FEDERAL Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi’s statement that “whether anyone accepts it or not, our system has collapsed or failed” cannot simply be dismissed as routine political rhetoric. However it is qualified or explained away, one fact remains: a senior and powerful member of the government has publicly acknowledged that the existing system is failing. That makes the statement significant. This is not criticism from an opposition leader, a commentator or a frustrated citizen. It comes from someone who is himself part of the governing structure and directly involved in exercising state authority.
When someone at the centre of power concedes that the system is no longer delivering the results expected of it, the discussion should not end with the admission. That is where the real discussion must begin. Why has the system failed? Who is responsible? And, most importantly, what will now be done to fix it? No state system collapses overnight. Institutions do not suddenly become dysfunctional, the rule of law does not disappear in a single day and public confidence in the state is not destroyed by one isolated event.
Pakistan’s predicament cannot be attributed exclusively to one government, one political party or one institution. Its history shows what happens when constitutional boundaries become blurred, institutions move beyond their prescribed roles, the law is applied differently to the powerful and the powerless, loyalty takes precedence over merit and accountability becomes an instrument of political convenience rather than a consistent principle.
Over time, such practices do not merely produce poor governance. They weaken the foundations of the state itself. One of Pakistan’s most persistent mistakes has been the tendency to place faith in individuals rather than institutions. Every few years, the country is presented with a new leader, a new coalition or a new political arrangement, accompanied by the promise that this time things will be different. Governments change and personalities come and go, yet many of the fundamental failures of governance remain. The result is predictable: individuals become powerful while institutions remain weak.
The true measure of a functioning state is not the number of grand projects it announces or the ambition of its political slogans. The real test comes when an ordinary citizen walks into a police station, approaches a court, seeks treatment at a public hospital, sends a child to a government school or visits a public office for a service to which he or she is legally entitled. If that citizen needs political influence to secure a basic right, waits years for justice, is expected to pay a bribe for a routine service or cannot trust the law to be applied equally, then the system is failing at its most fundamental level. The same weakness is visible in the economy. No country can build sustainable prosperity on perpetual borrowing, a narrow tax base, unproductive expenditure and constant policy uncertainty. When a disproportionate share of the tax burden falls on salaried workers and documented sectors while large segments remain inadequately taxed, the problem is not merely one of revenue collection; it is also one of economic fairness. Education and healthcare are equally important.
Yet perhaps the deepest problem is the persistent refusal to accept responsibility. Politicians blame the establishment. State institutions point to political incompetence. Bureaucrats cite political interference. Governments blame their predecessors. There may be some truth in each argument, but if responsibility always belongs to someone else, who exactly is responsible for reform? There is a simple principle at the heart of public administration: authority and accountability must go together. Those who exercise power must also accept responsibility for how that power is used. It is, therefore, not enough for those in government to diagnose the system as broken. They must explain what they are doing, within the authority already available to them, to repair it.
Ordinary Pakistanis have been saying for years that the system does not work. They do not need those in power merely to repeat the diagnosis. The difference between a citizen and a government official is that the latter has the authority and therefore the responsibility to act. Meaningful reform must begin with the equal and consistent application of the rule of law. Accountability must apply to everyone. Justice must be accessible to everyone. Constitutional limits must bind everyone. Institutions must also be freed from dependence on personalities and political expediency. The police, civil service, regulatory bodies and local administration should function according to law, merit and established procedure.
A strong state is not one in which a prime minister, chief minister or minister must personally “take notice” every time the system fails. A strong state is one in which the system works without requiring the personal intervention of the powerful. Pakistan also needs genuine devolution of power, empowered local governments, judicial reform, a broader and fairer tax system, greater transparency in public expenditure and sustained investment in education and healthcare. Above all, it must rebuild trust between the citizen and the state. That trust cannot be manufactured through speeches, press conferences or publicity campaigns. It has to be earned through the everyday conduct of the state.
—The writer is Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public, Usman Law Professional Corporation, based in Canada.
