EDITORIAL
Pakistan is already a bureaucratic-cum technocratic government. It is a bizarre and undemocratic idea to implant an undemocratic and unrepresentative government.
A technocracy or a government of technocrats is a model of governance wherein decision-makers are picked for office based on their technical expertise and knowledge. Technocracy conflicts with a traditional democracy because individuals selected for a leadership role are chosen through their relevant skills and proven performance, as opposed to whether or not they represent the popular vote.
The individuals that inhabit such positions in a technocracy are known as “technocrats.” An example of a technocrat could be a head of a financial institution who is a trained economist and work as a professional.
Hence, a technocracy is a form of governance whereby government officials or policymakers, known as technocrats, are chosen by some higher authority due to their technical skills or expertise in a specific domain. Supposedly, decisions made by technocrats are based on information derived from data and factual methodology rather than opinion or self-interest. However, critics complain that technocracy is undemocratic and ignores the people’s will. Moreover, the technocrat government is launched by the most influential people in a country who are commonly not politicians.https://republicpolicy.com/dissecting-the-elite-civil-service-of-pakistan/
A technocracy is a political entity ruled by experts (technocrats) selected or appointed by some more high authority. Technocrats are explicitly chosen for their expertise in the area over which they are delegated authority to govern. In practice, because some higher authority must always appoint technocrats, the political structure and incentives that influence that higher power will also play some role in selecting technocrats. An official labelled a technocrat may need to refrain from possessing the political savvy or charisma typically expected of an elected politician. Instead, a technocrat may demonstrate more pragmatic and data-oriented problem-solving skills in the policy. Technocracy became a worldwide popular movement when it was believed that technical professionals, such as engineers and scientists, would better understand the economy’s inherent complexity than politicians. Generally, when politicians in a country cannot solve economic problems due to their inefficiency, technocrat governments are launched by influential people.
Then, reliance on technocracy can be criticized on several foundations. The actions and decisions of technocrats can contradict the will, rights, and interests of the people they rule. Consequently, it has often led to populist opposition to explicit technocratic policy decisions and the degree of power in general awarded to technocrats. These problems and confrontations help give rise to the populist concept of the “deep state”, which consists of an assertive, entrenched, unaccountable, and oligarchic technocracy which governs in its interests.https://republicpolicy.com/it-is-the-civilian-bureaucracy-that-rules-pakistan/
In a democratic society, the most pronounced criticism is that there is an intrinsic tension between technocracy and democracy. Technocrats often may not follow the people’s will because, by definition, they may have specialized expertise that the general population needs to gain. Technocrats may or may not be accountable to the people’s will for such decisions. In a government where citizens are guaranteed certain rights, technocrats may seek to infringe upon them if they believe their specialized knowledge suggests that it is appropriate or in the more significant public interest. The focus on science and technology principles is also seen as separate and disassociated from the humanity and nature of society. For instance, a technocrat might make decisions based on data calculations rather than the impact on the populace, individuals, or groups within the population.
In any government, regardless of who appoints the technocrats or how there is always a risk that technocrats will engage in policymaking that favours their interests or others to whom they conform over the public interest. Technocrats are necessarily placed in a position of trust since the knowledge used to enact their decisions is inaccessible to the general public. It creates a situation where there can be a high risk of self-dealing, collaboration, criminality, and cronyism. Economic problems such as rent-seeking, rent extraction, or regulatory capture are common in technocracy. Hence, the technocracy denies the people’s right to rule and creates administrative, legal and constitutional subversions.
The concept of technocracy in Pakistan has always been there. Inherently, Pakistan is bureaucratic governance. It is already a technocracy. In a governance system where the administrative secretary is the head of a ministry with the powers of the principal accounting officer, how can it be termed a non-technocratic government? However, it raises another question where is a bureaucrat generalist or technical? Furthermore, in Provinces, the positions of chief secretary and Inspector general of police make the technocrat government, and the chief minister and the provincial assembly are almost irrelevant. Cabinet governance is not functional in Pakistan, and virtually all administrative, financial and even legislative decisions are either carried out by bureaucracy or take the path through them. Then, what is the aim of a technocratic government?https://republicpolicy.com/creating-a-provincial-police-service/
Assumably, technocratic government means that the politicians cannot perform; therefore, specialists are required to run the affairs of the government. Pakistan is a complex federation; therefore, technocracy is undesirable as it will compromise people’s right to representation. However, critics explain that if influential people do not want to give the government to a specific leader in a third-world country, they prefer a technocratic government. Why do technocratic governments fail? They fail because they do not have the support of the people. Their decision-making lacks legality and morality. They are not answerable to people but to their masters. Hence, the mode of technocracy can only function in part of the federation of Pakistan if supported by the main political parties.
The constitution of Pakistan does not provide for technocracy. How can this form of governance be implemented without constitutional amendment? Then the fundamental question is, who shall control the technocratic government? How will it garner political, legal and constitutional legitimacy? The constitution of Pakistan provides a parliamentary form of governance. Therefore, no governance model can exist repugnant to the parliamentary form of government. The economic, administrative and political compulsions can not force to subvert the constitution.
Then, what is the solution? Political stability is the first imperative of good governance. Every form of government shall only function with political stability. Then, Pakistan needs civil service and administrative reforms. Pakistan should need to fix the issue of devolution and decentralization. Hence, it requires a functional democracy, not a technocracy. Therefore, Pakistan needs political stability and a smooth transition to the next government according to the people’s wishes. Elections are the only way forward to install the government. Technocracy is a breach of the federal parliamentary constitution. Politicians lead the processes of governance across democracies. Consistency in democracy is desirable. Pakistan is already bureaucratic-technocratic governance. Hence, there is no need to implant unrepresentative governments.https://republicpolicy.com/the-challenges-of-administrative-reforms-in-pakistan/
