Charisma or institutions?

On July 17, 2016, the streets in several major cities of Turkey revolted against a military coup. Turkish fighter jets dropped bombs on their parliament while the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Hulusi Akarwas kidnapped by his security detail. For several hours, it looked like Turkey was going to face the fourth devastating military coup in its 95-year political history.

The ordinary citizens, armed with kitchen utensils, gathered in streets and squares around Anatolia to oppose the coup. The crowds resisted tank fire and air bombardments, and, with the help of loyalist soldiers and police forces, they defeated the coup attempt in a matter of hours. The Turkish government blamed the failed coup attempt on Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish preacher and businessman who has lived in self-imposed exile in the United States since 1999. The moral of the story is that the general public did not approve of the action of the undemocratic forces to change the incumbent order.

The primary reason for the people to stick to Mr Erdoğan was that he and his AKP (Justice and Development) party delivered socio-economic justice ever since he became the Mayor of Istanbul. Consequently, when an attempt was made to topple him, the people came out on the streets to save their politicalinstitution. Undoubtedly, President Erdoğan’s charisma played an important role in forcing the coup-makers to surrender; his AKP Party collectively delivered good governance and saved the system.

Are there any lessons for Pakistan to draw from the Turkish model? If there is a coup tomorrow, would the people come out on the streets to save the leader? In Turkey, President Erdoğan’s charisma and the good governance his party offered to the country that people stood by him and the political system threatened by the coup makers. Our experience of ultra-constitutional changes in the country is that whenever a civilian leader has been deposed, opposition members have danced and distributed sweets on the streets as a mark of good riddance.

Can charisma do the wonders, or do political institutions have the capacity to prevail if the civilian order is threatened, knowing full well that governance has always been a problem, with common complaints that the country lacks “sincere leadership”? Except for the Quaid-e Azam, the critics have spared none of the leaders on top. In the present milieu, the political leadership, from Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto to Imran Khan, is considered a protégé of the khakis. Therefore, by default, a hybrid system, whereby the civilian leadership is bound to play second fiddle, is in vogue in the country where digression may have consequences.

There are systemic issues that need answers in light of the greater debate on governance. While personalities do matter, the institution as a whole carries the responsibility of delivering the public good. A city has to be cleaned every day; its sewage and transport systems must serve the public to its satisfaction; electricity, water and gas are the essentials of life to be delivered at the peoples’ door-steps; hospitals and educational institutions must perform their duties diligently. A Mayor must collect municipal taxes through an efficient tax-collection system.

Just look around your cities and towns and decide for yourself, about municipal governance. Apart from an efficient mayor, you need people who may satisfactorily perform thesetasks. Cleaning schools is a regular ritual, especially in Japan, where children clean their classrooms and courtyards before leaving for homes. At times, it is so bizarre that if children in Pakistan clean their schools, it becomes a scandal simply, because we lack the culture of cleanliness that should be ingrained in our children’s training.

Expand the canvas from a Mayor to a Chief Minister or Prime Minister, and see whether we know the governance principles and possess the aptitude or capabilities to make governance sustainable. Ironically, a country of 220 million cannot find an economist of repute or an efficient team to steer the country out of its economic woes.

The problem becomes acute when a turf war starts between institutions, and those who run these institutions are below par; corruption further compounds the problem. People feel the pinch and start expressing their dissatisfaction on the streets. In such a situation, even a charismatic leader becomes helpless unless he has a dedicated team of party workers and neutral bureaucracy to rectify the wrong. There may be multiple reasons to identify governance issues in the country; however, five interlocking issues stand out.

First, all over the civilised world, institutions are run with the tax money of the people, and they have to be subservient to the elected institutions and those running them. If the elected people do not deliver, they can be changed in the next elections. Interference in the political institutions or government running is always harmful to the country. Historically, a political system toppled through undemocratic means or the praetorian power cannot be removed through the vote. Autocrats get changed either through revolt within the institution or outside intervention, such as East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh through the Indian intervention.

Second, there are no shortcut solutions for political stability. Smooth political governance has to be oriented so that those elected under the adult franchise have the final say in deciding the national affairs. Political leadership has to be answerable to the people; Parliament must be all-powerful, and the bureaucracy must have space to sustain the steel frame without hits from the political bosses.

Third, while politicians demand security of their tenure as enshrined in the constitution, they are reluctant to give constitutional guarantees about the safety of tenure to a bureaucrat. Over the years, changes in the bureaucracy have been so abrupt and so frequent that the entire governance system suffers from inertia. Whether it is law and order or development work, the political bosses prefer that bureaucracy act as a talisman. Still, they are not ready to own the responsibility for their directives. Indeed, the political bosses must exercise the veto if a decision by the bureaucracy is against the public interest.

Fourth, the bureaucracy also has to show some spine. Instead of living in their comfort zones or “prized postings”, bureaucrats should relearn saying no to their political bosses whenever an unlawful demand is raised. The politics at all levels of governance has to run on merit, not favouritism.

Fifth, it is no more a secret that being the principal accounting officers, federal and provincial secretaries are reluctant to take decisions, especially where financial transactions are involved. In the absence of political ownership, no officer is ready to stick his neck out for fear of NAB, whose performance is questionable, creating more chaos than justice or fair play. The consequent paralysis in governance cannot go on indefinitely. The parliament must find a way to establish the accountability system transparently.

Finally, a frank dialogue between politicians and the deep state can remove many misunderstandings. However, our politicians will have to prove their integrity as leaders beyond reproach. One way could be to draw clear red lines on issues of governance.

The author is a former Ambassador of Pakistan in Iran and UAE. He is currently working as a Senior Research Fellow in Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI).