Another council

We display a strange penchant for creating and re-creating bodies and forums and a peculiar proclivity to add to layers of bureaucracy in the name of finding solutions. Of creating and re-creating supra-constitutional and supra-legal authorities without paying much attention to reforming the existing.

Article 156 of the constitution establishes a National Economic Council (NEC) with the authority to “review the overall economic condition of the country,” “advise the federal government and the provincial governments”, “formulate plans in respect of financial, commercial, social and economic policies,” and in formulating such plans, “ensure balanced development and regional equity.”

The NEC, determines the constitution, “shall also be guided by the Principles of Policy set out in Chapter 2 of Part II that sets out Principles of Policy and responsibilities of each organ and authority of the state. It consists of the prime minister as chair and four nominees, chief ministers and one nominee each. The NEC must meet “at least twice in a year” and is “responsible to the [sic] parliament” in submitting its annual reports.

The constitution of the NEC is mandatory alongside the other critical constitutional entity of the Council of Common Interests (CCI). The current NEC, its executive committee called the ECNEC, as well as an Economic Coordination Committee of the cabinet are also functional.

Exactly 10 months after taking oath as PM, Mr Imran Khan formed a National Development Council (NDC) which included the then chief of army staff as a member. The NDC was tasked to set policies and strategies for development, achieve accelerated economic growth, responsible for approving long-term planning in relation to national and regional connectivity and set out guidelines for regional cooperation. Its other members included key federal ministers, chief ministers and relevant secretaries. The NDC met infrequently but since it had no obligation to report to parliament, it is difficult to surmise what it may have claimed to achieve.

The formation of the NDC was termed antithetical to the constitution at that time and in effect overriding the constitutional forum of the NEC. That the chief of army staff was included in a government committee, the first of its kind by a democratic government at the time, meant that the institution was made an official part of an elected political government’s economic policy planning with concerns that it may expose it to political partisanship. Time has sadly proved that those concerns were not without logical basis as the individualized relationship between the former PM and COAS imploded, bringing with it unnecessary and unpleasant repercussions for the institution.

Now Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has created a Special Investment Facilitation Council (SIFC). Its first meeting, according to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), was held on June 20 under his chairpersonship where the chief of army staff, chief ministers, federal and provincial Ministers and high-level government officials were present as the government ‘unveiled an elaborated ‘Economic Revival Plan’ envisaging on ‘capitalizing Pakistan’s untapped potential in key sectors of defence production, agricultural /livestock, minerals /mining, IT and energy, through indigenous development as well as investments from friendly countries.

The SIFC has been created act as a ‘single window’ interface for potential investors as well as to adopt a unified approach to fast-track development of projects. It will “shorten cumbersome and lengthy business processes through a cooperative and collaborative ‘whole of the government approach’ with representation of all stakeholders.” The creation of the SIFC is “aimed at creating horizontal-vertical synergy between federation and provinces; facilitating timely decision making; avoiding duplication of effort; and ensuring swift project implementation.”

Speaking at the meeting, the COAS “assured the Pakistan Army’s all-out support to complement the government’s efforts for the Economic Revival Plan, considered fundamental to socio-economic prosperity of Pakistanis and reclaiming Pakistan’s rightful stature among the comity of nations.” The prime minister, in his comments, reiterated that a “holistic /whole-of-government approach” was adopted to “foster partnerships within the federal and provincial governments for effective implementation and execution and that investors would be given primacy and fast track approvals through a well-coordinated approach.

While the PMO presser does not elaborate on the membership of the SIFC, if the notification doing rounds on the social media is to be believed, an ‘Apex Committee of the SIFC,’ under the PM, includes key federal ministers, chief ministers, chief of army staff and a national coordinator from the Pakistan Army. An executive committee and implementation committee part of it which would hold quarterly, monthly and fortnightly meetings while the SIFC will have an independent building.

As well-meaning as the initiative appears, there are potent apprehensions to its formation.

First, it is the job of the civil and military bureaucracy to make available to the disposal of elected governments their knowledge and expertise for making and implementing required policies. For civil servants, the field could be as vast as economics, law, administration, or process knowledge and skills. For the military, this would essentially be skills and expertise in security and defence.

Given the de-facto enlarged role, this may also include bilateral and international relationship management. But to make its expertise available and for elected governments to avail it, newer, supra-constitutional and supra-legal entities are not needed.

Contrary to the objective of ‘fast tracking’, such forums and bodies add unnecessary and cumbersome layers of bureaucratic procedures, undermine existing constitutional and legal forums that have a well-established system of parliamentary oversight, and diminish and take away institutional capacity from its original focus.

Second, care and caution must be at play in both elected governments and the bureaucracy not to confuse ‘functional loyalty’ through availability of expertise and knowledge, to ‘political loyalty’. It is a dangerous phenomenon at any time but a minefield in prevailing public perceptions.

The writer is an analyst working in the field of politics, democratic governance, legislative development and rule of law.