Good
governance
Actors of Governance
As governance is the process of decision-making by which decisions are implemented, its analysis
involves formal and informal actors taking part in decision-making and the formal and informal
frameworks in which the decisions are implemented.
The government is the principal actor in governance. Other actors taking part in governance may differ
depending on the type of government. For example, in rural parts of a state, other actors may comprise
powerful landlords, organisations of farmers, co-ops, NGOs, religious leaders, investing or sponsoring
institutions, political parties and the army. The condition in cities or urban areas is more complicated. At
the national level, besides the above-mentioned actors, the media, international donors and
multinational companies could influence the decision-making process (United Nations). All actors
besides government and the army form part of the civil society. In various countries, besides civil
society, organised crime syndicates also influence the decision-making process especially in urban areas
and at the national level. At the national level, informal decisionmaking actors for instance “kitchen
cabinets”, informal guides or advice-givers may influence decision-making. In urban areas, organised
crime syndicates for example “land mafia” could influence the decision-making process. In some rural
areas, powerful local families carry significant influence. Such forms of informal decision-making result
in corrupt practices
Challenges in Implementation of Good Governance in Pakistan
If decisions are not implemented effectively, and the public voice is unheard, it gives rise to
several evils and challenges toward good governance such as nepotism, fraud, corruption and the
misuse of national resources. It decreases national resources and increases poverty which will
mark the fall of the nation. These challenges is the root cause of the downfall of nations
including Pakistan.
The concept of good governance
The concept of “governance” refers to the process of decision-making and its implementation.
Good governance is when a government adopts an approach to delivering to ensure social
justice, economic development, and peace. A state with good governance is characterized by the
provision of civil liberties and equal opportunities for individual and collective development.
The following are the obstacles on the way towards the implementation of good governance
in Pakistan
Weak institutional set-up
One of the prerequisites to establish good governance in any country is the presence of strong
and independent institutions. Until and unless these are established, sustained and made stronger
than individuals, good governance would remain a far dream in Pakistan. Institutions related to
policing and accountability work under severe political pressure and other influence of other
strong institutions. Little effort has been made to build institutions on a stable footing in the
country right from day. The powerful and influential also have dominated politics and economic
life rather than the institutions. Institutions like the National Accountability Bureau are not
granted full independence, to bring the criminals to justice and inquire about the cases of
powerful people.
Political instability
In more than 72 years, Pakistan has remained under the dictatorial rule for more than 34 years
leaving little space for political institutions and democratic system to grow. After the end of a
decade’s long dictatorship, a new political system is installed from scratch. The new political
system is dismissed and bulldozed before it gets mature and this vicious circle has been repeating
since independence. Political parties are also used against each other at the behest of those more
powerful which has acted as a roadblock on way leading towards good governance.
Rampant corruption
One of the causes of bad governance is the prevalence of corruption across the institutions and
levels, ultimately resulting in lawlessness and underdevelopment of the nation. The absence of
an impartial and independent accountability system has resulted in the growth of this monster
rather than preventing it.
Lack of accountability and transparency
Accountability occupies a key place in the establishment of good governance. Social justice and
national development cannot be thought of in the absence of strict accountability of the rulers
and the institutions of the state. But, it is very hard to find it in Pakistan’s weak institutional set-
up.
The poor situation of law and order
Pakistan has witnessed poor law and order situation for decades. People are being robbed and
killed in bright daylight. People do not feel safe and secure. Terrorist activities killing the lives
of innocent people had become a rule rather than an exception until recently. Religious places,
schools, and sensitive places are safeguarded for fear of terrorism. This sorry state of law and
order has kept the investors away from the country negatively impacting the economy of the
country.
CORRUPTION
Poor governance leads to, nay encourages and breeds, corruption in a number of ways, for
instance through bribery and extortion, nepotism, and fraud and embezzlement. It reduces the
efficiency on which an economy depends, and by increasing the cost of investment, lowers the
potential return. It also reduces the government’s resources and hence its capacity for
investment.
Common to other South Asian countries, corruption in Pakistan is unique because it occurs up
stream, it has wings which encourage flight of capital rather than wheels which encourage
reinvestment and it often rewards rather than punishes as the legal processes to fight corruption
are weak in themselves and the lower judiciary is amenable to letting off the accused if the ‘price
is right’. There is a general feeling that the most corrupt arm of the police is the anti-corruption
establishment itself. Corruption has had adverse effects on human development (which
contributes to people’s inability to fight corruption through an improvement in governance as a
result of deprivation of knowledge, literacy and rights), skewed public sector investment
priorities which favour large visible projects where the chances for rent-seeking are substantial.
As Pakistan faces a paucity of resources, it is unable to set up and enforce an effective legal
framework. At the heart of the problem lies the corruption equation, first devised by Robert
Klitgaard in 1988: Corruption = f(Monopoly power, discretion, accountability, low government
salaries) The combination of monopoly power and discretion alone is a disastrous combination.
When linked to the absence of accountability and low legal earnings they become more than just
lethal. Many judges, lawyers and other professionals agree that most, if not all, laws exist only to
create an environment for corruption. Some have even suggested that they actually encourage
corruption both implicitly and explicitly because of the built in inconsistencies and
contradictions. They create monopolies because power is centralised and they provide immense
discretion to set aside any law in the public interest (a euphemism for my personal benefit). John
Lonsdale (1986) found accountability where “the abuse of power is given its proper name, and is
properly punished under a rule of law which stands above political faction”4 . Thus,
accountability, at its simplest, means holding public officials responsible for their actions.
One obvious mechanism to eliminate corruption would be to review legislation which helps
breed corruption, such as through creating monopoly power, permitting discretion without
checks and balances, places authority without responsibility. Parallel to this should be an effort
to reform the judicial system generally. Another mechanism would be to introduce legislation
which is effectively implemented through an impartial and independent authority (with
substantial representation from civil society and the senior members of the judiciary).
Corresponding changes in the laws of evidence and trial should allow for flexibility in
procedures and rigour of evidence. The double standards prevalent in the developed world,
particularly the safe havens of Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas,
and now also the United States of America and the United Kingdom impose stiff legal challenges
to the laundering of money generated from drugs, but a similar treatment to bribes, extortion
embezzlement and fraud is conspicuous by its absence. This needs to be rectified urgently.
Competition, clear rules, and disclosure are important first steps for corruption. Many countries
have sophisticated and strict laws addressing corruption. Yet the existence of legislation alone is
insufficient. The problem may lie with a lack of dependable enforcement. At the same time that
legislation is enacted, the strength and independence of the judiciary must be secured. While
disclosure of wealth by officials and elected representatives is required by law, follow-up action
is missing. Legislation should be enacted which provides for a mandatory cross-verification of
declarations for a minimum sample of returns. Delayed and no-returns should be penalised
severely. In the event that investigation reveals concealment or mis-declaration, then an
independent tribunal of the senior most judges and civil society representative drawn from
professional accountants (who should be elected for three year terms) should order punishment
after due process. Punishments should include, confiscation of property, jail and severance from
service without benefits. In summary, the action needed to eliminate corruption should include
the following elements on a national level: ! Begin accountability from the top ! Set up national
anti-corruption commissions and appoint an independent watchdog
Set up exclusive corruption courts ! End unnecessary or archaic discretionary laws ! Enact
legislation to improve accountability, ensure transparency, punish the corrupt severely and
ensure time bound action ! Require public officials to declare their assets ! Provide immunity to
informers ! Pass a Right to Information Bill ! Use independent private-sector auditors ! Involve
people in diagnosing corrupt systems ! Implement core institutional reforms and repair corrupt
systems ! Ensure an active and free press It is also necessary that parallel action at the
international level should also be undertaken so that the double standards which exist are
removed. Such actions, should include: ! Making all bribes given in industrialised countries
illegal ! Ensuring that all ‘illegal’ money and property transactions in industrialised countries is
treated at par with drug money ! Linking aid to humane governance through a programme
funding mechanism “such as under IMF’s ESAF/EFF, and the World Bank’s Structural
Adjustment Loans or Programme Loans are structured such that circumventing any
conditionality becomes nearly impossible. These provide initial bridge financing to start the
process of change and specify benchmarks which are quantifiable and verifiable exogenously by
third parties. They must be achieved before any subsequent tranche is released. Disbursement is
either withheld or delayed pending compliance, thereby providing both the carrot and the stick to
encourage the implementation of change” (SPDC 1999). CONCLUSION Drawing a lesson from
this and other evidence from studies around the world one may conclude that for the state to
ensure sustainable and equitable development, it must realise that while the government has a
role to play in economic development this can only be achieved best through a realisation that
such a positive role requires not an expansion in the scale of government activity, but an increase
in its effectiveness and a major reallocation of its resources. Poor governance is now
recognizable. There is a failure to establish a framework of law and government behaviour
conduce to development, with a tendency to divert public resources for private gain. No
arbitrariness in the application of rules and laws with excessively narrowly based decision
making mechanisms only exacerbate the problem. Further comparing the path to development
followed by Pakistan with that of East Asia, it would appear that some of the reasons for the
crisis in economic governance can be traced to the following: ! political stability, ! stable
macroeconomic environment, ! the outward-looking trade strategies as opposed to the
protectionist strategies, ! the quality of primary education, ! effective land reforms, ! credit
reforms, ! a merit based, efficient and competent bureaucracy, ! well-functioning institutions, and
! identification and development of core areas of comparative advantage The recent HDC Report
[1999] suggests that much of Pakistan’s economic woes can be overcome if it could focus on the
last of these reasons for the differences in growth of the two regions and also invest more heavily
in the development of human resources. However, the country is faced with a fiscal dilemma
because it is living, by and large, beyond its means, and there can be no social uplift and a
reduction in poverty without the key fiscal problems being addressed. Pakistan is spending far
more borrowed money than it can actually retire through future economic growth. The fiscal
deficits have remained high, between 5 to 8 percent of the GDP over most of the last decade.
This leads to an increase in public debt, decline in real exchange rates, macroeconomic
instability and rising interest rates. Cumulatively, these could result in economic regress and, in
the final analysis, human regress.
