More than seven decades have passed since Pakistan’s creation. The country still faces challenges in institution building. This is mostly because of a lack of consistent democratic governance. Most political analysts believe that civil and political institutions remain weak on account of flawed laws, insufficient autonomy, nepotism, non-implementation of institutional decisions and political interference in administrative decision making.

Institution building is a slow and difficult process for any country. Policy makers hold that effective institutions can only be built by keeping the political tug of war in check. What is needed, they say, is sufficient empowerment of institutions. Many say neither the state nor the society will see significant development in the country until there is a broad consensus among its decision makers to empower its political leaders.

The armed forces and the superior Judiciary are the best examples of strong national institutions in the country. It is sometimes argued that they have both benefited from administrative independence. Ironically, both have been accused of exceeding their mandate and thereby not allowing the Executive to function independently.

In recent years – especially, after the movement for the restoration of the Judiciary in the wake of an attempt by President Pervez Musharraf to rein it in – the judiciary has gained strength and risen in public esteem. After the movement’s success, the Judiciary made a policy of appointing chief justices on the basis of seniority, taking away the government’s discretion in the matter. It also refined the mechanism whereby judges are appointed to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The senior most SC judge is automatically appointed as chief justice of Pakistan, irrespective of the length of his remaining tenure. And yet, many, including some legal experts, say courts face external pressure when deciding matters of a political nature.

The accountability institutions are trapped in a vicious cycle of political victimisation and manipulation.

The local governments – the third tier of democracy – are another weak institution. The local government system faces severe challenges of fiscal and administrative autonomy. This may in part be because local governments have been used by the military regimes in the country to undermine mainstream political parties. When in power, mainstream parties have never shown the will to transfer or devolve powers to this tier.

Institution building in the parliament also remains week amid polarization and alleged attempts by the establishment to undermine the political leadership.

The accountability institutions are trapped in a vicious cycle of political victimisation and manipulation. Since its creation in 1947, the National Accountability Bureau, has lacked an independent, uniform and permanent model of accountability. The processes of accountability continues to be grossly abused. Frameworks and organisations created to look over accountability in Pakistan have always given the impression of working hand-in-glove with powerful decision makers. The process of accountability in the country lacks maturity and merit, muddling the path of a sustainable and healthy democratic process. It is clear to the public that the process of accountability in the country remains a political tool used to subdue resistance to the rulers.

Key regulatory bodies of the country – the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority, the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, the Competition Commission of Pakistan, as well as regulatory bodies for health and educational institutions – lack independence and the regulatory frameworks are flawed. It has been alleged that the parliament has never played a constructive role in this regard.

Governance and policy experts say Pakistan needs to focus on institution building. Rustum Shah Mohmand writes, “Recent election to the upper house was another blot on the so-called democratic institutions of the country. The sale of votes, the wheeling and dealing, and the hypocrisy were in glaring evidence and so widely publicised that the whole exercise brought shame to the country. One would wonder why there should be such anxiety for an institution that has so little role in decision-making and passage of laws.” Tasneem Noorani, a former bureaucrat, is of the opinion that “If institution building is truly desired, this government will have to walk the talk and be as bold as it has been on the economic front.”

The author is a staff reporter. He can be reached at    vaqargillani@gmail.com