institutions turn greater than the state
Back in 2012, a Pakistani professor named Farakh A. Khan issued a dire warning about the state of his country’s public institutions.
“Pakistan suffers from institutional failure,” he declared in an essay published about a year before his death. “Failed institutions are unable to correct the problems faced by the society and eventually lead to economic failure…If our leaders are sincere for change in Pakistan then they have to first get the institutions working again. But do they know how or have the will to do it?”
Today, the state of Pakistan’s institutions of governance remains poor, as illustrated by a slew of measures. The World Bank’s latest Worldwide Governance Indicators, based on data from 2016, rank Pakistan in the 29th percentile for government effectiveness, the 27th percentile for regulatory quality, the 20th percentile for rule of law, and the 19th percentile for control of corruption. Pakistan fell from 144th place in 2016 to 148th place in 2018 in the World Bank’s ease of doing business rankings. The latest United Nations Development Program Human Development report, published in 2017, ranks Pakistan 147th. The country improved its position on the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index in 2017, though it was still a lowly 115th out of 137 countries, after coming out 122th in 2016.
The consequences of these struggles are stark and sobering: Ineffective institutions complicate efforts to develop and implement effective public policies. This means that Pakistan’s broader development challenges—which range from food, water, and energy insecurity to widespread public health epidemics and millions of out-of-school children—will remain in place, if not worsen.
People are watching this naked game of destruction of democracy and they will certainly teach a lesson to those involved in this utter shameful act of murdering democracy. They are not attempting to have one Nation, One Election, but One Nation, One Corrupt Party. God save this country,”
Additionally, Pakistan’s institutional shortcomings pave the way for the military as well as problematic non-state actors—including charitable groups tied to militant organizations—to step in and fill service delivery roles that civilian institutions are unwilling or unable to serve.
The state can be seen as a system of laws. There is no legal authority above it either within its territory or in international society. It is sovereign within its territory, as the only law-making authority, Domestically, the state can give itself whatever constitutional and political system it likes. The principle assumes that no other state or international organisation has the right under normal circumstances to determine the internal political arrangements of a state. The state has the right to construct and impose laws free of any external involvement by other states or bodies. It must be the sole law-making and law-enforcing authority for a territory. Any sharing of sovereignty must, by the very nature of the term, mean that whatever arises out of such an act, the result cannot be called ‘sovereign’. Sovereignty does not recognise any superior or equal in the legal right to make laws for a territory.
In India, The handling of the cases of Bandhua Mokti morcha v. Union of India and Ors, (1983) (the poor migrants case) and ‘Suo Motu Writ Petition (CIVIL) No(s).6/2020’ (people to travel back to India from abroad) by the Supreme Court depicts the case of class bias. These two orders somewhere contradict each other, showcasing how even the Apex Court of the country indulges in-class bias. The case involving the poor class was dismissed at the very beginning whereas a special sitting was done for the latter. This example not just depicts the class difference between poor and rich but also how the court has complete faith in the face value of the government.
Similarlty when a matter is placed before a bench of the court comprising more than one judge, only the bench can pass orders or judgements. The members of the bench do not have to agree. Dissent is often expressed in scathing terms. A judge from America, Justice Scalia, was famous for his caustic dissents. Majority opinions were characterised by him as “preposterous”, “pernicious”, and based “on the flimsiest of evidence”.
When asked why there is no Coup d’etat in Washington, the answer was, Because there is no American Embassy there.
Let us pray for the good of the coiuntry and the people.
