(First Article in this Series)
Previous op-eds in this series made a strong recommendation to reboot Pakistan’s national security framework and for three underlying reasons. One, to align with the adage, strike when the iron is hot. Two, and more crucially, because this is fundamental to Pakistan’s continued existence. Three, any further public policies will not work if this framework is not setup in the right direction.
Central to the rebooted national security framework is national identity which leads into national purpose, penultimately hooking into national interests and finally connecting it with national security policy.
In the ambit of the rebooted national security framework, the proposed national identity is that of a Muslim yet democratic Pakistan. By leaning on the Pakistani constitution, Pakistan’s national purpose is extrapolated in the following three beliefs. One, Pakistanis are one united people regardless of race, language, culture, or religion. Two, Pakistan will be a democratic state and society based on Islamic principles of social justice and equality. Third, achieve affluence and happiness for all through the values of democracy, freedom, equality, and tolerance.
Subsequently, these are the defined national interests of Pakistan within the rebooted national security framework. First, Pakistan should become a nationally harmonious country a survival level national interest. Second, it should become a secure state especially with regards to its territory, citizens, and constitution a national interest related to Pakistan’s survival. Third, Pakistan needs to be a successful economy and enhance the standard of its citizens through favourable social opportunities. This is a vital level national interest. Fourth, promote a morally stable and secure world governed by the rule of law. Fifth, initiate friendships globally by acting as a democratic and credible partner. The last two being major level national interests.
Finally, Pakistan’s national security policy is epitomised in one phrase principled and peaceful survival and unswerving social and economic growth through mutual co-existence, harmonious internally and externally.
At this critical juncture, and to further support the national security framework, the question arises can instruments of statecraft be leveraged and instructed to do so? Yes, and they must!
But before that there is a need to understand that vaguest of phrases, instruments of statecraft! It is not easy and mainly because specialists in the area tend to keep it opaque and obfuscated for their own selfish sakes. While statecraft relates to skillful management of the affairs of the state, instrument generally refers to government departments that partake in this activity. Hence, instruments of statecraft are governmental structures that run the affairs of the state. Consequently, pillars of state and governmental ministries must be tasked to execute and support the rebooted national security framework including promoting the defined identity, purpose and interests.
The three pillars of state are executive, legislature and judiciary. In the rebooted national security framework, the executive will not only lead and manage the nation as per policy objectives in the national security policy but also inspire, through individual and collective conduct, galvanising citizenship. Also, it will work on devolution of power to local governments to provide them substantial autonomy and fiscal independence. The legislature will need to establish laws, and related oversight, in line with not only the Pakistani constitution but also with the national security policy and national interests. The judiciary will interpret the constitution of Pakistan to ensure that any further judgements and precedence don’t go against the national interests. Media, the unofficial fourth pillar of the state, will need to play its part as well. It will be required to ensure balance and fair reporting of the facts and limit the analysis and conjecture so that they don’t threaten the policy objectives of the national security policy.
The ministerial enclave is divided into two protection rings that will safeguard the national interests and execute the national security policy. While the primary ring includes ministries of foreign, finance and Defence, the secondary ring consists of ministries of interior, information and education.
The foreign ministry will need to promote, and preserve, the aforementioned Pakistani national interests and as linked with the national security policy of Pakistan. It will also need to enact a foreign policy which is in line with the national security policy and its objectives. In the annals of national security, something that is quite often overlooked is the ministry of finance. In this new paradigm, the finance ministry will act as a strong undercurrent to achieve policy goals established by the national security policy and the foreign policy itself. This will be done by using economic statecraft in the form of positive or negative sanctions along with ensuring the best playing field and support being available to the local market including favourable regional and global economic conditions. The defence ministry will secure national and territorial sovereignty and integrity as per the national security policy and its related policy objectives.
The secondary protection ring is headed by ministry of interior which will ensure the protection of citizens of Pakistan in line with the national security policy. Ministry of information will play the key role of affirming and reaffirming the policy ends of the national security policy in a way that is simpler to imbibe by the local population. The education ministry will uphold an objective and historically correct account of religious and geographical past so as to produce thinking individuals capable of rationalising and aligning with the policy ends reiterated by the ministry of information.
It is a tall order indeed! But no one ever said that rebooting and underpinning the Pakistani national security framework would ever be easy. However, if instruments of statecraft know their mission and what is expected of them then that is winning half the battle already!
Second article in this series
BREXIT consequence of a false notion of rushed nationalism!
Nowadays one can’t read two news pieces without tripping over the fracas that is BREXIT. For anyone living under a rock for the last two odd years, BREXIT is a portmanteau of “British exit” the impending withdrawal of the United Kingdom (UK) from the European Union (EU).
This saga started in 2016 with David Cameron, then British Prime Minister, trying to silence nationalist voices in his own party and outside. On one hand, the Tory backbenchers were making a lot of noise about the conservative party failing at the elections because of perceived weakness in front of the EU. On the other hand, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) was wholeheartedly saying that the British Government had capitulated to the EU. It had also garnered a lot of electoral support as well. Cameron gambled that a referendum result, in favour of staying in the EU, will shut up both sides, cement his leadership and strengthen his hand while dealing with Brussels. How he must wish now to turn back time and not listen to his advisors pushing for that unnecessary referendum!
Although hindsight is a dangerous thing but that is all one has to post-mortem the referendum result that confirmed BREXIT. And that examination suggests that this idea was sold to the unknowing public on the basis of a false notion of rushed nationalism. Consider.
Separate articles in this series have opined that rushed nationalism can be defined as the sudden lurch to the right within the political space of a country owing to activities across the world particularly those that are terrorism or economy related. This can also be seen in the form of the precipitous rise of the right of centre and far right parties.
The Leave Camp was the side campaigning to take Britain out of the EU. One look at their divisive, and often inaccurate, slogans and promises suggests that they were all geared towards stoking urgent, nationalistic fears within the general population. Thus, an attempt to usher in an era of rushed nationalism which is generally accepted to be at odds with a globalised world!
The foremost nationalistic argument from the leave camp was to suggest that free movement in the EU means that Britain can’t control its own borders. Bringing up porous borders, and subsequent migratory numbers, is a classic separatist trick that has been played umpteenth number of times throughout history. Anyone coming to the UK still needs to carry identity documents and has to go through a variety of checks not only at British borders but also while even entering the EU. It is true that if refugees end up staying in Europe permanently, they can acquire long-term resident status subject to meeting certain conditions. This gives them the same rights as that of EU member state’s nationals in certain areas, although it does not bestow an absolute right to free movement on par with EU nationals. It is also true that the UK, along with Ireland and Denmark, are exempt from this directive. This suggests that the UK does not have to allow non-EU nationals who are long-term residents of another member state into the UK if it does not want to. In contrast, the rationale of allowing people to move, and work, freely within the EU was a realistic response to global economic forces that gave people the autonomy to work where they wished. Although no one in the Leave Campaign actually gave any migratory target figures, Conservative MEP Dan Hannan said the morning after the result that people expecting immigration to come down will be disappointed.
Another common nationalist pledge is to stop paying into a global or regional pool and get back money for local citizens. In the BREXIT referendum, this argument specifically preyed on the elderly when it was claimed that the UK gives £350 million a week to the EU as per Boris Johnson and that halting such payments would mean that the National Health Service (NHS) would get an additional £100 million a week. The Old Age Pensioners (OAPs) mostly fell victim to this myth and drove in greater numbers to vote for BREXIT. Even on the day of the referendum, Nigel Farage the leader of UKIP, said that the Leave Campaign shouldn’t have made that claim.
One more flagship selling point of rushed nationalism is that the country’s destiny is being controlled elsewhere and should be taken back. This was also peddled shamelessly by the Leave Campaign during the discourse especially suggesting that about 60% to 70% laws are imposed on the UK by the EU and that EU’s expansion, with the possible inclusion of Turkey, can’t be stopped. The numbers were mostly arbitrary and now experts suggest that post BREXIT the majority of the same EU laws will need to be make laws via the British parliament! Also, all EU countries have a veto on EU expansion and thus the destiny of this organisation is in it is own hands.
Rushed nationalism also advances the concept of others are protecting their own interests only, why shouldn’t we Jacob Rees-Mogg, another conservative leader of the Leave Campaign, said that the UK loses out because other members favour a highly regulated and protectionist economy. The record indicates that UK has been on the winning side of discussions in the EU approximately 87% of the time. Far from being isolated, and that other members are pushing a protectionist agenda, the UK has consistent allies in Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and others.
Similar strands of rushed nationalism exist everywhere. Pakistan, for its part, too has displayed a big dose of rushed nationalism and unreasonable thinking in many regional and global discussions. Therefore, it is no wonder that there are hurdles galore in so many areas. Britain is following suit!
It won’t be amiss to say that BREXIT was made possible on the coattails of rushed nationalism and its primitive isolationist urges. Once the referendum results were confirmed, none of the stalwarts of the Leave Campaign were there to oversee the ‘people’s will’. They ‘the remainers’ to pick up the pieces! So much so that it is irritating to see the same leavers, who sold this nationalistic lie to the public, demand that Theresa May deliver on the fantasy and impossible BREXIT promise. It is sad to see a once-rationale country make a foolish commitment in a moment of irrationality and then argue ceaselessly on how to fulfil that commitment. Reconsider! dis-engaging in a connected world is ludicrous at best!
Third article in this series
New year, new and improved policy making?
Doctrine, Policy, and Strategy and their efficient and successful interactions are the cornerstone of any successful organisation. While all three fulfil different functions, their target is the same; i.e., to reach a more successful position as compared to the past. To recap, doctrine are authoritative beliefs and principles that flow from the top of the pyramid to the bottom. Policy is guidance that is directive or instructive; i.e. it is clear in stating what is to be accomplished. It is a galvanizing vision that describes the end goal. Strategy, in its entirety, is a continuous process where ends, ways, and means are aligned to accomplish desired policy end goals while keeping risk at an acceptable level. Out of the three, policy acts as a lynchpin that joins doctrine to strategy and ensures favourable end position. Therefore, it is only natural to ensure that policy making is as efficient and as conclusive as possible. To that end and catering to the theme of the new year; improved policy making must be foremost in the mind of every global and regional leader.
But is there method to the madness of policy making in such a dynamic and fluid world? Is the past a good teacher when it comes to constructing future policy? Thankfully, the answer is yes! Consider.
Any successful policy must have a defined and tangible agenda at the Centre of it. This is where the end goals of the policy are defined which mostly start as ideas from certain individuals or a group within the upper echelons of power. Guidance, and lessons learnt, can also be leveraged from previous policies as well. The crucial task here is to ensure that the galvanising vision the policy aspires to, must adhere to the prevalent SMART process for setting goals. SMART stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely. At the height of the cold war, the US policy of containment did just the above and is generally deemed to be a successful endeavour.
No policy, whether organisational or departmental, can be formulated in isolation. This tenet is two-fold. One, a dynamic world requires a policy that is at least dynamic enough to change if and when needed. Though, policies as per definition shouldn’t need to change that often as opposed to the underlying strategies which can adapt to ground realities quicker and more efficiently. Two, the design of the policy will generally be a result of intense negotiations between different interested parties. These might even be other departments within the organisation or government. Therefore, policies are generally formed by more of an act of bartering than by any other means. The revolving door at the current White House with senior officials leaving periodically is a good example of how departmental bargaining is almost ruining policy formulation.
Validation of the policy is an equally important litmus test for its success. This has an external and internal dimension to it. Although policy is formulated by the highest cabal of leadership, but it must have at least a dimension of consultative approach as well. This should answer questions such as, have those affected by the policy been consulted? Have concerns of the affectees identified and responded to? The last thing that should happen is that policy reaches its end goal but doesn’t provide any value to those it affects! Or worst yet, the policy fails altogether! David Cameron’s Big Society is one case in point. This policy involved the British Government providing more powers to local authorities, encouraging volunteerism, and increasing support for charities and NGOs. Cameron expected this to be probably his greatest achievement but since his departure there is very little evidence of this Big Society and even the small effort that was expended has been deemed a failure especially when it came to consultative effort with the larger population. Unfortunately for him, David Cameron will always be remembered as the British Prime Minister who oversaw the UK’s decision to leave the EU!
An evaluation of other policy alternative is key in getting a policy to succeed. Recall that policy is one course of action selected from a variety of possible courses. Therefore, there needs to be an appraisal of the robustness of the chosen policy to satisfy at least two perennial questions. Firstly, have all other possible alternatives been assessed and exhausted? Secondly, have the risks been acknowledged and balanced fairly against potential end goals of the chosen policy? This will bring a level of objectivity to the process of policy formulation. It is said that at the end of apartheid, South African leaders deliberated a lot before settling on the policy of truth and reconciliation. And time has judged it as an effective policy to attempt to close the wounds of apartheid itself.
Finally, there is a need for feedback on the policy and its execution. This completes the circle and relates back to the start of policy formulation and the need for having SMART end goals. There needs to be a coherent plant to pass the feedback to policy makers so that it can be accommodated in the form of either updated policy or corrected underlying strategies. This is because once implemented, policies are intermittently assessed for their utility and relevancy. Based on the result, policy can either be continued, amended or terminated. Donald Trump’s reversal of his own policy of family separation is a classic example of a feedback loop that allowed him even the most stubborn of leaders to change course. Though, feedback on his other policies seems to be falling on deaf ears!
Elizabeth Dole said, the best public policy is made when you are listening to people who are going to be impacted. For policy formulation no other advice could be as brilliant and yet so simple! A new year is here, requiring new attitudes and new ideals. For once at-least, the leaders of today and tomorrow should give deserved credence to the art of policy making! Anything else, is a disaster waiting to happen!
Fourth article in this series
Keynesian future or Hayekian future? A glance into the crystal ball!
John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich August Hayek are the two heavy weights of the economic world. Both showed very strong but severely differing views on the workings and betterment of the economy and the world. The Keynes vs. Hayek debate has out lasted others so much so that it is still going strong and very relevant today.
Since the 1920s, policy. economic and otherwise has been heavily influenced by Keynesian economics, which broadly prescribe interventionism, heightened government spending and steering of financial markets. While Hayekian ideals suggest liberalised & free-markets, non-interventionism and curbed governmental expenditure.
The question? Is this discussion well placed to suggest competing visions of the future of this world in general? Quite possibly! Consider.
In the Keynesian future, the macroeconomic principles of John Maynard Keynes are the underpinning philosophy of any policy making. This leads to an increased interventionist approach where the state has more power and will want to control many aspects of public and social spheres. Artificial measures, such as interest rates and intrusive financial policies, will ensure that there is adequate overall demand to at least try to curtail high level of unemployment. The state would ensure that the four components of consumption, investment, government purchases, and net exports keep demand levels relatively high. Whereas the state stands at the ready to intervene at a moment’s notice.
This version of the future ruptures into two separate paradigms based on a crucial parameter; i.e. co-operation vs. competition. Firstly, if the spirit of co-operation persists then almost all international players are focused on making absolute gains while working with each other. Virtually all countries are part of global accords such as the United Nations (UN), North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) to name a few. Membership of international financial institutions, for example the World Back and International Monetary Fund (IMF), is also rife. And regional agreements in the form of North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and others also flourish. There is an international bonhomie that exists in the world with a sense of helping out under developed nations through investment financially and in human development terms. Consensus building is the name of the game so that no country is left behind. War between states is only a remote possibility but skirmishes, within and between states, are still probable. And the peacekeeping efforts through global arms such as UN and NATO are the biggest mitigation against the spectre of war and terrorism.
Secondly, if international competition is abundant then in this future international bonhomie will go out the window! Protectionist urges are the flavour of the day with bigger countries trying to gain power by inducing smaller nation to join their side. Global and regional institutions have some sway but not absolute and certainly not enough to garner sufficient benefits for the world at large. Helping out lesser nations comes at a price and is not done on humanitarian grounds alone. The possibility of global conflict is reduced but interstate war is still a real likelihood and also with rather a protracted duration. Globalisation ensues with major corporations playing a greater role in international interactions.
The Hayekian future uses the ideals of Friedrich August Hayek as the bedrock of policy formulation. This suggests a scaled back approach with the state exercising less power over the governed. While artificial measures are not to be entertained, there will be a keen eye on proceedings to intervene during the hey days of the global economy so that it doesn’t fall into a depressed cycle in the future. Markets will be allowed to separate the wheat from the chaff whereby the state would only interfere if global and regional catastrophes human or otherwise are on the horizon.
Co-operation and competition will also split this future into two. Co-operation will mean that although global and regional organisations such as UN, NATO, SAARC are only somewhat effective but their numbers don’t include majority of the nations on the globe. Globalisation is also rife but not balanced. Along with state actors there are many powerful not-state actors as well including big corporations. The world is unpredictable occasionally, but still saner sense prevails.
If the aura of competition permeates, the Hayekian future is even bleaker with isolationist and ultra-nationalist urges at their peak. When it comes to global influence, states lose out to non-state actors. Interstate conflict, and even intra-state issues, are a major occurrence resulting in a severely un-safe and risky environment. Sensible international interaction is a thing of the past and the winds of globalisation die down. Regional and global institutions are a historical relic and thus no global governance mechanism exists.
The efficacy of the above scenarios is difficult to predict but then again predicting the future was never an easy task! If the human urge to control proceedings is kept in mind, then the Keynesian future will always trump the Hayekian future that is probably better in some ways. However, it is very unlikely that the essence of co-operation will overcome the spirit of competition anytime soon. Thus, the world will limp into an intensively competitive Keynesian future. Some would argue it is already there! Is this an acceptable future? Perhaps. Could it be better? Definitely!
Fifth article in this series
Are patronage and corruption the same thing?
Not a day goes by without corruption being given at least some billing in the news cycle. At the same rate, not a day goes by without citizens and even their governments asking for more actions against corruption!
It is a foregone conclusion that corruption exists in one form or the other. It may be deemed as social but probably not cultural. So, what, if any, is the cultural counterpart of corruption? That particular parameter is patronage! However, the next question would be are patronage and corruption the same thing? No. Consider.
Although there are many definitions of patronage but the closest the Merriam-Webster dictionary gets to linking it to corruption is this, the power to make appointments to government jobs especially for political advantage. However, this neither contextualises patronage within cultural roots nor equates it to corruption. To investigate that further, one has to go over some indicative history.
In 1612 1613, the English dramatist John Webster wrote his brilliant Jacobean revenge tragedy, the Duchess of Malfi. His opening act suggests quite a few clues about patronage and corruption. It goes, Considering duly that a prince’s court Is like a common fountain, whence should flow Pure silver drops in general. This indicates that the Prince’s patronage is to be used to the advantage of his subjects so that they can get access to the support from their monarch. Not a bad thing as such. The first scene continues, but if chance Some curs’d example poison near the head, Death and diseases through the whole land spread. Here the notion of corruption is introduced to say that if it starts from the top then atrocious ramifications await the whole kingdom. Webster actually uses the word corruption when he explains that only the far-sighted will be able to tell the Prince that corruption is rampant, but a most provident council, who dare freely Inform him the corruption of the times? Hence, even for Webster, patronage is generally good while corruptions is earnestly bad! But the message is clear both are starkly different.
Similar thoughts are expressed by Linda Levy Peck in her book, Court Patronage and Corruption in Early Stuart England. She also suggests that although patronage and corruption are intertwined but they are not interchangeable. Her material argues that while corrupt practices were a characteristic of early modern administration, they became a matter of increasing concerns when boundaries between legitimate patronage and corrupt transactions were re-drawn. Once again, both patronage and transactions are treated differently.
The Mughal empire was renowned for its acts of patronage. Subjects of the king used to get access to the emperor via a system of patronage so that they could ask for the emperor’s support. That is why the first few rulers of the Mughal dynasty are remembered for their even handedness. But by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar, the last Mughal king, well intentioned patronage had already been usurped by in equal practices of corruption.
The modern world is no different. It is indeed a patronage society but that is not a bad thing per se. The east connects patronage to families and dynasties. The west has different words to indicate the same concept; i.e., networking, relationships, visibility. In-fact Harvard university runs a course titled Managing Upward which asks employees to align with the vision of senior managers in order to further their prospects within the organisation.
When does patronage translate into corruption? That happens when inequality is created between two aspirants to the same act of patronage. A recent article in this series opined that corruption is only the symptom of the underlying cause of inequality. Therefore, a policy of equality is needed to tackle corruption which can also be defined as the unbalanced misuse of patronage. The policy objective would be to create equality amongst citizens of any nation and within the governance system itself. An often re-used but yet simple example elaborates this further. Two people go for a job interview and the person well known to the interviewer gets the job even while being less qualified and less competent. Although to the naked eye this might seem like an act of corruption, but the underlying reason is lack of equality. And although patronage gave each individual access to the process, but the misuse of patronage meant that the two candidates were not treated equally. and preferential treatment was meted out. Varying social environments will be replete with similar examples. That is exactly the reason why both patronage and corruption are two different acts. The former, generally good but the latter, usually bad. This is specifically true in sub-continent countries such as Pakistan and India where similar patronage systems exist, and consequently comparable corruption issues have arisen.
Consequently, the ask is not to tackle patronage but to check corruption. That is why anti-corruption strategies, under the overarching policy of equality, are the crucial need of the hour. Patronage is a permanent cultural fixture and it is not a threat on its own. That is why trying to control it would be futile and akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater!
