Barrister Shahram Khan
Mr Muhammad Shbaz Sharif is one of the most successful politicians in Pakistan. He has been thrice the chief minister of the largest province of Punjab and, ultimately, the country’s prime minister. So, his CV as a politician is worth inspiring. Then, during these years, he claimed to be the best political administrator in Pakistan. His supporters may acknowledge his claims, but there is also harsh criticism from the opponents of his governance.
According to article one of the constitution, Pakistan is a federal parliamentary state. Thus, powers are distributed between the federation and provinces as per Schedule IV of the constitution. The federation has 56 exclusive powers as per the federal legislative list part I, whereas the Council of common interests CCI also have 18 exclusive powers as per FLL part II. Thus, all residuary powers are provincial. Before the 18th Amendment, there was also a concurrent list with the federation and provinces having a common power. It is explained only to know that there is a difference between the prime minister and the chief minister. Both portfolios have different content, positions and executions.
Then, Mr Shahbaz Sharif ( prime minister ) differs from the chief minister. The prime minister’s portfolio is entirely different from that of the chief minister. Mr Shahbaz Sharif began his political career ( political executive ) as a chief minister in 1997. although earlier, he remained MPA, MNA and leader of the opposition in the Punjab assembly in 1993. However, his career as a leading political executive began in 1997. Even initially, he created an impact irrespective of the divergent arguments for the success of his governance model.
A government comprises three fundamental organs—the legislature, executive and judiciary. In parliamentary governance, the executive is derived from the legislature. Therefore, the legislature is the most substantial organ. However, it has not been the case in Pakistan. Here, it is not the legislature but the leader of the ruling political party that runs the affairs of the legislature and executive against the spirit of parliamentary governance. Hence, the executive dominates the legislature. Accordingly, being the brother of Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, Shahbaz Sharif dominated the legislature and executive. It is the first trait of the governance model of Shahbaz Sharif that he is the brother of the leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (N).
Republic Policy ( Think Tank ) publishes English and Urdu Magazines. It can be purchased here; https://www.daraz.pk/shop/3lyw0kmd
Naturally, if one is the most trusted person of the leader of a political party in a third-world democracy, one is the most powerful political administrator. Therefore, Shahbaz Sharif dominated the cabinet as chief minister during his three tenures. Even he held several portfolios of provincial ministries. This concentration of power is against the spirit of cabinet governance, where collective contribution and responsibility is the fundamental idea. He never relied on his cabinet ministers but on a couple of kitchen cabinet members.
Being an influential member of a dynastic political family, he never attended the Punjab assembly sessions. Thus, he always evaded legislative accountability of the legislature. This governance style is inherently undemocratic and unaccountable. Hence, he never cared about legislators, cabinet ministers or assembly members. His critics attribute his governance model to be autocratic and undemocratic because it does not relate to the cannons of parliamentary governance. The judiciary is also a significant part of the government. The legislature legislates, and the executive implements the law. Judiciary interprets the law and upholds the fundamental rights and upholds the law and the constitution.
The relations of Shahbaz Sharif with the judiciary have been mediocre. Then, he never worked to reform the judiciary or justice system. Apart from the judiciary, he never tried to reform the executive branch of the government also, let alone the legislature.
Shahbaz Sharif is neither a political reformer nor an administrative reformer. Then, what is his core reliance? His core reliance is bureaucracy. Over the years, as a chief minister in Punjab, he relied heavily on bureaucracy. Instead, he did not rely on bureaucracy as an institution but chose a few blue-eyed bureaucrats and empowered them to attain his governance objectives. How did he destroy the institution of civil service? His dealing with the civil service was simple. He would appoint junior executives and police officers to higher posts and then control them according to his governance objectives. It is called erratic posting. Nevertheless, this erratic posting is now rampant across all governments under all political leaders. It has destroyed the merit and transparency in the bureaucracy.
Then, he destroyed the working of administrative departments. Rather than empowering the administrative departments, he developed project and company modes. Both modes were expensive and destroyed the core administrative units. It is pertinent to mention that all his erratic posting endeavors, along with project and company modes, are declared illegal by the courts. One most important things are his financial distribution of the budget. The distribution of schemes was always targeted, so the Planning and Development Department Punjab P&D was made a personal stronghold. The institutional framework was never built. Instead, all the departments and organizations were made person specific. This is where the institutional collapse began in Punjab, and the poor governance of Usman Buzdar in Punjab further accentuated it. The worst thing Shahbaz Sharif has done to the system is the personalization of the governance than institutionalizing it. He represents concentration of power, therefore, local bodies and devolution was never a priority.
As an administrator, he can be called a better district administrator of a local government. He inherently belongs to local government, then how can he fit into provincial or federal governments? One thing more important is his propelling personality. He always works. He propels things. He is a man of action than Usman Buzdar, who is a man of inaction. Critics attribute that the personalization of governance by Shahbaz Sharif, followed by inaction by Usman Buzdar has wrecked the governance system in Punjab. Coming back to the governance model of Shahbaz Sharif, his elevation as the prime minister of the country was meant to be a big failure.
One can easily assess Shahbaz Sharif if one goes through Schedule IV of the constitution. His personality is diametrically opposed to the functions of the federal legislative list, part I & II. To be precise, he is not a statesman nor a federalist. Then, the functions of the federal government are not developmental but coordinating.
It raises a question, how is Shahbaz Sharif trying to impose his governance model? He has yet to deliver as a prime minister of the federation. What is he trying to do now? He is simply poking into the affairs of the provinces, especially the Punjab, to showcase his governance talent. Even for this purpose, he is subverting the constitution and governance institutions, if left any. He is controlling the Punjab government through the federal IG and Chief Secretary. How can a prime minister of a country control the provincial Ata scheme or visit and control the provincial hospitals and other organizations, especially after the 18th Amendment? He needs to focus more on the economy and foreign affairs, and other federal subjects. Again, he is destroying the federal scheme of governance by hijacking provincial affairs through federal officers. It is observed that he will again impose his personalization of governance at the cost of the fall of the federal scheme of institutions.
Lastly, if Shahbaz Sharif can not relive his instinctive bent of doing things like a local government administrator, why is he reputed to be a successful provincial and federal administrator? His tenure as the prime minister of Pakistan has exposed his administration. Then, he is never a Democrat or political leader.
