The linkage between rule of law, merit and conflict of interest
When rulers speak about good governance, generally they tend to confuse its definition. Efforts are always made to twist the interpretation of the term to suit their individual governance model. This oftentimes happens since there is no consensus on this definition. Context and culture are used to twist and turn the definition of governance around. A simple and brief definition of the word would suggest that “good governance means exercising authority in ways that respect the integrity, rights and needs of everyone within the state without exception”.
According to World Bank’s definition, good governance is epitomised by “predictable, open and enlightened policymaking (that is, transparent processes); a bureaucracy imbued with a professional ethos; and executive arm of government accountable for its actions; and a strong civil society participating in public affairs; and all behaving under the rule of law.”
To me rule of law, merit and the avoidance of conflict of interest in governance are the building blocks of good governance. As a starting point, therefore, it may be pertinent to shed some light on the concept of rule of law and the way it is practised in societies like ours. Briefly speaking, the rule of law implies a set of procedures and rules that govern a society and are consistently enforced equally to citizens regardless of their economic or social status.Their universalism rather than particularism in application defines their boundaries or lack of it. This means that rather than having more rules and laws, the enforcement of existing laws without exception implies the ‘rule of law’.
If practised in letter and spirit then the rule of law would mean that people are governed by clear and fair rules rather than by the arbitrary, personal exercise of power by the rulers. Rule of law would also suggest that institutional processes and practices protect individual rights by placing limits on arbitrary use of state power. Can we claim that our governance model historically, whether under civilian or army rule, had been underpinned by the rule of law? The answer, regrettably, will be in a firm no. Why?
First, it is widely believed that the VIP culture is the culprit in non-enforcement of rule of law. The VIP culture is directly in conflict with the rule of law. Surely, given the present security situation in the country important government functionaries ought to get enough security protection to ward off any direct threat to their lives. But, to create traffic logjam on the pretext of VIP movement in which ordinary citizens at times even miss their flights is no respect for the rule of law. This practice must change.
Second, more importantly, the ‘dharna’ culture has created a popular perception that people like Tahirul Qadri, Imran Khan and Sheikh Rashid can go scot free when they are blatantly breaking the laws and questioning the very foundation of the state institutions. In contrast, if a commoner law abiding citizen were to even jump the traffic light, he/she would immediately be challaned. This elitist mindset is in direct conflict with the concept of rule of law and doesn’t lead to creating a socially cohesive and well-integrated society. Doubtless, the degree of civility of a society is contingent upon the application of the rule of law regardless of the social/economic status of an individual in the society.
Another important pillar of good governance is the principle of meritocracy. The nature of social structures and the relationships embedded in such structures have direct bearing on the way the principle of merit will or will not be followed in societies like ours. The institutions in which social relationships influence institutional decisions encourage two kinds of broad culture: the culture of power and the culture of performance. The power culture and closely knit social relationships exert negative influence in the application of merit in decision making. Personal, social and political clout does come into play in power cultures and these influences kill the spirit of merit. In Pakistan of today while in some areas efforts are certainly being made to adhere to the principle of merit, in most other cases extra merit considerations still impact on recruitment and selection practices in our organisational world. Till such time that we are able to break out of power culture, the principle of merit will be flouted. As a result, efforts for good governance will be scuttled.
The development of performance culture in our state institutions requires fundamental changes in the way we practise human resource management in our institutions, especially in public sector. The institutionalisation of a performance culture presupposes the implementation of a management excellence model in which individual and institutional performance metrics are clearly defined to establish a robust mechanism of accountability. Once individuals are recruited against clearly defined performance accountability, it would be well-nigh difficult not to adhere to the principle of merit. It can be safely stated that our current management model in the public sector has to undergo radical changes to claim that we are a merit-centric country. This is one of the ways to establish robust mechanism in the functioning of our institutions.
If rule of laws and merits are absent then rulers fail to understand the deeper meanings of conflict of interest. How can our rulers avoid conflict of interest in decisions affecting the functioning of our national institutions?
Akin to the fuzziness of our appreciation of the concept of rule of law, the word conflict of interest is also misty in our minds. And this mistiness is the direct result of absence of merit from our institutional life. The problem is further confounded when our rulers fall prey to the multiple influences emanating from social and economic clout enjoyed by the elite in conjunction with an elitist mindset of the rulers that produces a power culture in which discretion and arbitrariness become the operating norms in the working of our state institutions.
In short, therefore, for Pakistan to become a socially stable and politically cohesive society, the practice of rule of law, merit and avoidance of conflict of interest would be of fundamental importance if we are to claim that we practise good governance in our statecraft.
