Shabir Ahmed
We are not alone. They too have issues. The developed world has suddenly discovered its own misgivings. They fear their icons - capitalism, democracy, the Fourth Industrial Revolution – are turning their backs on them. They worry if miracles of today can become monsters of tomorrow.
There are the sociological convulsions as well. If coming to terms with a growing multicultural society that threatens their traditional values and norms, or all this business of data mining, was not bad enough, they now have to cruise the uneasy transition of accepting what was unlawful only a few years ago (marijuana and same-sex marriages?).
In between, there are certain inconvenient truths: climate change and the battle between now and then; the rapidly narrowing technological gap; the rise of the rest; and how soon before the ‘exorbitant privilege’ of having the dollar as world’s reserve currency becomes history.
In comparison, our issues - poverty, illiteracy, population explosion and absence of basic health cover, safe drinking water and sanitation - look puny; the dinosaurs of under-development that were driven into extinction by the white man ages ago.
‘They’, of course, claim to have a cupboard full of remedies that can rid us of these last century ailments – if only we had the ‘political will’. Except, they don’t tell us where to find this magic potion.
Surely, the unelected regimes, that ‘they’ often favoured, couldn’t have lacked ‘political will’? Legitimacy has been their issue but never accountability. If ‘political will’ was the magic cure for all our warts and sores what stopped them from exercising it? A grateful nation would have happily overlooked the legitimacy part had they solved our problems that refuse to go away.
Also, ‘they’ have their policemen - IMF, World Bank, Financial Action Task Force, GSP plus – that have the ability to make countries ‘behave’; mend their ways when they want them to. If our issues were important to them, and ‘political will’ the answer, what prevented them from administering this life-saving drug, forcibly if necessary?
‘Political will’ is nothing but a convenient alibi. When governments want to do something that suits them ‘political-will’ pops out of the wood works. Perhaps, when we talk about political will, what we are really talking about is choices: things that a government has a lot of will for and things that government chooses not to do.
Choices, ability to do things and being held accountable when things are not done, are intrinsic to a country’s structure of government.
Of course, a responsible government cannot really leave it entirely to the populace to decide what is good for it. Left to them, they would not want to pay taxes, for instance. Government has to be responsive too, something that is best managed through free debate and a vibrant media, and building as big a coalition of the willing as possible. But ultimately, government’s primary responsibility is to lead – without being afraid of doing what is right.
The starting point is the programme, the manifesto, which a political party presents for elections, clearly setting out its priorities. For it to mean anything the manifesto has to come out well before the elections and contain sufficient details of ‘how’ it will achieve what it promises.
What happens, as is often the case, when the party does not honour its commitments? It is not enough to say, “OK, come the next elections we will turf them out”. The government of the day might well have made commitments – international, commercial, financial - that overflow its time in office and burden its successors with consequences that it can’t handle.
Our present structure of government does not provide for a mechanism for a timely monitoring of government’s performance and whether or not it is adhering to the programme that people voted it in for.
The military and the Supreme Court are not designed for this purpose, even if on occasion they arrogate this function to themselves. Indeed, in trying to solve the problem they become a part of the problem.
Public Accounts Committee is for all intents and purposes a part of the Audit system – it responds to what the Auditor General presents, which is about financial indiscipline and not about promise and performance. With the inevitable audit delays we watch the farcical spectacle of the Secretary being held ‘accountable’ for the sins of his predecessors – and bequeathing his own to his successors! It also defies the spirit of parliamentary democracy where the Minister is answerable (through the parliament) to the people, and not a civil servant.
The second major flaw in the structure of our government is impotent and impoverished local governments. 18th amendment, that contemplated functioning local governments, remains an unfinished agenda. Many of our service delivery issues are best resolved at the local level. It is also the nursery for leadership at the national level and a place where the basic lessons of accountability are learnt.
The only verdict on the last National Finance Commission award can be that good intentions bereft of sound thinking are costly. It has rendered the Federal government virtually insolvent. When we accuse the government of reckless borrowings we forget the hole NFC pushed it into. Even a significant hike in tax collection will not retrieve the position until the NFC first provides to Islamabad what it genuinely needs, as is the case with most Federations.
Finally, the ‘curious case’ of President and governors, presumed custodians of the Constitution and in whose name governments run. Our ‘once bitten twice shy’ approach has reduced them to (expensive) puppets who do as told. Even the ‘world’s largest democracy’ has given them a modicum of authority!
We cannot aspire to good governance until we have a sound structure of government in place. Just-in-time accountability, functioning local governments, a revisited NFC award, and somewhat empowered President and Governors, are the obvious missing links.
Are there any takers? Will any political party stand up to be counted, and commit itself to this minimum agenda?
Kudos to one political party for at least sharing with us specific goals that it has committed itself to. We will take it far more seriously if it also builds into its plans the ‘in-process’ accountability mechanism.
If the verdict is to wait until it has done its term then nothing sets it apart from the moon-promising others.
[email protected]
