Governments and governance

Governments have always existed, of one kind or the other – elected or unelected, competent or ignorant, effective or indecisive, subservient or self-serving. And in one form or the other: monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, theocracy etc. But they have not always delivered governance for the people.

Let us first clear the fog that often surrounds two words that sound so similar but are so different in their meaning. Governance is the purpose for which the power of the state is exercised; while the government is the instrument that uses state power to deliver governance for its people. In short, governance is the purpose for which governments are constituted.

Or: government represents the structure, organisation, rules and procedures as well as the exercise of powers, perks and privileges by the rulers; while governance represents their duty to deliver services to people in lieu of the power and perks they are given. Our trickle-down democracy, though, has clung to the first part and forgotten the second. And since everybody is ‘on board’, no one is asking any questions.

Pakistan has lost a lot already. Almost all Asian countries have left us behind – including those that were at same level of underdevelopment or even behind us. Some of our governments used state power and resources to their hilt, but delivered such dysfunctional governance – that the state and the people were left poorer, weaker and more vulnerable.

How do the silent majority in Pakistan judge the governance delivered to them by governments they have been living under? The PEW international survey of 2012 – conducted across every region and in all major languages – gives a startling insight into the minds of our people; their aspirations and expectations from their governments as well as their fears about their continuing inability and lack of opportunities to dig themselves out of the deep holes of generational poverty, uncertainty and insecurity.

Eighty-seven percent of Pakistanis in the PEW survey expressed their dissatisfaction with the way the affairs of their country were being managed. Only 31 percent thought they could rely on the prevailing model of democratic dispensation to resolve their problems, while 61 percent believed their fortunes had a better chance of improving under a broad-based reform agenda with ‘a leader with a strong hand’.

Translated in human terms, these dreadful statistics reflect the pain and suffering of millions, but one Pakistani prime minister – from a democratic dispensation – when asked for the reasons for such deep disillusionment of his fellow citizens, went on to say: “Then why don’t they leave the country?”

If these numbers from a reputed international survey are not enough to convince us, let us look closely at the governance delivered in some important areas of national life over the years and give a human face to their results.

Every government in Pakistan has announced with great fanfare some kind of ‘education policy’ purporting to create an educated and skilled nation. Despite these policies, 40 percent of the population remains illiterate. Statistics from Sindh show the highest levels of food insecurity – 51 percent of households – whose children will be severely affected from effects of malnutrition. How are they going to face the future and on what basis is this country going to compete in what is increasingly a ‘knowledge economy’?

And who has not heard of the thousands of ghost schools and ghost teachers all over the country? Spare a thought also as to how these ghost schools came into being, and why it has been so difficult to uproot them over the years.

Every country has problems to overcome, but take a look at what ‘governance in education’ means for other governments. Pakistan and South Korea were at same level of literacy in 1951– about 16 percent. Within 30 years, South Korea had effectively achieved 100 percent literacy. But 67 years later, nearly half of our population remains illiterate, with the World Bank calling the quality of our education ‘pathetic’.

Several governments also launched with big fanfare labour and industrial policies – supposedly for industrialisation, employment generation and export earnings. And yet today, the productivity of our workforce is amongst the lowest in Asia and our industries have the lowest value addition, even among South Asian countries.

In 1981, Pakistan and Turkey had the same levels of exports – about $2.5 billion. Both countries had wars going on in their neighbourhoods. Yet today, while we are struggling to export $25 billion, Turkish exports crossed $150 billion last year. And Bangladesh, which does not produce even one kilogram of cotton, has more value added textile and garments exports than Pakistan – the fourth largest producer of cotton in the world. Translated, this means increased poverty and unemployment and greater dependence on foreign aid and loans.

Many of our governments also very fondly launched ‘energy policies’ to provide cheap and abundant energy. And yet, the people of Pakistan – with one of the lowest per capita incomes in the world – have been saddled with one of the highest electricity rates in the world. The single-most factor for this has been these ‘energy policies’. Fascinated with imported fuels, IPPs and RPPs will keep the circular debt alive and kicking year after year, draining our savings and keeping our industry non-competitive in world markets. All this while the cheap and abundant indigenous coal reserves of the country – among the largest in the world – remain unutilised.

And this is not about any particular government or party. It is meant to show a deep malaise within our governmental systems which have not been not delivering the kind of governance to their people already provided by several Asian governments. Behind these failures of governance, lie human sufferings and pains of poverty, unemployment and uncertainty about their own and future of their children, haunting those 87% of PEW survey.

Yet, there is reluctance to reform this deeply dysfunctional governance. Any mention of ‘reform’ is deflected towards the mantra that the ills of trickle-down democracy can be cured by yet more trickle-down. This misses the cause and effect relationship between government and governance. It likes the gap between the theory and practice of democracy to continue expanding which is also reflected in the widening gap between the conditions of the rulers and the ruled under this model.

Pakistan needs to overhaul its dysfunctional systems which are 90 percent government and 10 percent governance. It cannot compete in the world with systems that merely play ‘government-government’ with each other while the state and society both head south.  Can we design an action plan that delivers 50 percent governance in five years to remain competitive in the world?

The writer specialised in FDI from MIT and designed the Board of Investment and First Women Bank. Email: smshah@alum.mit.edu