Pakistan’s economy has been performing sub-optimally for the last couple of decades. Many scholars and practitioners have been sharing their perspectives and analyses on what is holding it back.

On the economic side, there are discussions around economic indicators without an examination of the processes and human interactions behind such performance indicators. On the political front, the rhetoric of corruption and institutional tussles has achieved considerable attention. Recently, meanwhile the dialogue has moved towards the need for reforming the public sector. Many commentators have pointed to what they see as a lack of talent in the government, academia and the private sector.

I beg to differ with such a diagnosis. Many of the above-mentioned symptoms are merely the outcomes of another deep-rooted problem in the country, and not in themselves the causes of most maladies. There are many amazing intellectuals, well-intentioned professionals and thinkers working in various sectors in the country. Many organisations, platforms and forums are working as virtual islands of excellence. However, I have observed that our society lacks the art of thinking collectively. Many of us can do wonders individually but find it challenging to work optimally in a group.

The issues faced by today’s societies are complex and fluid. They require a continuous process of collective thinking. Even when the government responds to some issue, it remains reactionary and its interventions transitory. The absence of consistency in the collective thinking process hinders the incorporation of lessons learnt during the discourse. Individual organizations and persons can go only so far. The collective and shared wisdom can take us to new heights.

Let me explain what I mean by this art of thinking collectively. It relates to organising a group of individuals or a group of groups of people in such a way that they can achieve collective thinking and decision-making. It does not require a consensus. There may be differences in perspectives, ideologies and the worldview. It is the ability to organise thinking around divergent and competing choices is what matters.

This may be happening at a small level, but it becomes really challenging when the scale becomes large. For example, some communities living in a street or a neighbourhood may have come together to develop a collective action on some issue of common interest but it really becomes challenging when many neighbourhoods have to come together to decide something, particularly on a continuous basis. Some people believe that then it becomes the job of a state institution or a public sector machinery to organise the society to do a higher-level coordination. But the problem we have is that the public sector is even worse at this.

Within the state architecture, institutional rifts are the manifestation of the inability to think collectively. The dialogue and collective thinking among politicians and bureaucracy does not happen in an institutionalised manner.

Within the bureaucracy, the explicit divide among elite service groups and less-equal public servants hinders any coherent approach towards resolving the pressing issues collectively. Not to mention the lack of trust between technocrats/academics and the generalist bureaucracy, if they have to work together.

On the political side, the parties remain unable to develop collective thinking even within their ranks. No political party has a research arm that can help them understand and respond to emerging issues. If there was hope that electronic media would help to improve transparency and dialogue on big questions faced by the society, the outcome has been totally disappointing.

Within the bureaucracy, the explicit divide among elite service groups and less-equal public servants hinders any coherent approach towards resolving the pressing issues collectively. Not to mention the lack of trust between technocrats/academics and the generalist bureaucracy, if they have to work together.

What are the reasons for the lack of collective thinking in our society? Some may point to the diverse origins of people inhabiting the country. I do not think this is enough reason. Our challenge is an ability to cherish the diversity. I think there are four broad reasons behind this failure of collective thinking.

First, our educational system is individualist in terms of learning and performance. We rarely change the teaching-learning process to promote teamwork and thinking collectively. From the school level, children are trained to compete fiercely. The idea of grading at school level needs to be re-examined. Fragmentation and a class-based education system has destroyed social cohesion in the society.At the university level, the lack of inter-disciplinary exposure and dialogue hinder the development of an ability to grasp and tolerate diverse perspectives and worldviews.

Second, Pakistan lacks well-functioning local and city governments. Policymaking at the federal or provincial level is often disconnected from the people and communities. If power and functions of policymaking are devolved at the local level, people tend to gather and have debates on the issues which are important to them.

Town hall meetings and neighbourhood plans give practical training and exposure to people from different walks of life for a discussion on issues which matter to them. Due to the lack of people centric and empowered city governments this aspect is totally missing from our lives. Over time the elite have isolated themselves instead of developing vibrant public spaces that can help us advance social interaction.

Third, civil society (or community) organisations have to play an important role in promoting a healthy culture of dialogue and tolerance. In his recent book, The Third Pillar, Raghuram Rajan has eloquently explained the role of the community to serve people along with state and markets.

Unfortunately, Pakistan lacks such grassroots community organisations. Most of the so-called civil society organisations are contractors working for international aid agencies. They lack local sponsorship, membership and narratives. Most of the time they jump on the bandwagon of national or international narratives. This has damaged the potential of genuine community movements in our society.

Models like Changa Pani-Bhalwal and Elinor Ostrom’s work in Nepal testify to the importance of community engagement in developing and implementing shared agendas in partnership with the public sector. Akhuwat Foundation is also a local initiative that has been making efforts to address poverty through interest-free micro finance loans and education.

Learner’s Republic is another such informal platform of scholars and learners that has been evolving through self-financing and shared understanding of norms for a constructive dialogue. There is a need for many such platforms, genuine social/community organization, book clubs, street associations, and interdisciplinary forums to help promote the art of thinking collectively.

Fourth, both the rural origin and colonial legacy have made our society and the public sectors very hierarchical. We implicitly believe in a hierarchy of landed classes. Even in the public sector we value high positions and grades instead of giving respect to talent and ideas. The society continues to glorify people in power. Once people are hard-wired to believe in hierarchies, an open and collective dialogue becomes difficult.

It is important to appreciate the problem we are facing in terms of lacking the ability to think collectively and its consequences.