Going through the ages of history makes it crystal clear that the development of every society is owing to the efficient and practical implementation of its public policy. It is evident that public policy is the backbone of good governance, but the real challenge lies not in its formulation but in its implementation. Unfortunately, the same is the case with Pakistan, where policies are present but their implementation is debatable in every aspect.
Pakistan has a recent history of extreme political instability, and that proves to be a leading factor in the ill-implementation of policies. Imagine a government working tirelessly to formulate a well-rounded policy, but before even making it official all over the state, the government is toppled over and replaced with a new one. The new government again spends time and resources from the Treasury to come up with a new policy and meets the same fate. The irony is that no government uses or even blinks an eye at the work done by the ex-government, which starts the process all over again. Luckily, if any government makes it to the doors of implementation, the policy itself has a bunch of unanswered questions. Delving deep into the situation, another loophole is unveiled, and that too is the policymaker itself. The people in power, assigned the rather crucial responsibility of formulating a policy, are incompetent. They lack the necessary expertise, research methods, and methods for analyzing policies, and the most important aspect is whether the policy is efficient enough and all the future prospects are involved and taken care of properly. The prime example of this is “Pakistan’s sports policy.” Yes, there is a policy on sports with proper policy documentation. This policy was heavily neglected both at the domestic and national levels by administrative bodies. The “development and delivery” of a policy matter a lot. Just like this sports policy, a recently hyped mantra and talk of “single national curriculum policy” were misunderstood too. The policymakers, again, even if they find themselves lucky enough to formulate a good policy, lack the communication ability to transfer it to the common masses properly. There is a dire need for reforms, education, and proper administrative workshops to deal with such issues. Importing a policy from another country is common practice, but it is not supported by evidence that the policy that worked for one country will give the same output in another country. The need for policy creation, its context, and the paramount socio-economic and cultural aspects are totally parallel and ignored while importing a policy. After the 9/11 incident, the pressure on Pakistan ascribed to terrorism gained a major spike, and owing to this pressure, there was a dire need for “counter-terrorism policy.” The incumbent policymakers at that time, finding themselves in a fit, copied the counter-terrorism policy of the United States. The policy document had the major point of surveilling all the Muslims, as Muslims were being labeled as terrorists. The same policy was implemented without any amendment in Pakistan. When the policy analysts scrutinized this policy, the fourth point was present. Pakistan had a 97% Muslim population at that time, and it was practically impossible to monitor this gigantic bulk. This resulted in policy failure as the policy was imported rather than made, keeping the current scenarios, type of population, and stakeholders in view. Out of all the reasons, “lack of political will” leads from the front, and that too comes from both people and government. The leadership in Pakistan lacks the political will to bring about lasting reforms. Political will only prevail if the political actors are willing to dedicate energy, time, and political capital to achieve change, take chances, and incur opportunity costs. The people seem least interested in the governance process and lack the element of knowing their rights. The government, on the other end of the spectrum, lacks inclusivity and transparency, much needed for the policy-making and implementation processes. Both actors need to be more responsive and pay attention to their duties and responsibilities to foster growth.
A lot of work is to be done in the field of policymaking and implementation. The system as a whole needs an update. People in power and the common masses need to understand the significance of public policy; only then could betterment be expected.
The writer is a student of “Government and Public Policy” at “National Defense University” and a member of PYDIR.