Whither policies?

Normally, four federal ministries in any federal system of government are considered the backbone of a federation: defence, finance, foreign affairs, and interior.

For the public, education and health have more direct significance but since they are mostly devolved to the federating units they tend to play a lesser role at the centre. When a new government comes to power it cannot be expected to deliver on all its promises within six months, but it is supposed to do at least two things: one, deliver on its 100-day plan; and two, clarify its policies regarding the four most important ministries.

As far as the 100-day plan is concerned, the present government has delivered on none of its promises apart from self-congratulatory functions and speeches in which the same old sermons about corruption have been repeated ad nauseam. The prime minister is leading his entourage in their U-turns, meaning whatever you say is valid only as long as you don’t take a U-turn. The talk about five million houses and ten million jobs turned out to be just an electoral hoax. The promise to bring billions of dollars back to the country was no more than a sweetener.

Regarding clear policies about the ministries, there is no blue-print or even an outline about some of the most vital challenges the major ministries are facing. Let’s start with defence. When did you last hear about our federal minister for defence? Can you even recall his name? It is likely that most avid readers of newspapers know the names of important ministers but not in Pakistan and not with defence. Names are not important, you say. Agreed, but what about issues and matters related to defence? We hear that a fence has been put up on the Afghan border, but we hear it not from the defence minister.

Some other barriers, such as ditches and trenches, are also discussed for the border with Iran but no details are given. Then there needs to be some clarity about what defence is. Is it about barriers and fences, and spending – not millions but billions – on thousands of miles long preventive walls, as the president of America stipulates? We would like to know what the thinking of the new government on defence matters is. Is there any change, or will the defence policy remain the same? If it is going to remain the same what new insights on defence matters have Imran Khan and his ministers brought in?

Then we come to the next most important ministry – finance. Some may argue that the finance ministry is more important than defence and that’s why you hear more from Asad Umar. This writer thinks it’s the other way round. The pontiffs of the present government love to talk about the ‘70-year mess’ that according to them has been accumulated by the politicians of this country and that, again per their pontifications, cannot be cleared so soon. One would like to know that, if we are in such a mess, how do the defence and finance ministries plan to clean up?

We need to be clear about the relationship between defence and finance. We have been repeating the mantra of ‘no compromise on defence’ for 70 years. Is there a new thinking anywhere in sight? Of course, nobody can advocate a defenceless country but we need to know about financial implications. In a security state such as Pakistan, which is not based upon the welfare of the people, the finance ministry tends to be less inclined towards spending on public welfare apart from some showcase projects of orphanages and shelter homes.

This government was in-waiting for years now. In the words of Imran Khan, he had been struggling for 22 years. One would like to know what that struggle was about. In political parlance when you talk about struggle, the defence of democracy comes to mind (not otherwise). Political struggle means fighting for the rights of the people and not fighting to bring down an elected government. It also means developing policies when you are in opposition and implementing those policies when you are at the helm.

Where is the financial homework that a government-in-waiting for over two decades should have done? For the past six months we have been fed false promises without any financial roadmap to follow. Begging and borrowing has become the name of the game whereas the same was criticised when the PTI was in opposition. China, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and some other friendly countries, have been pestered with requests of charity and loans; is this the entire financial policy of the present government? Every month ‘good news’ of some more borrowing is heaped on people.

The foreign ministry appears to be no different. The ‘70-year’ heap of mess the government talks about is also evident in this ministry. The people of Pakistan have a right to ask the foreign minister how he is planning to clear the mess. Again, a foreign policy always has a direct relation with defence and finance, and in that order. As the defence policy affects finances, the foreign policy is affected by both. If a country is financially weak it cannot deviate from the policies of its benefactors.

So, in a way foreign policy is an outcome of the decisions you make in terms of defence and finance policies. If your defence is right, your finances are spent on productive purposes resulting in a strong economy; that in turn helps you make independent policy decisions in foreign affairs. You are not obliged to toe the line dictated by your lenders and benefactors. You don’t end up claiming that defending such and such country is your responsibility. So, where is any new thinking, let alone a policy, in foreign relations? Will we continue to follow the disastrous path we have been following?

Finally, interior or home affairs. Our state interior minister seems to have a single-minded obsession with narcotics and drug abuse amongst youngsters. Wherever he goes he has the same speech deliver – much in the same fashion as the prime minister does. The interior minister started by visiting police stations in Rawalpindi which was not his domain. Then he got interested in more secure ventures such as attending school functions and delivering speeches about the importance of religious thinking.

The interior ministry has been hostile to foreign NGOs, especially those working in advocacy and human rights. Is there a new policy in place? If yes, can’t it be shared with the public? What has changed in terms of passports and immigration? Apart from a couple of ‘executive’ passport centres in the federal capital, most passport offices around the country present a sorry picture.

We have not discussed other ministries such as education and health, where the federal ministers seem to be more interested in encroaching upon provincial rights. The formation of a curriculum council at the federal level is a case in point. It is entirely a provincial matter now, and the federal ministry – rather than trying to roll back the 18th Amendment – should try to strengthen provincial rights. We may conclude that in the first six months, no policy level change or formulation of any significance has been witnessed at the federal level. That is not a good omen for democracy.

The writer holds a PhD from the University of Birmingham, UK and works in Islamabad.

Email: mnazir1964@yahoo.co.uk