CHANGING SHAPE OF POLITICS: RISE OF TECHNOCRACY IN AN AGE OF DEMOCRACY

Hammad Raza
We are witnessing an obviously increasing tendency towards the technocratization of contemporary political-decision making processes regardless of their social and political structures in any state. Theorists of economy and diplomacy in the West assure that the momentum of technocracy is such that we now live under a managerial system which has, somewhat imperceptibly, come to replace dirty politicians and self-aggrandizing machinations of this class. On the other hand, we have also witnessed a huge, stupendous growth of bureaucracy in the post-capitalist societies of the post-colonial states. We are justified in attempting to elaborate a theory of bureaucracy and technocracy which would be more comprehensive and more satisfying than the fashionable and to a large degree meaningless clich: managerial society or post-industrial society. J. Burnham proposed that rise of professional experts would create a new class to replace old ruling classes. Ralph Dahrendolf, a spearhead of the Critical Theory, holds that the managerial system can replace old conflicts and create new shared interests of new classes. Knowledge is a raw material in post industrial society, but in a state like Pakistan imported knowledge and expertise come to replace primary sectors of education as well as economy. The rise of technocratic power intensifies conflict over interests amongst traditional power-holders, democratic forces and new players. It is not,

however, easy to come to grips with the problem of technocracyan offshoot of bureaucratization of modern societies in an age of post-industrial democracy. There is a flurry of reports that new interim set-up under tutelage of clean, neat and honest technocrats with their linguistic sophistry and international experience in multinational corporations will be placed in Pakistan soon. The replacement will be done under supervision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as feared by many. It will wreck disaster in Pakistan again as these imported experts without having any stake inside Pakistan, would put hidden financial burden on masses. Since the emergence of military as the absolute stakeholder in the power

game of Pakistan, new crop of experts flies like bees on the ministerial posts of Pakistan to get a pie out of financial spoil. Sometimes it is the rhetoric of good governance and sometimes it is financial streamlining of the economy which necessitated the selection of financial and policy experts known as technocrats to occupy significant positions within policy-making realm. Preference of selection over election is a significant part of this scheme to keep state of affairs clear of all dirty politicians. This arrangement has gained so much popularity that even during democratic periods; technocrats often occupy important positions to ensure the continuity of policies framed during authoritarian regimes. Change is just opium for the people of Pakistan besides religion. Technocrats neglect the sociological aspects of politics and economics and keep a monochromatic view of state of affairs. Their ignorance about the concepts of social solidarity and its significance to modern economics often results into explosive violence on fragmentational lines. It is usually argued that technocratic governments can deliver to the people better than democratically elected people through elections. The raison dtre behind this argument is that technocrats have expertise at their disposal and possessed strong negotiating position vis--vis international donors and diplomats. They act in the name of national interests but discard the idea of social betterment. It is often forgotten that government by technocrats is for technocrats and bureaucrats. Their impersonal relationship with people further depoliticizes and alienates society from larger political framework. Technocrats do possess expertise, but their expertise can be useful in research, teaching, consultancy and development sectors not in decision making process. Centralization of authority and marginalization of ethnic minority are inevitable results of technocratic ascendency over democratic forces in the Third World. During Musharraf era a perfect arrangement was put into practice for technocrats to work within an engineered democratic system with upper hand. The head of that government Mr. Shaukat Aziz, a self-styled economic wizard, stabilized macro-economic indicators through statistical juggling of economy without realizing the fact that economy is not merely a number-game, but it has deep human and social relationship. What happened? An unholy nexus of high-tech luxury and modern identity became part and parcel of todays Pakistan. Apple, Nokia, Toyota and Honda have done more harm to traditional family system than Bollywood and over-sexed Hollywood movies in contemporary Pakistan.

Similarly the establishment of the Higher Education Commission and its placement under a technocrat are vivid examples of this unimaginative approach to run important departments of state under impersonal and corporate styled experts. What were the achievements of the Higher Education Commission is still debatable, but one fact is very clear to all and sundry that pumping of national resources for one decade into this educational misadventure has produced nothing expect rubble of pirated scholars and copy, cut and paste researchers. Catering to conservative middle-class youth became the sole aim of this misdirected project. Now this disgruntled youth is waiting for the tsunami of Imran Khan to change their lot. Political and social activism is wellnigh absent amongst hyper educated youth. What the HEC failed to do was to cultivate a strong sense of creativity and egalitarian ideas amongst its caterers. In economic arena, the situation is not different. For technocrats it is quite feasible to adhere to structural adjustment programmes initiated by international financial institutions as they are not concerned with the welfare of the very people whom they are supposed to serving. They increase taxes, cut subsidies, neglect rural sector, initiate mega-projects like constructing dams etc. It is worthy to note that majority of mega-projects were initiated during military regimes when technocrats were serving the economy of Pakistan. Most of these economic wizards come from international financial institutions and banking sectors, therefore it is not quite surprising that they take economic view of politics and not vice-versa. Much obsessed with macro-economic stability, they degenerate society into economic morass in imperceptible ways. The term technocracy itself suggests the rule of the "technique", of the expertise or skilla peculiar feature of service providing impersonal economic order, of something parasitic and hostile, which has assumed life of its own and reigns over human beings in neo-liberal economic model. The premise of this model is based on the supremacy of market over society and the necessity of technocrats to manage market relations at institutionally macro level. In common parlance, we also speak about the lifeless technocrats, about the men who form that mechanism adeptly. The human beings that administer the state look as if they were lifeless, as if they were mere cogs in the machine ruled under coercive forces like military apparatuses. In other words, we are confronted here in the most condensed, in the most intensive form with the reification of relationships between human beings, with the appearance of life in technical mechanisms, in modern system of neo-liberal capitalism. This, of course, immediately brings to

our mind the great complex of fetishism: over the whole area of our market economy man seems to be at the mercy of things, of commodities, even of currencies and services. Human and social relationships become objectified, whereas objects seem to assume the force and power of living elements. This system of over-powering governance has rendered Pakistan, since technocratic onslaught, a violent state and, unfortunately, political players have to bear the brunt of this mess at every level. How far this alienation of people Pakistani state can further tolerate is to be seen? If technocratic power grows concomitantly with the problems of people, then Pakistan would certainly become what Richard Rose termed as an hour-glass society wherein rule of impersonal oppression would be absolute and state and societal relationships would remain in permanent conflict. Lets give democratic forces a chance to play their part in constructing the image of Pakistan as a pro-people and pro-human state! Writer is working as coordinator to the VC of the University of Gujrat. He can be reached at hammad_raza123@yahoo.com