Rumours about setting up a technocrats’ government in Pakistan are thick in the air. The pros and cons of such a government are being discussed in the media. The idea behind the proposal is to make a government free from political pressures to set the economic house in order.

While some people favour the idea, others are vehemently opposed to it. The naysayers have their own arguments against the move. One is that an extra-constitutional setup without political support in the country cannot take the kind of decisions required at this moment to extricate the economy from the mess it has fallen into. If prices and taxes are raised, there will be mass protests with political parties standing by as passive spectators. This will worsen the economic conditions.

Another strong argument is that in the given world economic scenario two years will be too short a period to set things right. A reference is made to the economic progress made under Gens Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf regimes. But a dispassionate analysis of their performance reveals that the political damage done far exceeded the economic benefits. One important reason why democracy could not take root in Pakistan and its benefits could not reach the people is the extra-constitutional interventions from time to time. This weakened the foundations of the state by distorting relations among various institutions of governance.

The separation of East Pakistan in 1971 can be ascribed to the policies and practices pursued by the authoritarian regimes of Ayub and Yahya. Gen Zia’s period saw the rise of religious fundamentalism. Gen Musharraf squandered vast national resources by promoting mindless consumerism. He ruled arbitrarily and since there were no political pressures to undertake basic structural reforms, he took no action in this direction.

The higher growth rates witnessed under three military rulers — Ayub, Zia and Musharraf — were not the handiwork of technocrats but the result of a surge in foreign debt, capital and financial inflows on the back of Pakistan’s support to America’s strategic goals. As soon as the external inflow of money dried up, the boom was over and economic slump set in.

Ayub Khan’s basic democracies system created a sense of deprivation among the people of East Pakistan as they weren’t represented in the corridors of power. The Yahya regime committed the fatal mistake of not letting the elected majority-party leader assume the office of prime minister. This deepened the sense of deprivation among the people of East Pakistan, leading to a popular revolt. It has been rightly argued by historians that had a popularly elected government been in power at that time, the East Pakistan tragedy would not have happened.

Needless to say, extra-constitutional governments lack legitimacy and use undemocratic means to stay in power. An example is Gen Zia who, to gain legitimacy, played the religious card, creating sectarianism, extremism, intolerance in the country.

Sustained and inclusive economic growth is not possible in an environment where social capital and public trust are missing. In a technocratic system individual greed and group interests dominate over the larger public good as the ruling elites take control of both polity and economy.

Technocracy is a system that works for the gains of the few, not the many. A technocratic system is propped up by artificial means, not by the support of the people. Its primary beneficiaries are not the masses but the powers behind the scene who set it up. That explains much of the current inefficiencies in the economy.

A legitimate question is: Why did technocrats working under various military-led governments not levy tax on farm incomes? The naked truth is that technocrats are subservient to those who hire them. Technocrats basically work for corporate interests at the cost of public good. They tend to miss the big picture in times of severe social distress. This is so because technocrats are not people’s representatives. A prime example is that of experts working for the IMF who work more for the Fund’s major shareholders than for the interests of the citizens of the countries seeking financial help.

In the modern world technocracy backed by extra-constitutional forces is no option. All over the world an active citizenry is rising to defend its interests. Political culture is changing in a world driven by social media. Any effort to tamper with the fragile democracy will lead to the radicalisation of society, as witnessed during military-led dispensations.

In the ultimate analysis, it is representative democracy that alone can guarantee political peace and economic growth. Representative governments should also be promoted at the district level. Our political failure is over-centralisation of authority at the federal and provincial levels. The widening gap between people and the elite is sowing the seeds of a serious political and social crisis. The risk of turning a fragile representative democracy into technocratic governance is enormous.