Who wants good governance, anyway

Good governance is our battle cry, the stuff that our baleful TV talk shows are made of, the centerpiece of tired conversations in well appointed drawing rooms. At least half the contributors to BR’s glorious 50th anniversary supplement last April, eminence grise all, thought this was all that separated us from what the Quaid envisioned and the Constitution promises.

If the gravity with which the governance issue is lamented is any indication one would think the nation is ready to invoke the spirit of Patrick Henry to enchant ‘give me good governance or give me death’. Good governance (GG) is an indeterminate term that means different things to different people in different contexts. But it is generally understood to mean ‘how public institutions conduct public affairs and manage public resources’. The gods in the GG pantheon are participatory and inclusive system of government, equity, accountability, and the rule of law.

GG is hard to measure, but the World Bank can’t resist the finger in the pie. Its World-wide Governance Indicators ranks Pakistan in the 25 percentile. In voice and accountability, government effectiveness, and the rule of law we are even lower – and it has been a fairly flat line throughout. There are other indicators as well whose measurements subsume governance, like World Economic Forum’s competitiveness and ease of doing business indices. No Nobels for guessing how our scorecard reads here. Interestingly, the scorecard is largely indifferent to elected or usurped dispensations. The man on horseback fares no better than the politico on the back of votes; and if it is any solace, the world’s ‘largest democracy’ is not significantly better.

Literature offers several theories to explain why governance – and hence the levels of prosperity and fairness – is better in some societies than others. Acemoglu and Robinson make a persuasive case for ‘inclusive institutions’, Nayef Al-Rodhan for ‘liberal constitutionalism’, Huntington for ‘government legitimacy’. Wisely, Poluha and Rosendahl are weary of one-size-fit-all postulations, given the heterogeneity of standards across boundaries.

We have our own theorists too (Niaz, Rathore) who, at the risk of over simplification, situate our failure in the larger context of post-colonial historiology: good governance is an alien concept fostered on us by the British. It left with them, and the freed monkey is back to its natural habitat.

Of course we have all the appurtenances of GG: multi-party political system, universal suffrage, separation of powers, independent media, the Auditor General, the Public Accounts Committee, laws and jurisprudence; and the Army regimental messes here just as proud of their silver as the Queen’s Own Highlanders. The default response is that it is not the vehicle but ability to drive. We have all the laws needed for good governance. Just enforce them. We have all the enforcement agencies. Just make them work. Enforce the writ of the government. Enforce tax laws. Enforce traffic rules.

How real is the enforcement riposte? Let’s start with the mother law: the Constitution of Pakistan. Look at all the mandatory provisions of the Constitution that are not being implemented – from the better known ones (Urdu the official language, expiration of quotas in Federal jobs, meetings of the Council of Common Interest) to the children of the lesser gods: less developed parts of the country, human dignity, education, bonded labour, right to information.

Then there is Article 25 that solemnly declares “All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law”. Shall we make a ‘citizen’s arrest’ when we see the police force posted at the residences of police officers, or the way the driving licence office is got vacated for a VIP to get his mug shot, or the designated check-in counters for parliamentarians at the airports?

But that’s precisely the point, the enforcement camp would argue. All these lofty promises have to be ‘enforced’; and we would agree, with a caveat: Who will bell the cat. The Executive? The Judiciary? The Legislature? Why aren’t they doing it? Shall we go complain to the IMF, file a case before the International Court of Justice, or do a dharna?

And, please, let’s not talk about ‘awam ki adalat’. That is the last refuge of every scoundrel. The good awam consists of ‘a sucker born every minute’, and the Adalat is defanged with the ‘first past the post’ rule. With only 17% of the registered voters you walk off with 55% of the seats in National Assembly! We submit GG will continue to elude us so long as we suffer from CDDS (chronic demand deficiency syndrome). Is there a genuine demand for GG? Will the poor peasant vote for one who promises better governance or the one who promises a job for his son? How is it that the corruption gold medalists are routinely rewarded at the hustings? When was the last time we stood up for a civil servant removed from his post because he defied unlawful orders? When we pontificate rule of law isn’t the sub-lingual ‘all except me’?

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa experience is instructive. Their heart may be in the right place, but despite a flurry of encouraging initiatives – Right to information, Right to services, empowered Police, the corralled Patwari – GG remains a moving target: here you get it, there you don’t. Doctors on strike, IG Police refusing to give up on his Nathia retreat, head of Ehtesab resigning, and the loud whisper on everyone’s lips, from the minstrel to the Minister, ‘this too shall end’. Kaptan, you don’t sell for which there ain’t no market!

GG is like bitter medicine: you don’t want it but you need it. More than anyone else it is the Business community that needs it. Forget about becoming globally competitive if the government, to paraphrase Saeed Qureshi, continues to cede, erode, or surrender its governance space. Self interest alone suggests ‘give me good governance’ as the business community’s rallying cry. Don’t let GG be demand driven. Create the demand.