Assessing government’s performance

Monitoring the performance of the ministers is one of the primary functions of the Prime Minister. However, good intentions notwithstanding, it is debatable whether it should be made public for it could create bitterness and generate a controversy within the ranks of the cabinet members, and demoralise and embarrass those ministers who were assessed rather low on the ladder and defeat the very aim of enhancing performance and working as a well-knit team. More significantly, the general impression is that the criteria being applied for evaluation is borrowed from PM’s experience of rating cricket players which may not be relevant while assessing the functioning of ministers.

There is a strong view that there are several negative outcomes of this type of rating and few advantages, if any. For example, when the foreign minister who is the principal representative and spokesperson of Pakistan abroad is not rated among the top few, albeit by this questionable criterion, it has ramifications. A minister’s standing among the international community is invariably linked to the reputation he has in the country and confidence that he enjoys of the Prime Minister.

Similarly, by placing the finance minister also in the ranks of “he also ran” could affect his standing while dealing with the IMF and other international agencies. Although it could well be that being relatively a new entry as cabinet minister his performance was not subjected to serious evaluation. However, the finance minister’s greatest challenge would be the delicate and difficult task of taking along the opposition in steering the forthcoming budget and rescuing the economy and moving it toward self-reliance. What is surprising is that minister for planning Hammad Azhar who in his previous appointment has been frequently recognised and lauded by the PM was not that high on the list. There could be valid reasons why many ministers were not included. Some had not been in the appointment for long enough to make any significant changes for the better. This is not to say that good work should not be praised as it is a requisite of good leadership and management. But leadership also demands it should be done rather discreetly and most objectively so that it creates a genuine spirit of competition and not generate unnecessary ill will and despondency among the ministers and bureaucrats.

If one would recall, PM’s dressing-down of our ambassadors in public in May 2021 caused a lot of resentment and ill will and demoralised the entire cadre of foreign service as it was not based on any objective criteria. Although, by any standards our diplomats are certainly among the best the country could offer and rated fairly high in the international community. We fail to realise that our foreign representatives cannot build castles in the air and project Pakistan any better than what we are.

People also assess ministers by their own criteria. For them what matters is not merely the quality of their discourse or where they stand on the performance ladder but specific achievements and the objective conditions under which these were achieved. By this criterion many may not agree to government’s assessment and meet their minimum standards. Rating those high who, from their perspective, do not deserve to be rated as such could introduce another element of confusion.

The broader and more relevant question is how the performance of the government is affecting the lives of the people and what is generally their assessment of it. All these factors contribute toward building their perception of the PM and PTI’s performance. From what one can infer from the prevailing conditions is that most indicators relating to performance are generally not favourable — galloping inflation, weak governance, expectations raised but not fulfilled. Although in all fairness there are factors such as hike in prices of petroleum products in the international market, global inflation and impact of Covid that are beyond any government’s control.

In certain cases, the objective conditions are such that it is difficult to assess the performance of the minister or of his ministry. The minister of defence and to an extent minister of interior are influenced by the military and their performance is a measure of all these ministries and power centres. Similarly, the ministry of finance is hampered by the legacy of the past and conditionalities imposed by the IMF and other international agencies. Of course, it is a function of the ministers and the senior bureaucrats to maximise efficiency even under these challenging conditions so that Pakistan’s democracy is strengthened and its economy moves toward self-reliance. And this is what the performance rating should also reflect.

What has to be kept in mind is that ministries are not islands or entities that are operating independently. For example, the foreign policy is influenced by security policy and economic clout of the country. The economy in turn is affected by security and the quality of governance. All these policies are dependent and largely influenced by the quality of decision-making by the Prime Minister and the cabinet as well as the role of the opposition. Needless to mention that judiciary is a major determinant that influences governance. If thousands of cases are pending and litigants spend days, months and years pursuing their cases it reflects on the efficiency of the government. So does the quality of judicial judgements. The element of corruption seriously undermines efficiency and governance. Pakistan still ranks among the most corrupt countries. With NAB having failed to make any headway it is not clear what priority is now being accorded to curbing corruption or left for the incoming government to deal with it. The role of the media is no less. What issues are in focus? And is it really independent or being manipulated by the government agencies?

All these factors indicate the quality of governance which is directly related to how well established are the democratic institutions. Even in case of authoritarian regimes their success depends on its efficiency, across-the-board accountability and acceptance by the people, as witnessed in China.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 16^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.