Pakistani Fetish For Technocrats, A LUMS Teacher Explains

Hassan Javid, a political science professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences explains the Pakistani fetish for technocrats or technocratic set up in a twitter thread.

Javid’s Twitter thread comes as the government of the day has already filled up multiple government positions with technocrats. Former finance minister Asad Umar was replaced by Abdul Hafeez Sheikh as Special Assistant to the Prime Minister. Sheikh is a seasoned technocrat and has been associated with the World Bank for quite a while.

1- In Pakistan, it is not uncommon to come across the idea that 'technocrats' – unelected experts – are best suited to governing the country. This is borne out of the belief that elected representatives in Pakistan are both irredeemably corrupt and hopelessly incompetent.

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

Javid says that most of the elected representatives are “irredeemably corrupt and hopelessly incompetent”.

2- in contrast unelected experts, so the argument goes, possess the expertise to craft 'good' policy and are also motivated by principles greater than personal enrichment, perhaps because of their training and the restriction of their powers to specific domains of influence

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

Javid explains how un-elected experts might be better at policy-making through their training and specialised expertise.

3- Unsurprisingy, this model of technocratic rule is often accompanied by a belief in the virtues of authoritarian government, with the assumption being that a leader unencumbered by the constraints imposed by sections of society will govern in the greater national interest.

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

Javid attempts to link the rationale behind a technocratic setup towards an authoritarian rule, such that it may be for the greater good or ‘national interest’. If a leader is free from constraints imposed by various sections of society, which usually happens in a democratic setup, he or she may perform better. But again, does that performance come at the behest of undermining democratic credentials.

In the latter part of his Twitter thread, Javid cites examples from regional models such as that of South East Asia. What Javid adds is that despite the success of such models, it is important to note that they come with a specific historical context.

4- There is a precedent for this approach to governance; some would argue that it underpins the success of the South-East Asian developmental states. However, these models emerged under specific historical circumstances and came with costs of their own.

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

He raises several questions which are quite relevant in the modern day scenario despite the model of governance.

5- Elsewhere, there are many assumptions that need unpacking. Why would a dictatorial leader be 'impartial'? What does that even mean in a governance context? Why would they and their experts not be swayed by ideology and specific interests? How would they be held accountable?

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

Why would a dictatorial leader be ‘impartial’? What does that even mean in a governance context? Why would they and their experts not be swayed by ideology and specific interests? How would they be held accountable?

These questions particularly point towards the ability of a democratic leader or any other leader to make the ‘best decisions’. Why is it so that decisions without democratic consultation may be better, he wonders. This assumption might prove out to be wrong at some point in time.

6- Why assume that decisions made without democratic consultation would automatically be better? Would any given 'expert' even have enough information and expertise to make the best decisions independent of other inputs, or that they could not work with elected representatives?

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

7- Even if the policies in question were 'good', why assume that a dysfunctional state apparatus would be able to implement them without a long and difficult process of reform? Why think that simply changing the system of decision-making would magically transform state capacity?

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

He tends to draw a rationale behind a state’s capacity which might remain stagnant due to a dysfunctional setup. Despite the reformative process, the capacity of a state cannot be changed or as Javid mentions ‘transformed’ in one go.

In an attempt to explain the inherent flaw in a dictatorial regime which by far superseded all democratic standards, Javid says that dictatorial governments with bad institutions will inevitably deliver sub-optimal outcomes.

Javid’s argument might be linked to the era of then Army Chief and President General Musharaf who had brought on a considerable number of technocrats in his government.

8- Those wishing for 'strong' and 'decisive' governance through unelected and unaccountable presidents/leaders/technocrats ignore how institutional change and development takes time. Dictatorial governments with bad institutions will inevitably deliver sub-optimal outcomes.

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

To argue for democracy, Javid compares outcomes of a dictatorial regime with that of a democratic setup.

9- Thus, although some dictatorships 'succeed' (notwithstanding repression etc.), the majority fail to improve governance outcomes. Democracy can be flawed too, but it's in-built processes of accountability arguably have greater potential to generate positive change over time.

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

To conclude, Javid refers to a number of newly formed councils the incumbent government has constituted or is willing to constitute. Such councils are an example of non-democratic consultations or processes.

10- The government's newly announced 'National Development Council', with military and cabinet representation, represents yet another move towards non-democratic decision-making. It is not coincidental that it comes on the heels of the appointment of an unelected economic team.

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

11- Again, the belief that bypassing parliament and seeking input from non-elected actors is good for governance suffers from the same flawed assumptions listed above. No institution has a monoply on defining or protecting the 'national interest' or on knowledge and information.

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

“No institution has a monopoly on defining or protecting the ‘national interest’ or on knowledge and information”, Javid added, questioning the notion of national interest and how it may be served with bypassing parliament.

12- If authoritarianism always worked, Pakistan wouldn't be where it is today. Those opposing democracy forget that much of Pakistan's history has been under non-democratic forms of rule and governance. Maybe it's time to give democracy a chance to develop without interference.

— Hassan Javid (@HassanJavid_) June 18, 2019

As Javid says, maybe ‘it’s time to give democracy a chance to develop without interference.’