Is a course correction needed?
Few governments in Pakistan's recent history began their term with the advantages Prime Minister Imran Khan enjoyed over two years ago. It had unqualified support from the military, significant public goodwill, control (albeit with a razor-thin majority) of the country's largest province and a demoralised opposition - all this, amid a popular yearning for change.
But as it approaches the halfway mark of its tenure, the hopes and expectations the PTI government evoked have yet to be realised. Few ruling parties have so rapidly underwhelmed their own supporters. Even for a party new to wielding governmental power, it has, at best, been underperforming.
To be sure, Imran Khan's government inherited a troublesome economic legacy that limited its ability to take popular steps. But almost every new government has had to confront a similar inheritance given Pakistan's chronic budget and balance-of-payments deficits. True, the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic threw governments everywhere off course as well as in Pakistan. But while this wreaked less havoc in the country compared to other nations it saw an unedifying initial response to the crisis by the government until a military-dominated body took charge.
The question now is should the government consider a course correction? The answer is yes because all governments need to identify and address weaknesses on a continual basis, especially when there is public disappointment with their performance and when a revived opposition is raising the political ante. An opinion poll by Gallup Pakistan in August shows public ambivalence about giving a positive approval rating to the government. This should be worrisome for the prime minister. An earlier Gallup survey released in March showed 66 per cent of respondents dissatisfied with the PTI government's performance. A more recent survey by Ipsos in
September found that four out of five Pakistanis feel the country is headed in the wrong direction.
The real game changer would be for the government to show leadership that unites the country.
Against this backdrop, there are five steps the government could consider for a course correction: 1) Reframe its purpose in office and align it with public concerns 2) reconfigure its team especially in Punjab 3) Adopt a structured approach to governance 4) Evolve economic policies to spur growth by engaging the business community and political parties in parliament 5) Show respect for dissent and desist from seeing critics as enemies or traitors.
The first is crucial especially as the government seems embarked on a haphazard course. It should instead prioritise its agenda and focus on issues of greatest public concern and strategic interest to the country's future. Redefining its view of the public interest means according economic issues primacy over other matters. For example, obsessive preoccupation with the opposition and a flawed accountability process shifts attention from urgent issues uppermost on the public mind.
If all that official spokesmen do is berate the opposition, hardly persuades people that issues that matter most to them - cost of living, unemployment, increase in utility charges, supply of essential commodities and services - are being addressed. Repurposing also means a focus on policy for all, not philanthropy for some. It involves shaking off the habit of endlessly blaming previous governments for all the country's problems. After all, PTI was voted to power to chart a way forward not complain about the past.
Second, a course correction will only work if the bloated cabinet is replaced by a new, lean team that inspires confidence. It means dropping individuals who have failed to deliver. The present patchwork team is weak, disorganised and disunited with internal rifts that mar its effectiveness and credibility.
Most importantly, reconfiguring the team should involve replacing the leadership in Punjab so that it can run the province rather than run to Islamabad for decisions. That PTI has been losing political ground in Punjab should be reason enough for the leadership to change course there.
Three, move from the unstructured, personalised style of governance to institutional rule. Unstructured governance has led to embarrassing policy U-turns. An institutional approach ensures internal scrutiny of policy that prevents missteps. Institutional governance doesn't mean the number of cabinet meetings that take place. It meansa consultative mode of governing in which reliance is placed on institutional advice, not the instincts of the leader. Unstructured governance is as much a result of the ruling party's unfamiliarity with statecraft as on the way the Prime Minister's Office is organised, which needs greater depth and experience to assist him in the complex job of governing.