In the service of public servants

The cycle of exploitation persists as rulers prioritize personal gain over the public's needs and welfare.

The dynamics between rulers and the ruled have essentially shaped the fate and fortune of societies throughout history. Social and political settings where public servants, elected representatives or those entrusted with the public good prioritise people's interests over their own achieve inclusive prosperity. However, societies where public representatives or servants prioritise self-interest and monopolise the lives and livelihoods of the public become breeding grounds for chaos. In such societies, the public servants parasitically thrive on the toil and blood of the public, leaving the latter to struggle, serve, and fund the luxuries of the former and their families living abroad.

Pakistan displays hallmark signs of exploitation, where powerful individuals amass wealth through the lifelong labour of citizens, ostensibly in the name of public service, leaving behind a country often uninhabitable for their post-retirement years. Worse still, it's the entrusted, elected or selected lot who, despite all their manifestations of reluctant patriotism, frequently question public loyalty. In other words, they are the ones who, apart from issuing each other certificates of treason and innocence for understandable reasons, issue the same to the public who question their legitimacy, inefficiency and excesses. They are also the ones who return to the country either on promises of power or, ultimately, in a coffin.

Against this backdrop, while most of the public desperately and impatiently awaits the necessities of life - safety, security, employment, food, healthcare and education - their entrusted guardians, the government officials, patiently await their extended or stipulated retirement. And there is limited data on the exact number of retirees who leave the country and move abroad annually. Nevertheless, over the years, various startling revelations about the offshore assets and islands of civil and military bureaucracy, politicians and other key stakeholders have provided little insight into this number.

Why do most of them choose to spend their post-service life abroad? While in power or service, obtained through various means - including brute force, influence, political connections or, rarely, merit - they indulge in perks and privileges that are mere dreams for the public. This power, cloaked in the guise of service, is often abused through embezzlement, kickbacks and corruption, leading to the accumulation of wealth. This wealth is, in turn, used to solidify their socio-political influence. This cycle continues until their retirement and beyond, earning them luxurious properties both within and outside the country. However, the sense of insecurity and uncertainty of their own making pushes them to live their post-retirement lives in their "actual" homelands abroad. It is this probable future flight that has led the civil and military bureaucracy and political and judicial elite to prioritise 'dining and feasting' etiquettes over genuine public service.

Why don't they strive to make the country prosperous and livable for themselves and others? The answer, though complex, lies in the fundamental questions of their questionable stakes, efficiency, vision and legitimacy within the nation's socio-political and economic landscape. Given that the children of the most powerful individuals and public servants receive their education and healthcare abroad, they have little incentive to invest in state-of-the-art public institutions. As most of these stakeholders, following in their predecessors' footsteps, plan to retire overseas, they prioritise personal gain over the country's prosperity and the public good. Ironically, these same individuals often exploit and question the patriotism of the public while in power.

Amidst the turmoil, a reassuring message, as has been the case for decades, echoes from those in power: the country is supposedly booming. The touted proof includes the beseeched MOUs of investment, IMF's bailouts and the stock market's surge. I doubt whether 'country' to them implies their socio-political and economic capital within and economic interests beyond. Don't you?