector remains hostage to circular debt and misgovernance despite considerable tariff increases. Expensive food (gas and inputs) and power sector subsidies eat away substantial budgetary resources while low tax revenues and expanding expenditures widen the budget deficit. The quest to reform institutions will be a daunting challenge while struggling with holdovers from the previous regimes.
Technocrats might guarantee the implementation of specific measures in the short run but non-partisan leaders will fail to transform Pakistan’s governance and political culture. Rather than toying with the idea of any form of technocratic government, it would be wise to focus on reforming our electoral, political, economic, civil service, criminal justice, and governance structures making them more accountable without exception and developing political consensus to break stranglehold of oligarchs and czars with deep pockets. Pakistan needs capable technocrats, not crony technocrats, staffing its ministries and departments and managing its central bank at all levels. Some lessons can be learnt from Malaysian, Turkish and Chinese models representing a healthy meshing of technocrats, bureaucrats and politicians within the system. But if reforms are to deepen and persist, the country also needs a popular political movement in favour of these reforms. This is something that technocratic government cannot deliver.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 29th, 2017.
Derived from Greek words “tekhne (skill)” and “kratos (power),” technocracy is rooted in the post-revolutionary France of the 19th century, works of Saint-Simon, as the need to put the human intelligence and expertise over the privileges of the ruling classes emerged stronger. Crossing the Atlantic, it turned into a social movement as a radical response to the Great Depression. These ideals also influenced the Soviet Union (Alexander Bogdanov’s concept of Tectology) and China (expert politics) during the same period.
Defined as a “system of governance in which technically trained experts rule by virtue of their specialised knowledge and position in dominant political and economic institutions” (Glassman 1993), it pre-supposes a complexity of tasks to be undertaken by the regime; legitimisation of the regime by reference to the Constitution; institutional autonomy of state organisations associated with experts; regime stability; and recognition of regime within a world system.
A technocratic national government is presented as preferable solution over democracy to resolve the challenges facing a country as technocrats are considered impartial and focused on finding the best solution to a problem based on expertise. Nevertheless, the common questions asked is whether or not an “oligarchy of technicians” can control and manage the administrative, economic and political arms of a given state and whether they can endure impartiality for long. Experiences of Ukraine, Italy, Greece, Romania and Bangladesh have underscored its inefficacies as well as the political ineffectiveness for systemic transformation.
A government of technocrats is hugely undesirable and, by its very nature, bad for democratic legitimacy. Appointing knowledgeable and brightest experts hardly resolves the country’s fundamental problem: the lack of a broad political and social consensus to challenge vested interests (politician-businessmen-bureaucrats-unelected actors nexus) and implement substantive reform. The myth of putting the right people in the right place will solve everything is undermined by the real centres of power, formal and informal, who call the shots and veto reform efforts that hurt their vested interests or those of their allies. While technocrat-led government in times of crisis bring a reputational advantage both in terms of knowledge and a sense of putting national interests above party political interests, the democratic process will have to be started sooner rather than later (Prof Kevin Featherstone). So it is always a short-term fix (Tony Blaire). If people no longer see their governments as being democratically legitimate and no longer see the ballot box as a legitimate way to express their grievances, they may, most likely, consider other options to express their grievances. This is particularly dangerous at a time when a country is facing the challenges of national integration, societal cohesiveness, economic mismanagement, systemic corruption and elite capturing. Technocracy will have no answers for growing popular discontent particularly when it is manned by usual suspects.
Pakistan’s problems are multiple and deep rooted. The 18th Constitutional Amendment has transformed Pakistan from a hierarchical to a participative and collaborative federation solidifying inter-governmental harmonisation through the CCI which could not meet as per constitutional requirement. With politicisation of most state institutions through appointment of loyalists, social divisiveness and alleged elite capturing, its education and health systems are malfunctioning. The critical agriculture sector continues to suffer from low farm and water productivity, low quality inputs, rudimentary marketing system and farming without any consideration to agro-ecological zones.
The power sector remains hostage to circular debt and misgovernance despite considerable tariff increases. Expensive food (gas and inputs) and power sector subsidies eat away substantial budgetary resources while low tax revenues and expanding expenditures widen the budget deficit. The quest to reform institutions will be a daunting challenge while struggling with holdovers from the previous regimes.
Technocrats might guarantee the implementation of specific measures in the short run but non-partisan leaders will fail to transform Pakistan’s governance and political culture. Rather than toying with the idea of any form of technocratic government, it would be wise to focus on reforming our electoral, political, economic, civil service, criminal justice, and governance structures making them more accountable without exception and developing political consensus to break stranglehold of oligarchs and czars with deep pockets. Pakistan needs capable technocrats, not crony technocrats, staffing its ministries and departments and managing its central bank at all levels. Some lessons can be learnt from Malaysian, Turkish and Chinese models representing a healthy meshing of technocrats, bureaucrats and politicians within the system. But if reforms are to deepen and persist, the country also needs a popular political movement in favour of these reforms. This is something that technocratic government cannot deliver.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 29th, 2017.