Subject: Public Administration

Assignment: Governance challenges in Public Sector in Pakistan

Submitted By:

Zaheer Abbas ( Roll No. 13)

Muhammad Zeeshan ( Roll No. 17)

BS Political Science

Semester 5th

Submitted To:

Miss Kanza Iqbal

UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE

DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

 Governance challenges in Public Sector in Pakistan

Introduction
"Governance" is defined as "the exercise of economic, political, and administrative authority in the public
and private spheres to manage a country's affairs at all levels in order to improve the people's quality of
life." "It is a continuous process where divergent opinions and desires are satisfied through compromise
and tolerance in a spirit of cooperative action for the mutual benefit of all." Governance can be viewed as
a measure of a society's institutional performance. Good governance should result if the institutions are
appropriate and effective. Economic, and administrative authorities use governance to manage a
country's affairs. It refers to the various procedures, processes, connections, and institutions that citizens
of a country and groups use to communicate their benefits, exercise their rights and obligations, and
resolve their conflicts. Good governance is a subset of government in which public resources and
challenges are managed effectively, efficiently, and in response to society's most pressing demands. Public
participation, accountability, and openness are essential elements of effective elected government.
Corrupt activities obstruct good governance and are a contributing factor in the breakdown of institutional
systems, particularly in the planning process. Senior lawmakers and government officials are well aware
that the government's apparatus has played a role in the current state of affairs. Honest and hardworking
officials are frustrated by a political and bureaucratic structure that is not accountable or responsive to
needs; this is what the entrepreneur is up against. The key state institutions in Pakistan, such as the
parliament, civil service, and courts, have not evolved on their own. They were brought over from the
colonial era. Most public sectors are still inefficient due to weak governance.

Analysis of Pakistan’s Major Institutions

1: Parliament
Political System/Leadership: In Pakistan, parliament is frequently seen as a group of people who
bought their way to power. Because of this type of electoral system, there is no national leadership.
Legislation is always viewed as an afterthought. The Prime Minister and his cabinet rarely participate in
legislative debates. Opposition parties would rather focus on scandals than real issues in order to
humiliate the government.

Parameters of a Leader: In Pakistan, the only criterion for becoming a political leader is money. It is the
most serious flaw in the political system.

Political Parties: Political parties are the most powerful political institutions, and they can gain
tremendous benefits if they work together to focus on the path to national wealth. Pakistan's political
parties are dominated by a few families, and party positions are distributed primarily on nepotism. As a
result, people who are inept at their jobs are elected to high-level is not on merit that qualifies someone
for a given portfolio, but rather party allegiance.

Effective Opposition: The opposition has a crucial constitutional function in a democratic system of
governance. It functions as a good check and balance system, ensuring that the government cannot act
arbitrarily. Unfortunately, the Pakistani system has a flaw in which resistance exists solely for the sake of
opposing. Throughout their time in the legislature, the opposition plots to depose the ruling party. They
don't participate in any constructive debate. As a result, legislation remains stagnant, hurting public
institutions directly.

Public Money: Because various development programs such as Peoples Works, Banizer Income Support,
and Tameer-e-Watan Programs are implemented by elected officials, a significant portion of the public
funds allocated for these programs is rarely spent judicially for the intended purpose by these public
servants. As a result, no independent audit of these programs has ever been made public, if one was ever
undertaken at all..

Lack of Education: People who are not well informed lack vigilant opinion and hence lack
comprehension of political leaders' and political parties' hidden goals. Our leaders are undereducated,
resulting in a lack of vision. Parliamentarians in South Asia have an extremely low level of education.
Pakistan is also included under this category.

Absence of Accountability In Pakistan, there isn't much of an independent accountability mechanism.

Those who have the ability to take national assets do so without fear of retributions.

2: Courts
Judicial System: Legal frameworks that are not biased and are applicable to all residents of a state, as
well as an independent judicial system, aid in the development of a community in which everyone feels
safe. Many situations have been seen in the past when the courts' decisions were influenced by
government influences. Judges were appointed on the executive's whim and will, not on the basis of
criteria or eligibility. Another flaw in the legal system is that significant segments of the people do not
have effective access to justice. Any state's judiciary cannot be effective unless it is self-contained. "The
constitution and law should provide an independent judiciary that has jurisdiction over all issues of a
judicial nature, can decide such matters without any restriction, improper influences, inducements,
pressures, threats, or interference from any quarter," according to the United Nations' basic principles on
judicial independence. In the selection, appointment, transfer, and promotion of judges, no discretion can
be exercised.

Politicization of Justice: Over the last 62 years, Pakistan's military and civilian governments have been
accused of tampering with the court and appointing judges who are sympathetic to their political goals.
The judiciary is intended to be independent under successive Pakistani constitutions, but this has rarely
been the case in practice. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto introduced seven revisions to the constitution between 1974
and 1977, undermining the independence of the judiciary. Various governments have undermined the
legitimacy of courts over time by exploiting constitutional provisions governing judge nomination, tenure,
transfer, and promotion. Our judiciary's overall performance has been harmed as a result of these
interferences. In a 1995 Mauro study, Pakistan's judiciary was rated as the worst in the world.

Lack of Judges: Although the economy and public institutions have grown rapidly in recent years, this
has never been mirrored by a corresponding rise in the court system's capacity to deal with the additional
demand. According to a 1996 poll, Pakistan has one judge for every 85038 people.

Complex Political System: The people' fundamental rights are comprehensively covered in the 1973
constitution. However, when we look at the masses, we see that the judicial system is kept so complicated
that ordinary lawyers outside city courts dictate their terms to the poor. Citizens are left with two options:
follow the standard system and wait years for a court ruling, or pay a high fee to a lawyer and get his job
done in a considerably shorter amount of time. The same can be said for government institutions. If a case
of malpractice is brought to court, the requisite verdict against the defaulter can take years.

Substandard Law Education: In any country, lawyers are the most prestigious group. Unfortunately, in
Pakistan, those who are turned down by all other institutions find up enrolling in Law College. As a result,
lawyers and judges become unprofessional and of poor quality. Lawyers from the same faculty are also
hired by public institutions. The main cause of judicial malpractice is a lack of adequate education.

3: Civil Services
Civil Service: Pakistan's previous regimes have all used the bureaucracy to advance their party agendas,
whether secretly or explicitly. Civil service implements government programs and supervises state
administrative tasks, providing stability to otherwise volatile political regimes. To the average citizen, civil
service is the most tangible representation of government. They must go to this institution on a daily basis
for access to public services, payment of services, and the distribution of development funds. As a result,
the institution wields enormous influence and has authority over the fates of millions of people. In
Pakistan, the public sector has not been very efficient or effective in performing its primary job of serving
the people. We may uncover several causes for this institution's slow downfall if we look back at its
performance.

Politicization of Civil Service: Because the civil service is responsible for carrying out government
decisions, it has had to deal with a great deal of political influence in the form of both coercion and
favoritism. As previously noted, the India Act of 1935 offered protection to civil personnel, which was also
maintained in Pakistan's first two constitutions. This provision, however, was overlooked in the 1973
constitution. In Pakistan, direct political engagement first occurred in 1959, when President Ayub fired
1300 state officials in a single decree. When General Yahiya and Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto dismissed 303 and
1400 troops, correspondingly, they were repeating the identical deed. The government's participation has
harmed this top institution's independence. Demotion of officers, political appointments to civilian
positions, provincial quotas, lateral entrance, promotions, and demotions, and the perpetual bureaucratic
shuffle that follow political change have all been utilized by politicians to secure loyalty. Under such
conditions, the civil service has lost its traditional impartiality and has been weakened and disheartened
over time. This isn't a one-sided conflict. On the other hand, bureaucrats have a significant impact on
politicians at all levels of government. This is attributable to the political institutions, parties, and
politicians' lack of maturity.

Defined Roles: In Pakistan, the roles of civil servants are not precisely defined. It must be understood
that the purpose of the civil service is to implement government policies rather than to create them. The
institution's main functions are to maintain law and order, to provide a regulatory conditions for economic
operations, and to promote human development by enhancing the quality and quantity of fundamental
social services. Bureaucrats have forgotten their fundamental purpose of serving the people as a result of
their unwarranted meddling in political decisions. Poor governance has resulted as a result of this.
The Quota System and Bureaucracy: The use of geographical quotas to distribute positions in the civil
service arose from a rising awareness of regional and ethnic diversity in society, as well as differences in
economic and political growth. The quota system was first implemented for five years, but despite
numerous recommendations, it continues to be controversial, particularly in urban regions such as Karachi
and Lahore. Corruption, manipulation, and reverse discrimination are all threats to the quota system.
While it provides trans-regional participation, it does so at the expense of quality.

Concentration of Powers: Power is currently centralized. All choices are made at the whim and will of
bureaucrats, whether they are related to law and order, money flow, or development plans. The
fundamental reason for power concentration has been civil servants' strategic position and ministers'
relative weakness. Ministers must significantly rely on the opinion of top civil workers, particularly their
personal secretary, due to their professional inadequacy and increased workload. Unless he is
extraordinarily clever or has outside advisers, the minister's responsibility is generally limited to picking
amongst options offered to him. He is unlikely to be aware of possibilities that were rejected during the
policy analysis stage unless this is the case. Pakistani ministers must rely on civil officials for two reasons:
first, they are his only source of advice, and second, civil servants are always in the best position to conduct
inter-departmental talks and contact with the Treasury, which may be required for policy execution. In
such circumstances, it has been observed that whoever assumes power as a minister, the real power rests
with the minister of the state.

Conclusion
Strength of a country lies in stability and efficiency of its main institutions. Poor leadership,
inefficient/complex judicial system and ineffective civil service have resulted into a disorder almost in
entire public sector institutions in Pakistan. It is visualized that in the triangle of these institutions,
parliamentary system is the weakest side. It needs to be fortified to revive other two institutions and bring
efficiency in public sector institutions as a whole. This can only be achieved if eligible, capable and sincere
leadership is brought into power through well thought out electoral system. Elected representative must
not interfere with judiciary or civil service. In this way all the institutions will be able to work
independently and they will contribute towards development of a country. The public sector institutions
in Pakistan are inefficient areas where poor governance, delayed processes, corruption, political and
individual influences, lack of resources, low protection and salaries of public employees are prevailing
causes. The audit and transparency issue of public funds in public sector institutions requires that these
be publically accessible and audited by independent, unbiased and competent accounting and auditing
firms.. Public sector institutions can be made more efficient and policies can be made more effective only
if the good governance principles of transparency, fairness, equal treatment/fairness, stoppage of
corruption, employee protection and high salaries, merit-based appointment, fair promotions based on
objective evaluation, vertical and horizontal accountability mechanisms are introduced and practiced by
all employees from top to bottom of the organization.