In Pakistan, people are deeply disturbed by the economic crisis and inflation, which have severely impacted the common person, as well as by the ongoing political instability and social degeneration. Despite the widespread concern, the root causes of these issues remain unclear to many. While strategic and societal factors contribute to the current economic and political turmoil, there are significant problems at the operational level—specifically in governance.

Our society is currently facing a range of conflicts and crises, with the challenges multiplying daily. Several issues are contributing to these multifaceted conflicts and crises, including but not limited to widespread poverty, the prevalence of extremist social attitudes that fuel terrorism, economic collapse, increasing cases of child sexual abuse, honor killings, and violent disputes over minor property matters. The state, its apparatus, and its institutions are failing to address these issues effectively, despite the commitment and desire of many of its officials to rise to the challenge. For example, while the state has managed to defeat religious terrorist groups like the Taliban, it has been unable to control the spread of extremism, fundamentalism, and intolerance, whether among clerics, young people, or professionals such as doctors, lawyers, and teachers.

One significant reason for the state’s inability to address these conflicts and crises is the outdated approach of top decision-makers and civilian bureaucrats, who are often bound by conventional idiosyncrasies and practices. The conflicts and crises mentioned above are not unique to Pakistan; many societies and states have faced or are facing similar challenges. In today’s world, most states have developed mass societies with non-traditional and complex problems. These societies, which are predominantly urban and peri-urban, require institutionalized rather than personalized mechanisms for conflict resolution and need fulfillment. This necessitates a new kind of governance that is fundamentally different from the conventional systems and structures in place.

Since the 1980s, “good governance” has been a key phrase in international organizations, encompassing aspects like transparency, accountability, rule of law, consensus-building, and access to justice. However, a new concept has emerged that goes beyond good governance, known as “new governance.” The term “governance” itself gained prominence in the 1970s and 1980s when many hierarchical states increasingly failed to address the needs and problems of their populations, leading to a decline in public trust in the state. As a result, the focus shifted from traditional government structures to the broader concept of governance.

In Pakistan, policymakers, political parties, politicians, and civil servants have a limited understanding of this novel concept of “new governance,” let alone its implementation. Even if some are aware of it, they struggle to adopt it due to their retrospective approach. Our ruling politicians, including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, are often stuck in the past, repeatedly highlighting dubious “achievements” and accusing each other of financial corruption, rather than embracing forward-looking governance practices.

The new governance approach emphasizes the importance of systems and structures in addressing the policy demands of the people and solving societal problems. Unfortunately, this aspect of governance has been largely overlooked by our government departments. While history is important, and addressing past wrongs is essential for progress, the state’s focus on traditional governance methods has left it ill-equipped to tackle the deep-rooted issues within its institutions. This focus on outdated approaches has led to a lack of capacity and, at times, a lack of sincerity among state functionaries.

The challenges facing Pakistani society—or any society in the contemporary era—are complex and require a holistic, multijurisdictional, and networked approach. For example, the issue of youth unemployment cannot be effectively addressed by the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs alone. It requires collaboration among various ministries, including education, social welfare, youth affairs, and foreign affairs, as well as coordination between governments at local, regional, national, and international levels, along with civil society and the private sector. This networked approach is at the core of “new governance.”

However, because this new governance approach is non-hierarchical, it clashes with the traditional mindset of our ruling politicians and civil servants, who are accustomed to chain-of-command authority. As a result, they have been unable to adopt the new governance model, and the issues and problems that require abandoning conventional governance methods remain unresolved. Consequently, we are witnessing an ever-increasing multiplication of social issues and problems.

There is also a personal interest for civil servants in resisting new governance models because adopting these would require them to share their authority and power with other stakeholders, such as the private sector, non-profit organizations, and the market. This power-sharing is generally unacceptable to both ruling politicians and civilian bureaucrats. However, society desperately needs this collaboration between state functionaries, civil society, and the private sector to effectively address issues, solve problems, and meet the needs of the people.

The world is changing rapidly, and its challenges are growing at the same pace. The demands of contemporary life are significant and complex. To meet these demands and address the concerns of society, the state, along with its institutions, must embrace new governance models. If they fail to do so, they will struggle to manage the political, economic, and social instability that continues to grow.