That's the question bedeviling all those parliamentary committees as well. They think summoning Secretaries to the government, and if he deigns to, the minister, will give them the answer: who exactly is making the policy. What they get, instead, is a lot of waffle - remember Sir Humphrey (Yes Minister) wishing Merry Christmas, in chaste bureaucratese, to his Minister that left him totally baffled? What can the hapless bureaucrats tell them what they know not?
Call the Engineer, who is as out of depth in Defence matters as he was in matters of trade, and you will be none the wiser about Defence Policy. Call the Foreign Minister and all you will get is a lot of turgid air, but nothing about how we draw the balance when it comes to the vexatious Saudi- Iran relations, or what is our riposte to Palestinians recalling their envoy.
There is, of course, no Minister to call for Finance. Dar was bowled out on grounds legal and medical and the Advisor is yet to get to the crease for the 'slog overs'. Is it in anticipation of his hooking the first bouncer over the ropes that the business groups are falling over one another to buy advertising space to congratulate him? Or, are congratulations Morse code for 'remember us when the time comes'? [Incidentally, how do we reconcile our clamour of Foreign Affairs being without a Minister with the calm of Finance being without one? If there is one Ministry that requires a Minister it is Finance. BB made the departure from tradition in appointing V. A. Jaffery as Advisor Finance; some say it was foisted on her by the Establishment]
If the Parliament can't get any joy out of the Ministers and the Secretaries, can't call the PM or the Donors, and is unwilling or unable to put any policy questions to the Chief of Army Staff when he comes calling, doesn't it rule itself out of even an 'observer status' in policymaking?
So what are we left with? Surely, the people, for whose benefit all these policies are made, cannot be accused of even a distant role in policy-making. They cease to matter the moment they get out of the polling booth. Perhaps those who choose not to queue up at the polling stations know better!
The policy cycle begins with agenda setting (identification of issues by the Executive), followed by policy formulation (based on stakeholder inputs, and selecting from amongst the various alternatives the most cost-effective solution, politically and economically). The proposed policy then has to seek 'legitimacy' (through the parliament, unless it already has unambiguous public support). With adoption, it is ready to go live (implementation phase, where the civil services have to be well briefed/trained). The subsequent evaluation of the policy feeds back into agenda refinement.
Pakistan has almost invariably failed all five stages of the policy process. Party manifesto, or the aziz humwatano take over speeches, make lofty promises but office has a habit of making the ruler think that he has all the solutions. Participative process, which alone gives credence and ownership to policies, is an alien concept, and being in office deemed sufficient for purposes of legitimacy. Civil services, nurtured on concept of loyalty to the regime, implement the ruler's imperative through means fair or foul, sticking to output rather than outcome.
The trouble with person-driven policies, for better or for worse, is that they get jettisoned the moment the ruler gets replaced. Any number of examples here, from Ayub's basic democracy to Musharraf's devolution. Policy continuity, the essence of governance, can only be ensured through a participative process that also bears the stamp of legitimacy.
All facets of our real economy resonate with policies that fly in the face of sound socio-economic reasoning. In agriculture, we persist in not pricing water right, in subsidizing electricity for tube wells knowing fully well overexploitation of ground resources is pushing the water table down and contributing to water pollution, in fixing support prices (often above international levels) we dis-incentivize productivity gains and promote market disequilibria. Our default response to sub-optimal agricultural growth is not efficiency enhancement measures but 'packages' that reward the inefficient through cheaper inputs that disturb the entire supply chain, greater credit that is prone to misuse, higher support prices that hurt consumer interest and render the upstream agro-based industries uncompetitive.
Manufacturing sector, almost in its entirety, stands on governmental crutches. Auto, power, steel, cement, food, sugar sectors are doing well not because of total productivity gains that match international standards but because of government support and complicit regulators. All of them thrive because they don't have to face real competition. Lower the entry barriers, check cartelization, reduce the high import duties (all of them enjoy staggering rates of effective protection), actualize social compliance (worker welfare, environmental concerns), let consumers have a voice, and you will see the house of cards tumbling.
Transport sector, effectively unregulated, has a virtual carte blanche to do what it likes. Banking has been fattened on government paper, the best arbitrage going. Unless it gets back to its real business (and while it is at it give a fair deal to the depositors, who make that mother of ungainly profits, 'fractional banking', possible) it risks meeting the fate of the duck fattened for foie gras. The stock market is shallow, dependent largely on the twenty or so 'heavyweights', each of which itself is heavily dependent on government largesse. Insurance sector the world over is rated on the basis of claims paid as a percentage of premium, the normal being 80%. Does the sector, as a whole, come close to this standard?
Who is the real beneficiary of these policies? It is the big zamindar and big business. Policymaking requires evidence-based research that the government is almost wholly bereft of. The void is filled by interest groups. They are the ones you see being ushered into the corridors of power; and now they have started parachuting 'their own' into government. Big business has captured policy. It is the policymaker.
[email protected]