The high price of unearned favour

LAHORE: In any civilised, rules-based society, discretion is the exception -- not the norm. Yet in Pakistan, discretionary powers have become deeply entrenched in the governance structure, eroding merit and compromising institutional integrity and fairness.

By design, discretion allows personal preferences to override rules, procedures and qualifications -- and in doing so, it kills merit. When a prime minister or chief minister possesses the authority to relax eligibility criteria -- whether age, qualifications or experience -- for critical public sector appointments, the outcome is predictable: individuals with stronger credentials are often sidelined in favour of those with political connections.

Such appointments serve the interests of the appointer rather than the people or the institution. An individual who owes their position to political patronage is far more likely to remain loyal to their benefactor than to the law, the institution’s mandate or the people it is meant to serve. Nowhere is this more damaging than in the appointment of regulators. These officials are supposed to act as independent watchdogs -- guardians of people’s interest. Yet the ability of a sitting chief executive to appoint regulators ‘at will’ renders institutional autonomy farcical. How can a regulator act independently if their position depends on the goodwill of the very authority they are meant to monitor or restrain? Regulatory capture is a real threat -- and it often begins with a discretionary appointment.

The wider bureaucratic machinery fares no better. Discretion enjoyed by bureaucrats—whether in processing files, determining valuations, clearing imports, or granting approvals -- creates opacity and encourages rent-seeking. Consider the unnecessary documentation requirements in our import procedures: where Singapore clears imports in minutes via a paperless, rules-based system, Pakistan clings to bureaucratic red tape. The difference lies not just in technology, but in a stubborn reluctance to relinquish discretionary control -- the breeding ground of inefficiency and corruption.

The abuse of discretion is perhaps most visible in transfers and postings. In Pakistan, senior officials in the police, administration or tax services are shuffled around like pieces on a political chessboard. Loyalty to political patrons, rather than professionalism or performance, often determines an officer’s posting. The result is a demoralised bureaucracy, unstable governance, and a weakened rule of law.

There is no reason Pakistan cannot adopt structural reforms already functioning elsewhere. The armed forces, for example, have institutionalised tenure-based postings and a balanced rotation system between hardship and lucrative assignments. Promotions are earned not through sycophancy, but by performing under diverse and challenging conditions. Why can’t the civilian bureaucracy follow a similar model? Why should an officer be transferred at the whim of a political figure, sometimes within weeks of appointment?

At the heart of the matter lies a simple truth: when rules are applied unequally or bent to serve individuals, public trust erodes. Institutions lose credibility. The path to reform begins with recognising that unchecked discretion is not a symbol of power -- it is a sign of institutional weakness.

If Pakistan is to progress, it must replace discretionary powers with transparent, rules-based systems. Appointments should be made through independent commissions. Transfers and promotions must follow structured, performance-based policies. Import procedures should be automated and simplified. And perhaps most importantly, the culture of political patronage must give way to a culture of merit. Only then can we build institutions that serve the nation -- rather than the few.