.. by Mir Wazir Khan
One can hardly find a country in the world that has not faced challenges in its history. However, the difference between progressive and retrogressive nations lie in the fact that the former (progressive) make honest and concerted efforts to solve such issues and challenges with timely and appropriate response and issues of same nature do not recur again and again. While retrogressive nations often fail to come up with matching response to emerging issues and challenges and such problems recur time and again. The societies in the former category contribute in the march of civilizations while the latter category only dwells in hallucination depending on others for its needs and for its bare-minimum survival. It remains in the periphery of global civilizational advancement and hardly contributes anything of its own to make the world a better place to live.
In our country, major issues of economic, sociopolitical and institutional nature are recurring causing further instability in the field of economy, politics and social cohesion. If we look at the history of Pakistan, we can see that more or less the same problems are recurring time and again. Most of the time of those in the power structure is wasted in firefighting for the solution of routine issues which reach crisis-level because of lack of timely and honest response by our ruling elites. We adopted both presidential and parliamentary form of governments, military rule, local government systems, provincial autonomy etc. but our core challenges still persist. We have adopted a unanimous constitution of 1973 which was amended several times but still the job description and job distribution among Legislature, Executive and Judiciary is still matters of disputations.
The post-Zia democratic period spanning from 1988-1999 saw two major political parties of the time perennially struggling to overthrow each other’s governments with the support of the establishment and four political governments were dissolved within a span of ten years. The PPP government formed in 1988 was dissolved in 1990. Caretaker setup established; elections held and PML-N came to power in 1991 but the government was dissolved in 1993. Elections were held under caretaker government and PPP came to power in 1993 and its government was dismissed in 1996. Under caretaker setup elections were held and PML-N came to power with heavy mandate both in the Centre and provinces in 1997 only to be overthrown in a military coup in October 1999 by late General Pervez Musharraf. After a few years of military rule, the military strongman introduced tailored democracy under his own stewardship which continued till 2008 when general elections were held and PPP again came to power.
During the regime of late Pervez Musharraf, two major political parties (PPP & PML-N), strived to strengthen democracy by signing Charter of Democracy (COD). It was meant to safeguard democracy from other competing forces such as the establishment through cooperation and promotion of dialogue between major political parties The CoD would have been more people-friendly if it worked for empowerment of common man through sanctification of grassroots level democracy and one-man-one-vote concept. However, the CoD could not be a complete success as it failed both in the strengthening of the concept of democracy at grassroots level and in the regular promotion of dialogue between major political parties. Despite having signed CoD, none of our elected prime ministers of the post- Musharraf era (2008-2024) completed their terms. Such frequent making and breaking of governments badly impacted continuity and consistency of policies resulting in economic downturn and sociopolitical challenges.
PTI endeavored to give ‘Charter of Economy’ (CoE) to the country which aimed at economic recovery and development of the country. It was surmised that all political parties-both in government and opposition—should agree on some fundamental principles for the economic progress of the country without making it an issue along party divides. But no tangible result came out of this effort. The present government at the Centre is also repeatedly appealing to all political forces for unity of purpose on policy issues vis-à-vis political stability and economic recovery of the country. However, no visible agreement or any progress has been seen so far.
Why not a third Charter? It should be named as ‘Charter of Governance’ (CoG). From our past experience, it seems that ‘good governance’ is the real solution of all of our challenges and the CoG will likely be the mother of all charters. What then is ‘Good governance’? ‘Good Governance’ is not something like a miracle which is in the realm of impossibility. Most countries in Europe and North America and even some autocratic regimes have made breathtaking progress in different fields of life because of rule of law and good governance. ‘Good Governance’ is managing the affairs of the country in accordance with the constitution, laws and rules and regulations made under the law. It means improving public services and institutions efficient and effective in the discharge of their duties in a customer-driven spirit. Every person holding public office—from elected representatives at national, provincial down to municipal level should discharge their functions with honesty and integrity. Likewise, public servants like senior officers down to office boy should likewise perform their functions as per the laws, rules and regulations. The more public servants work with honesty and integrity the greater the performance and output of the nation-building departments will be. When institutions perform at optimal level, there will certainly be economic progress and political stability. Hence the establishment of rule of law and good governance is the corner stone and prerequisite for any other progress like economic progress or political stability.
Everybody knows that without good governance there cannot be nourishment of democracy and economic progress. Then is it ‘democracy’ which as a form of government ensures ‘Good Governance’ or is it ‘Good Governance’ which guides democracy? Which one is the central pillar and has precedence? I think it is Good Governance which is central and important and democracy is a subordinate exercise in the realization of Good Governance. Democracy began in ancient Greece some 2500 year ago and slowly and gradually matured in Europe particularly in the UK for the last about 300 years. The people thought that monarchy is old and obsolete form of governance and in it the rights and aspiration of the people are subordinated to the whims and absolute and arbitrary powers of the kings and monarchs. So Democracy was chosen as a more transparent and accountable form of governance in man’s quest for good governance.
Hence Democracy is an effort in the struggle for the realization and assurance of good governance and not vice versa. It is important that all political parties should honestly strive for the promotion of genuine democratic values for the development and nourishment of Democracy. Democracy is not all about holding elections after every few years and making coalitions just to gain power or achieving numbers by all means to pass choice legislation to further consolidate power. The successful functioning of Democracy is a matter of principles; of ideology and of hearts and minds and thinking pattern rather than numbers. Both the electors and the elected should have democratic hearts and minds for making democracy a success. Genuine democratic culture discourages electable regularly changing political parties based on chances of government formations. Unfortunately in Pakistan this vital element of democratic culture is absolutely lacking. Growth of democratic culture and values within the political parties through internal election system and accountability is another vital ingredient of democracy. The parties should come up with their distinct ideologies, manifestos and action plans for tackling major issues of the country like achieving political stability, economic recovery, cohesion among federating units, eradication of corruption and extremism, control of population explosion, poverty and unemployment etc. If one party is in favor of privatization of state-owned enterprises and the other is not; if one party favors a particular legislation regulating the service structure of a particular institution and the other party thinks differently then that cannot be said that the parties are having distinct manifestos. These are just operational tactics and not manifestos.
It is the paramount responsibility of the political governments to provide guidance to the permanently working bureaucracy and make it work efficiently and effectively. Therefore, the CoG should work towards strengthening of the country’s permanent institutions and structures. Governments come and go but the permanent institutions continue working. It is these institutions which implement and execute the policies and programs envisioned by political government and policy makers. If these institutions do not work properly then good governance and progress cannot be achieved. If political parties- government and opposition- continuously engage in political infighting then who will provide governance, guidance and check and balance to permanent bureaucracy. No tangible progress can be achieved in any domain of national life if permanent bureaucratic structures and national institutions are not working properly and with consistency of policies.
Rule of law and good governance are complimentary and supplementary. Without rule of law and good governance there cannot be political stability, economic progress and social order. It is not economic progress and social order which ensures good governance and rule of law. Rather it is good governance and rule of law which guarantees economic progress and social order. There are many countries that are not having ideal Westminster brand democracy but are having rule of law and good governance with enviable stability and economic progress. So the assurance of rule of law, equality before the law and accountability and responsiveness of institutions to the people and to the needs and aspiration of the people should be the main aim of ‘Charter of Governance’. Without good governance and rule of law economic progress, prosperity and stability cannot be achieved. .. Mir Wazir Khan, Upper Chitral 01 March 2025
One thought on “On the importance of ‘Charter of Governance’”
Nice article, but I would like to add a couple of comments.
First, we are not a nation. A basic ingredient for a nation is a common language, and we lack that. With an imported language, we cannot form a nation.
Second, there is no democracy in our country; it’s a country where ‘democracy is dead.’ I call it dead because this democracy hanged one of our prime ministers and ousted many without reason—one is even in jail without cause for more than a year. Thus, a South American professor of sociology calls it a ‘hybrid system,’ and a professor of political science in America calls it a ‘deep state.’
Third, you are discussing the CoD. I don’t think that is a useful document because it doesn’t mention or discuss any social contract; it only silences the 2 parties from saying ‘Punjabi luteera’ and ‘Sindhi daku,’ etc.
Lastly, the charter of governance is related to benefits and money. Without an ‘overman’ or a very powerful person, such reform is not possible. By nature, humans are selfish and self-interested, and no one is ready to lose their benefits. According to Stefan Dercon, a British economist, Pakistan’s elites are engaged in a battle for the capture of resources and power as part of a clientelist patronage state. So, talking about the CoG seems theoretical, not practical.