An Institutional Graveyard

7/24/2019 An Institutional Graveyard

1/5

An Institutional Graveyard

THERE is good news from Islamabad. Some 80 potential donors met in the cityand pledged over $ billion to help the co!ntry recover from the ravages of the

earth"!a#e of ctober 8. %ost of the f!nds raised are to be !sed torehabilitate the more than three million people left homeless and witho!teconomic assets. If money was the only constraint& this wo!ld spell the end ofthe co!ntry's travails. (!t that& !nfort!nately& is not the case.

)aced with this enormo!s b!rden to reconstr!ct an economy on which some *0million people depend& the +a#istani state will also need to reb!ild itself. verthe last 0 years& the state has been wea#ened to the point that it barelyf!nctions.

In the last co!ple of col!mns& I have drawn comparisons between the Indianand +a#istani sit!ations to ma#e the point that there are things abo!t Indiathat gives it enormo!s advantage over +a#istan in many fields. This ispartic!larly the case in the effort by the two co!ntries to develop andmoderni,e. India will s!cceed in spite of the fact that some of the economicand social problems it faces are more serio!s than those that we face. -fterall& India is m!ch more crowded than +a#istan.

ith some */ to 0 per cent of the world's poor& the b!rden of poverty itcarries is also m!ch heavier. There is great ine"!ality not 1!st among its more

than one billion people. Some of the Indian states in the co!ntry's north andeast have a per capita income that is one2fo!rth of the average achieved bysome of those in the west and so!th. There are serio!s social and politicalproblems in the co!ntry that the vario!s systems in play are barely able tohandle.

In many parts of the co!ntry& women still face great discrimination. ifeb!rning to p!nish yo!ng women for not bringing s!fficient dowry for thegroom's ho!sehold is s!fficiently common to worry sociologists and socialwor#ers. The system of roads& railways& bridges and ports is straining !nder the

impact of a rapidly growing economy. India has done even less than +a#istan toimprove the physical infrastr!ct!re it inherited from the (ritish. The Indianb!rea!crat& in spite of all the investment the co!ntry has made in its fabledInstit!tions of %anagement& contin!es to believe that his 1ob is to obstr!ctrather than to facilitate. -nd yet& India now has the rep!tation of a co!ntrythat wor#s3 +a#istan that of a co!ntry poised on the edge of an abyss.


2/5

There are many reasons for this of which I co!nt fo!r as being really important.The Indians do a m!ch better 1ob of representing themselves o!tside theco!ntry than we do.

This helps to bring in foreign capital& technology and management e4pertise.

They have also invested m!ch more 5 and m!ch more intelligently than wehave done 5 in creating a highly s#illed and well informed wor# force. Icommented on these contrib!tors to India's growth in last wee#'s article.Today I will write abo!t one other difference between the two co!ntries 5 adifference that gives India a better chance of s!cceeding than +a#istan in thenew global economic and political order.

India today has a m!ch stronger instit!tional base than we do. ver the lasthalf cent!ry 5 certainly after the ass!mption of power in *67* by !lfi#ar -li(h!tto 5 +a#istan has systematically destroyed the instit!tions it inherited

from the (ritish Ra1. India did the opposite by significantly improving !pon itsinstit!tional inheritance.

In the instit!tional graveyard we find in +a#istan& tombstones carry s!ch namesas the civil administration and the system of governance3 the 1!dicial and legalsystems3 political parties& and the political system3 the systems for form!latingand implementing economic and social strategies3 colleges& !niversities and thesystem of ed!cation.

Two instit!tional str!ct!res that have s!rvived are the military and the press&

the latter beca!se of the relative tolerance displayed by a n!mber of recentadministrations& especially the c!rrent one. However& I will s!ggest in a laterarticle that a free press witho!t a political system that represents all segmentsof the people cannot do its 1ob ade"!ately. It can only point o!t the blemishesthat e4ist in society b!t cannot correct them.

hy have we created this graveyard of instit!tions9

The "!estion has been as#ed and answered several times. :nli#e leaders andleadership gro!ps in India& those who have r!led +a#istan came to believe that

the instit!tions that were in place stood in the way of their ability to reachtheir goals. Some of the time the goals were personal enrichment orconcentration of power in a single pair of hands. Even when the r!lers' aim wasto improve the welfare of common citi,ens& most instit!tions were regarded asb!mps in the road to be traversed.

The process of instit!tional decay began the moment +a#istan gained


3/5

independence. The co!ntry's first generation of r!lers did not have a firmpolitical base. ;ot prepared to tr!st the masses& it bypassed them. Th!s beganthe tradition of r!le witho!t cons!ltation& disco!rse or representation. -t thesame time& the !rgent need to rehabilitate and resettle millions of ref!geeswho had arrived from India led to the !se of !nconstrained state power.

Evac!ee property 5 the assets left by the departing Hind!s and Si#hs 5was disposed off at the will of administrators whose actions co!ld not be easily"!estioned in the co!rts. The seeds of corr!ption that was to mar the +a#istanilandscape in the decade of the *660s were& in fact& planted in the soilimmediately after the co!ntry was fo!nded.

The first seven years of +resident -y!b


4/5

permitted the 1!dges and the 1!dicial system to #eep the fast moving economicand social systems within legal bo!nds. :ltimately& the instit!tions he did notb!ild& or those that he did not develop& destroyed those he had created withtender loving care.

The destr!ction of instit!tions contin!ed !nder -y!b


5/5

governance in which people wo!ld openly participate. That had beenaccomplished in India3 given the chance once again& the +a#istani leaders letthe co!ntry down once more. Theirs was total fail!re which once againenco!raged the military to step in.

%y assertion in the first article of the present series that the military ta#eoversaved the co!ntry from pl!nging into a political and economic abyss has beencontested by some of my friends who were very active in politics at that time. Icontin!e to believe that a brea# was needed in the tra1ectory the co!ntry wasp!rs!ing at that time. (!t the "!estion is whether progress has been madesince ctober *& *666.

The answer has to be in the negative. nce again there is a belief thatinstit!tions are not important3 what are needed are the leader's goodwill&determination and vision. :nder +resident +erve, %!sharraf there has been no

progress in terms of developing civilian instit!tions& improving the state of the1!diciary& strengthening the legal system& developing the capacity to dostrategic thin#ing in economic affairs& forcing the development of politicalparties& and laying down r!les for s!ccession. -nd by re"!iring the military toenter not only politics b!t also many civilian activities& he may have h!rt theone instit!tion that had s!rvived the general decay in the co!ntry'sinstit!tional fo!ndation.

Documents

An Institutional Graveyard