The myth of a technocratic government
Corruption reduces as democratic institutions are strengthened; increases manifold with dictators or military in power
The world moves on. Even South Asia, which in the past was one of the slowest growing economies in the world and suffered from political instability, now shows promise. India is supposed to be on a fast-track towards modernity and Narendra Modi’s election as prime minister has given it a new dynamism. Sri Lanka has been largely successful in combating insurgency and its economy is showing a robust growth of seven per cent. Bangladesh has declared itself a secular state, is relatively calm and its economy is expected to grow at 6.2 per cent, as forecast by the World Bank. But Pakistan is stuck in its own groove and is going round in circles, unable to chart its destiny and carve its place in the 21st century. This is not to acknowledge that many things have changed for the better. It includes emergence of new centres of power — the media, civil society, a general awareness of ones’ rights if not of our obligations, the relative strengthening of the judiciary and parliament’s longevity, although, sadly not its performance.
There is, however, a certain fundamental issue on which we continue to dither. We have yet to develop a solid national consensus that Pakistan’s future depends on strengthening the democratic process and not relying on an army-backed government of technocrats/administrators. Clearly, our politicians have miserably failed in providing good governance and the top leadership is most uninspiring, and some also carry the stigma of corruption. But it is a mistaken belief that with a military-backed government or by working outside the system, Pakistan’s problems will disappear. For this narrative to resurface frequently demonstrates that we have either very short memories or that there are powerful vested forces that are determined to sabotage democracy to advance their personal agenda. To drag the military back into politics when it is stretched to its limits in fighting and defending on several fronts, is doing no service to the nation or the armed forces. Martial law, or the facade of technocratic governments has been tried not once, not twice, but four times in the short, beleaguered history of our nation. Yet, the constant murmur of an impending ‘soft coup’ or variations of it never cease. Even as recent as last week, Jamaat-e-Islami Amir Sirajul Haq stated that the danger of martial law being imposed has been averted due to the timely intervention of well-meaning politicians.
It may be necessary to recap the dangers inherent in this choice. Seeking military or technocratic intervention by aligning some ‘self-righteous’ politicians to improve governance or eliminate corruption as a quick fix is looking at the problem superficially. Experience the world over has demonstrated that corruption reduces as democratic institutions get strengthened and increases manifold when dictators or the military is in power, even if temporarily it creates an aura of discipline and change. We have classic examples of this — the Suharto regime of Indonesia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Fernando Marcos of the Philippines. There is another fallacious belief that military regimes have outperformed their democratic counterparts. Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf eras are compared with those of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif out of context. The short duration of the civilian set-ups and the limitations imposed on political leaders is not taken into consideration. Also, it is not factored that after prolonged military rule, civilian institutions get further emaciated. Moreover, our military rulers harvested massive economic and military benefits by aligning with the US during the Cold and hot wars. They were able to acquire legitimacy through these alliances. But the dark side of it is that these alliances led to the growth of militant forces that have turned inwards. Whatever the temporary gains, they were quickly wiped off with dire consequences for the economy. The flow of military hardware and lavish economic assistance gave a false sense of comfort to Ayub and he launched a clandestine operation in Kashmir resulting in the 1965 war that destroyed the economy. The heart-rending separation of the erstwhile East Pakistan occurred due to serious policy failings of two military dictators, Ayub and Yahya, in complicity with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Similarly, Zia’s policy of supporting the Afghan jihad has been an unmitigated disaster and destroyed not only our economy, but has seriously impacted the security and social fabric of our society. Musharraf’s venture into Kargil, the mishandling of the unrest in Balochistan, the delayed and ill-planned operation against militants in Lal Masjid and the mistreatment of Chief Justice Iftihkar Chaudry triggered a nationwide civil disobedience movement. This recall is necessary to remind ourselves that the country’s salvation does not lie in handing over the reins to a technocratic government that has come into power on the back of the establishment or by undermining a legitimate government.
Strong institutions, with a robust system of accountability, are the best weapons to minimise corruption, fight militancy, improve governance and pursue policies that are people-sensitive. Effort has to be made at improving institutional mechanisms for strengthening civilian control over military matters. For this, it is important that the civilian leadership understands issues related to the military and not follows the current path of least resistance by continuing to outsource major areas of foreign, defence and security policies to the military.
Weak state institutions need strong and far-sighted leadership, both in the government and in the opposition. Imran Khan is critical of the prime minister and the federal government and his criticisms are valid. However, whether the PTI has enough to show in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in terms of performance can be debated. We need leaders who are result-oriented and are dedicated towards strengthening institutions so that people develop confidence in democracy. Then only will rumours of the system derailing will fade away.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 15th, 2014.
There is, however, a certain fundamental issue on which we continue to dither. We have yet to develop a solid national consensus that Pakistan’s future depends on strengthening the democratic process and not relying on an army-backed government of technocrats/administrators. Clearly, our politicians have miserably failed in providing good governance and the top leadership is most uninspiring, and some also carry the stigma of corruption. But it is a mistaken belief that with a military-backed government or by working outside the system, Pakistan’s problems will disappear. For this narrative to resurface frequently demonstrates that we have either very short memories or that there are powerful vested forces that are determined to sabotage democracy to advance their personal agenda. To drag the military back into politics when it is stretched to its limits in fighting and defending on several fronts, is doing no service to the nation or the armed forces. Martial law, or the facade of technocratic governments has been tried not once, not twice, but four times in the short, beleaguered history of our nation. Yet, the constant murmur of an impending ‘soft coup’ or variations of it never cease. Even as recent as last week, Jamaat-e-Islami Amir Sirajul Haq stated that the danger of martial law being imposed has been averted due to the timely intervention of well-meaning politicians.
It may be necessary to recap the dangers inherent in this choice. Seeking military or technocratic intervention by aligning some ‘self-righteous’ politicians to improve governance or eliminate corruption as a quick fix is looking at the problem superficially. Experience the world over has demonstrated that corruption reduces as democratic institutions get strengthened and increases manifold when dictators or the military is in power, even if temporarily it creates an aura of discipline and change. We have classic examples of this — the Suharto regime of Indonesia, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Fernando Marcos of the Philippines. There is another fallacious belief that military regimes have outperformed their democratic counterparts. Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf eras are compared with those of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif out of context. The short duration of the civilian set-ups and the limitations imposed on political leaders is not taken into consideration. Also, it is not factored that after prolonged military rule, civilian institutions get further emaciated. Moreover, our military rulers harvested massive economic and military benefits by aligning with the US during the Cold and hot wars. They were able to acquire legitimacy through these alliances. But the dark side of it is that these alliances led to the growth of militant forces that have turned inwards. Whatever the temporary gains, they were quickly wiped off with dire consequences for the economy. The flow of military hardware and lavish economic assistance gave a false sense of comfort to Ayub and he launched a clandestine operation in Kashmir resulting in the 1965 war that destroyed the economy. The heart-rending separation of the erstwhile East Pakistan occurred due to serious policy failings of two military dictators, Ayub and Yahya, in complicity with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Similarly, Zia’s policy of supporting the Afghan jihad has been an unmitigated disaster and destroyed not only our economy, but has seriously impacted the security and social fabric of our society. Musharraf’s venture into Kargil, the mishandling of the unrest in Balochistan, the delayed and ill-planned operation against militants in Lal Masjid and the mistreatment of Chief Justice Iftihkar Chaudry triggered a nationwide civil disobedience movement. This recall is necessary to remind ourselves that the country’s salvation does not lie in handing over the reins to a technocratic government that has come into power on the back of the establishment or by undermining a legitimate government.
Strong institutions, with a robust system of accountability, are the best weapons to minimise corruption, fight militancy, improve governance and pursue policies that are people-sensitive. Effort has to be made at improving institutional mechanisms for strengthening civilian control over military matters. For this, it is important that the civilian leadership understands issues related to the military and not follows the current path of least resistance by continuing to outsource major areas of foreign, defence and security policies to the military.
Weak state institutions need strong and far-sighted leadership, both in the government and in the opposition. Imran Khan is critical of the prime minister and the federal government and his criticisms are valid. However, whether the PTI has enough to show in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in terms of performance can be debated. We need leaders who are result-oriented and are dedicated towards strengthening institutions so that people develop confidence in democracy. Then only will rumours of the system derailing will fade away.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 15th, 2014.