The research and practice that has gone into development and social change over the last three decades has provided substantial theoretical and empirical evidence about the interconnectedness of social transformation and the quality of governance and institutions. “Traditional factors of production – capital, skilled and unskilled labour and human capital – do contribute to the growth and development process but the residual or total factor productivity incorporates not only technical change but also [includes] organisational and institutional change.” (Ishrat Hussain) In addition, it’s not only the rate of economic growth that is affected. We must remember that the distribution of the benefits of growth can only be equitable if the governance structure and the supporting institutions function smoothly and efficiently. The notion of governance is a contested idea and provides multiple perspectives. These largely depend on the ideological frameworks that we subscribe to. Despite its contested nature, there is a broad-based consensus that good governance enables the state, the civil society and the private sector to enhance the well-being of a large segment of the population. In 1992, a World Bank report defined ‘governance’ as the manner in which public officials and institutions acquire and exercise the authority to shape public policy and provide public goods and services. In 1997, the Asian Development Bank stated that sound development management is the very essence of governance. The fundamental dimensions of governance are public sector management, accountability, the legal framework for development and information and transparency. Through its research, the Overseas Development Institute (2006) has developed a framework to analyse governance and development. According to this framework, the historical context, previous regimes, the socio-cultural context, the economic system and the international environment are the main determinants of governance and development. Civil society, political society, the government, the bureaucracy, the economic society and the judiciary form the governance realm while the development outcomes are political freedoms and rights, human security and welfare, economic growth, human capital, trust and social outcomes. The six core principles identified by Hyden et al (2004) that are related to good governance are participation, fairness, decency, accountability, transparency and efficiency. Pakistan is one of the few countries to record an impressive growth rate of over five percent per annum between 1947 and 2007. Only a few developing countries, which are mainly in Asia, have been able to achieve such high rates of growth over an extended period of time. It also got rid of the “statist” model of development and pursued a laissez-faire strategy for the most part – except for the 1970s. This strategy was further invigorated in 1991. Despite such a consistent growth record almost one-fourth of the population still lives below the poverty line and social indicators are among the worst in the developing world. Pakistan ranks 146th among 186 countries on the Human Development Index. Income inequalities, regional disparities and gender differentials have worsened over time. How can this paradoxical situation be explained? The evolution of state functionaries or the institutions of governance –the executive, the judiciary and the legislature – has its unique history in Pakistan. “Pakistan [may have] inherited a well-functioning structure of [the] judiciary, [the] civil service and [the] military but [it had] a relatively weak legislative oversight at the time of its independence. Over time, the domination of [the] civil service and [the] military in the affairs of the state disrupted the evolution of the democratic political process and further weakened the legislative organ of the state.” If the access to the institutions of governance for common citizens becomes difficult, time-consuming and costly, the benefits from growth get distributed unevenly as only those who enjoy preferential access to these institutions are the ones who gain anything. Pakistan presents a fascinating combination of many contradictions. It has governments that are high on governing and low on serving. It has parliaments that are elected by the poor but aid the rich and a society that asserts the rights of some but perpetuates exclusion for others. Despite a marked improvement in the lives of a few, there are many people in South Asia who have been forgotten by the formal institutions of governance. “These are the poor, the downtrodden and the most vulnerable of society [who] suffer from acute deprivation on account of their income, caste, creed, gender or religion. Their fortunes have not moved with those of the privileged few and this in itself is a deprivation of a depressing nature.” For ordinary people, governance constitutes a daily struggle for survival and dignity. Ordinary people are too often humiliated at the hands of public institutions. For them, the lack of good governance culminates in police brutality, corrupt practices in accessing basic public services, ghost schools, the absenteeism of teachers, missing medicines, the high cost of and the low access to justice, the criminalisation of politics and the lack of social justice. These are just a few manifestations of the crisis of governance. The Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (Pildat) has recently released its survey on the public opinions about the quality of governance in Pakistan. According to the survey: “The biggest identified challenge for the country is the energy crisis, which is identified by 27 percent of Pakistanis as a major problem. Inflation came in at a close second, with 25 percent of Pakistanis identifying it as a serious challenge for the country. Similarly, unemployment was the third biggest problem, with 15 percent of Pakistanis identifying it as a [major] national problem. Insecurity, peace, law [and] order, and terrorism were identified by 12 percent of Pakistanis as a major national problem at this point in time.” The survey further reveals a dwindling trend of trust in the institutions of governance. As a result, a lack of public legitimacy aggravates the affairs of governance. The survey shows that on most indicators, the public has evaluated the federal government’s governance performance negatively. Around 26 out of the 30 governance indicators assessed for the federal government received a negative net performance record (NPR). The federal government’s governance performance has been positively evaluated on the basis of three indicators: the immunisation of children – particularly with reference to the nationwide anti-polio campaign (NPR: +15 percent); national security (NPR: +26 percent); and foreign policy (NPR: +1 percent). Good governance is one of the key focal areas to consider in the social policy for Pakistan. The issues of governance ranges from sectoral problems to the systemic or structural problems of the country. Both the sectoral and systemic challenges are interlinked in terms of their impact on the performance in the provision of public welfare. But their role in terms of social transformation varies significantly. Systemic and structural problems are political and historical and are deeply-rooted in the continued power imbalances and conflicts and the domination by non-representative institutions of governance. Structural problems include the mode of production, which is predominantly feudal in nature and presents the most alarming challenge to the process of transformation and modernisation in Pakistan. Pakistan needs to go a long way to become a well-governed polity. But this is the only way to address most of its development ills. The writer is a freelance columnist based in Islamabad. Email: ahnihal@yahoo.com
