he appointment of a caretaker government presents another occasion to scramble for the spoils of our democratic cycle. In recent days, meetings have taken place in Islamabad and in provincial capitals. Files have been moved around, candidates interviewed and names pushed around. Outside of public view, there is quite a jostle.

In a society where prestige comes from exercise of power rather than probity, personal motivation to become a part of the caretaker governments is easy to comprehend. For some, a position in the cabinet presents a prospect for greater things – brief stints in political limelight have previously propelled individuals to more permanent and prominent positions. Others eye their share of the pie in the extractive economy. There are those who have money and are willing to part with some of it just to have their name on a plaque and the title of a (former) minister on a tombstone. It would be harsh, finally, to not mention the do-gooders who let hope get the better of experience and are invariably disappointed.

The intention behind the concept of a caretaker government is, unsurprisingly, unrelated to these individual motivations. The law and the practice of caretaker governments that mind the shop until the next government is sworn in is rooted in a political culture of suspicion and mistrust.

In the interest of intellectual honesty, one should mention that the idea of a caretaker government is not exclusive to Pakistan. In different ways, the practice exists in places like Australia and Canada, where in ordinary circumstances the incumbent prime ministers and members of their cabinets are allowed to govern the country with a limited mandate – in a so-called caretaker mode.

In the United Kingdom, under the practice colloquially referred to as purdah, the civil servants are expected to refrain from acting in such a way or initiating projects that might give advantage to a political party going into elections. In the United States, even though it has a presidential system and election laws often vary across states, the duration of the transition for the outgoing presidency is termed as ‘lame duck’ considering the president’s powers are greatly diminished in practice.

Pakistan’s practice of forming a caretaker government is unique because rather than reorienting the power and role of the incumbent government for the interim period, the country brings in a separate administration for the sole purpose of presiding over the affairs of the state during the period of transition. Between 1996 and 2011, Bangladesh followed a similar arrangement, but the practice was done away with through the passage of the 15^th Amendment to the Bangladeshi constitution.

The other difference between Pakistan and countries that have some form of a caretaker arrangement during transition is that in these cases, more than the written laws, it is the conventions surrounding political conduct that dictate the procedure. Both purdah in the UK and caretaker governments in Australia and Canada are established in political conventions rather than enforced through written laws. Such a distinction with these countries illustrates the fundamental issue with Pakistan’s political culture – a failure to develop democratic values that would establish and sustain trust between political actors.

Pakistan resorted to the caretaker administrations for electoral transitions after the bitter experience with transitions following the first two general elections. The first general elections of 1970 were supervised by President Gen Yahya Khan. Although the results per se were not contested, mismanaging the post-election transfer of power and formation of government, among other well-documented factors, led to the breakup of the country. The second general elections (March 1977) took place while the incumbent prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto remained in power. The elections were marred by allegations of widespread rigging enabled by the government. The subsequent political turmoil and the military takeover of the country is attributable in part to the manner in which the elections were conducted.

After the party-less elections of 1985, and the rather ambiguous formation of the caretaker governments in 1988, Pakistan’s first proper caretaker government was setup under Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi to oversee administration of the country during the 1990 elections. Since then, the mandate and the manner of appointment as well as the actual performance of the responsibility to govern have undergone various changes. For instance, the president no longer enjoys discretion in the appointment of the caretaker government. It is the outgoing prime minister that has to reach a consensus with the opposition leader over caretaker appointments, failing which the authority for such a decision transfers to the Election Commission.

Similarly, through constitutional amendments and changes in the Elections Act, the parliament has attempted to redefine the functions of the caretaker government so as to avoid major policy decision like those adopted by the government under the premiership of Moeen Qureshi. Barring the members of caretaker governments from contesting forthcoming elections has been an attempt at ensuring a level of neutrality.

Despite the efforts to restrict the mandate of the caretaker governments and to enforce a level of neutrality, the last two elections have witnessed allegations of interference on the part of the caretaker governments. It is of course a separate discussion whether the allegations possess evident credibility. The point is that despite the existence of the apparently neutral, non-partisan administrations, allegations of election meddling (whether in the form of the infamous “35 punctures” or the delay in the results of the elections in 2018) involving the caretaker governments have not gone away.

During the past month, there have been discussions surrounding the management of the endless crisis during the political transition in Pakistan. The proposed solutions have included retaining the current finance minister and expanding the authority of the caretaker governments. However, neither solution tackles the issue at the heart of this discussion – developing a political culture where political actors abide by values of gentlemanly fairness.

Appointment of caretaker governments, therefore, hardly serves the purpose for which they are purportedly installed. Further, with their limited mandates and the absence of political accountability, the country is, for months, left in a state of semi-governed confusion. At critical times, such as Pakistan faces now, this vacuum of governance threatens to deepen our problems.

The way forward for Pakistan – as in other regions that need agreement – is to foster a political culture of trust among leading actors. At this juncture of our politics, where political parties and alliances are taking turns to marginalise one another, such a desire sounds idealistic, to say the least. However, short of that, we will remain in this endless cycle.

The writer is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Peshawar. He can be reached at aameraza@gmail.com