No Relevance, No Reforms

No Relevance, No Reforms
No Relevance, No Reforms

In recent decades, it has been established that there is a link between relevance and reforms, as well as an impact on the country’s governance. It is widely accepted that relevance leads to reforms and good governance, which allow the nation as a whole, as well as the sector (whether public or private), to improve the well-being of a large population, or that relevance leads to good governance. Whether correct or incorrect, this insight has the effect of eroding political support for the continuation of current policies and reforms.
Why do reforms fail in Pakistan? The main reason for this is that the overall governance structure, through which entire policies are intermediated and translated into benefits for the vast majority of people, has become dysfunctional. Any country’s governance structure is made up of three parts: the Judiciary, the Executive, and the Legislature. When these institutions are run by people who lack relevancy in terms of education, experience, and competency, they make no contribution to the nation or the general public; instead, benefits are distributed to those who have privileged access to these institutions. It has been a long-standing practice for several decades to distribute various portfolios among elected MPAs and MNAs (those who have never been aquatinted). As a result, this adoption has already been seen many times, causing the administration to be hampered. As a result, no systematic association among institutions has been discovered to date in order to claim reforms into any particular form of government.
Principal reasons for failure include the current state of affairs of political powers, as well as alliances formed between political leaders and those who benefit from the existing system. Because of the short-term nature of electoral cycles, elected governments are unable to bear the costs of these reforms upfront while the benefits accrue to a different political party later in the electoral cycle. Authoritarian governments are ineffective because they do not have the legitimacy to pursue reforms on their own. Before outlining the reform plan for Pakistan, it is necessary to look back in time to understand the historical trend in governance in order to comprehend the context in which this plan is being implemented. The underlying institutions were run by the relevant officials in order to meet the requirements of the time when Pakistan gained independence, but the requirements grew in scope and content over time, and the level of expectations from the general public and their elected representatives became discriminatory. These inherited institutions, on the other hand, have proven incapable of responding to the new challenges of development and social change, as well as to the elevated expectations and aspirations of a free people. Consequently, Pakistan has suffered since its inception because both the provincial and federal governments have been unable to match the ability to mobilize human resources to provide services in a variety of sectors, such as health, education, agriculture, and many others since the country’s establishing.
How can institutional reforms be carried out successfully? One of the most important factors is that elected MPAs and MNAs with high professional relevance should be placed, retained, and motivated, with the authority and powers to act in the public interest at large, while the rest of the electives should be placed in positions where their relevance is closely aligned. Furthermore, the electives should be assigned based on their experience and competence, formal and relevant training should be provided. A proper mechanism for assessing their performance in accordance with their job descriptions and responsibilities, as well as a transparent system of accountability, should be put in place.



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here