he concept of a technocratic set-up has become a resounding buzzword in policy circles, where influential minds firmly believe that it is not politicians, but technocrats who wield the elusive magic wand capable of extricating Pakistan from the quagmire it finds itself in.

In essence, they yearn for a depoliticised power structure, achieved by discrediting politicians and replacing them with these competent technocrats. Their firm conviction lies in the belief that ‘technocracy,’ not democracy, holds the key to curing all the socio-economic maladies that ail Pakistan.

By ‘technocracy,’ they mean a system in which policy experts, armed with profound knowledge in the fields, such as economics, climate science, genomics, and more, assume the mantle of decision-makers for political questions. Technocrats embody the epitome of a ‘valued human resource,’ capable of tackling even the most intricate social and political quandaries with a scientific approach bordering on the mechanical. Embracing technocrats as problem solvers leads to a profound depoliticisation of both the state and society.

However, this pursuit of technocracy has borne the bitter fruit of a non-egalitarian economy and divisive politics, the unfortunate byproducts of the depoliticisation that permeates much of human life. A discerning examination of global trends inclines one to concur with the insightful economist, Dani Rodrik, and his “impossibility theorem” for the global economy.

This theorem posits that “democracy, national sovereignty and global economic integration are mutually incompatible,” making it implausible to harmoniously uphold all three principles simultaneously. The allure of a technocratic regime may promise an elixir for Pakistan’s woes, but it comes at the cost of depoliticisation and its far-reaching repercussions.

As we ponder the intricate balance between democracy, sovereignty and global integration, we must tread carefully in pursuit of a brighter future for our nation.

Over the span of two decades, economic policy makers have traversed a path of misguided presumption, seemingly oblivious to the weighty, tragic choices that lay before them. They naively treated the pursuit of growth as a mere technocratic puzzle, imagining that it could be neatly resolved through the deft application of tax policies and market institutions. They failed to grasp the essence of the matter — the profound, underlying political questions that demanded their thoughtful engagement and incisive scrutiny.

Had they recognised the significance of nurturing and enlightening the citizenry, instilling in them the art of judgment, they might have been spared the jarring shock of the cataclysmic Great Recession of 2008. Worryingly, they appeared ill-prepared, caught off guard as the tempestuous tides of populism swept away what seemed like solid political structures, leaving them bewildered and dismayed.

Such temerity in approaching the intricate fabric of societal and economic dynamics led to a perilous cycle of recurring surprises, as the sands of time shifted beneath their feet once more. A scant decade later, a new upheaval of populist forces toppled seemingly stable political configurations, exposing the fragility of their technocratic illusions.

In retrospect, the wisdom they overlooked lies not in the mechanical management of policies but in delving into the very essence of human nature and governance. Only by recognising and addressing the fundamental interplay of politics and economics while empowering the populace with discernment, can we hope to navigate the uncertain waters of our collective future with resilience and sagacity.

The intense struggle we find ourselves embroiled in revolves around the intricate politics of climate change, as eloquently posited by the esteemed Harvard professor, Danielle Allen. She insightfully identifies this struggle as an intricate dance between science and political thinking, locked in a peculiar standoff.

On the one hand, science hesitates to fully embrace its role as an aide and supporter, opting to shy away from guiding political thought. Concurrently, political thinking, in its own obstinate demeanor, fails to recognise the inherent value that science brings to the table. This delicate standoff holds within it the seeds of wisdom that demand exploration.

On delving deeper, one finds Hannah Arendt’s astute analysis, as articulated in her book, The Human Condition, relevant. In her exploration of the world around her, she keenly observes a worrisome trend — the growing habit of reducing all human actions to mere utility functions, mere calculations of consequences, or cold algorithms mechanically applied to human endeavours. Such is the realm of the technocrats, who prefer to navigate the surface of politics, neglecting the subtle nuances that give it its vibrant life force.

Unsurprisingly, time and again this myopic approach leaves the technocrats in a state of bewilderment, caught off guard by the unpredictable nature of politics. It underscores the pressing need for re-politicisation; the revitalisation of trust in the political realm and a departure from the perilous state of perpetual astonishment that policymakers often find themselves in when faced with eruptions of politics.

Let it be clear that the call for re-politicisation is not an invitation to dethrone science from its rightful preeminence. Quite the contrary, we must celebrate the magnificent realisation of human potential that science embodies. Instead, this is an earnest invitation to unite science with political thinking — to harmoniously blend calculation, algorithmic intelligence and judgment.

Once we embrace this fusion, we will find ourselves better equipped to navigate the tumultuous waters of climate change and other pressing issues, with astuteness, wisdom and a renewed sense of purpose. The time has come to transcend the boundaries that artificially separate these realms, forging a new path that converges the best of both worlds.

In her profound analysis, Arendt unveils two pivotal facets of scientific thinking that exert a transformative effect on human experience, effectively leading to its depoliticisation. To put it simply, these features dilute the distinctly human essence, rendering us mere spectators to the mechanics of existence.

The first of these features lies in the relentless pursuit of cause and effect, the mechanistic unraveling of the intricate workings of the world. This relentless focus on the “how” of things renders human reasoning susceptible to being replicated by machines, which, unsurprisingly, emerge as far superior calculators.

As Arendt eloquently puts it, “It is not only, not even primarily, contemplation which has become an entirely meaningless experience. Thought itself, when it became ‘reckoning with consequences,’ became a function of the brain, with the result that electronic instruments are found to fulfil these functions much better than we ever could.”

The consequence of this shift is profound: the once-pertinent question of “why” we should pursue particular ends gets eclipsed. Science’s ascendant power to unravel the “how” of things takes precedence, overshadowing the quest for deeper meaning and purpose.

In the face of technical advancements that cater to the whims of those with resources or power, the relevance of human aspirations pales in comparison. An unsettling example of this is the development of nuclear weapons, driven by the mere wants and desires of those in positions of influence.

As scientific prowess unfolds, it seems to pave a path away from the terrain of profound human contemplation and moral deliberation. The mechanisation of thought and the allure of technical solutions divert us from pondering the deeper questions of human existence, ushering in an era of depoliticised beings increasingly detached from the essence of life.

As this narrative unfolds, revisiting our priorities becomes paramount to restore the significance of grappling with the “why” and “what” of human pursuits. Only by rekindling our engagement with these fundamental inquiries can we hope to reinvigorate the authentic human experience and steer away from the perilous course of depoliticisation that looms ominously on the horizon.

We will take up the second feature in the next column. It will include Hannah Arendt’s three postulates: the principal constituents of the human condition according to her.

(To be concluded)

The writer is Professor in the faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore