The idea of leaving major governance decisions to experts, including scientists and engineers, rather than politicians was first tried during the Great Depression that hit the Western world in 1929 and continued well into 1930s. Having given up all hope of a quick recovery, the American people were delighted to see the economy respond to the New Deal initiatives. Government by technocrats thus became an attractive idea, particularly in societies were politicians were judged to be doing too poorly by the people. It also became a favourite with dictators and vested interest, who cannot trust popular wisdom.
There is a lot of uncertainty about the world. Some of the modern world issues, like global warming, terrorism, and social inequality are inherently complex. Even developed societies, with strong institutions, struggle to take decisions to secure their interests and protect their people. It is harder for the developing countries, particularly with respect to the decisions having to do with the management of national economies.
Many forms of government have been tried with various degrees of success. Today, democracy, in its many forms, is the system of choice. Its success all over the world has been manifest and impressive. And yet, dictatorship has not entirely vanished. And there are still people who see a point or two about monarchy. There are also those who favour government by technocrats – sometimes arguing that it amounts to right man for the right job.
In theory, a technocracy may be a form of government wherein experts are appointed to jobs based on their technical skills and expertise. The ministers and major policy makers do not have to be career politicians. They are expected to be adept in their fields.
It is argued that technocracy can be more efficient and effective in dealing with economic problems than any other form of government.
A deceptive, if flawed argument, in favour of technocracy is comparing it to professional services. “Can you trust a person other than a doctor to treat you when you are sick?” is the rhetorical question followed by the prescription that an expert be engaged to replace very politician in the interest of professional competence, which is implied to be the answer to all problems.
The Chinese political system is led by a politburo, which is a group of nine people. Their decisions affect the lives of billions of people. Eight out of the nine incumbent members have engineering degrees.
Could it be that the Chinese people have come to believe that the professional skills of an engineer are best suited to efficient management of international relations, development, defence, macroeconomics and governance?
We have yet to agree on the most appropriate form of government in the interest of the state and its people
Singapore has another regime that comes close to being a government of technocrats. For all its neatness and wealth, the people are not trusted with a role in legislative policy.
It has been alleged that democracies waste too much time debating the merits of a decision. “A simple airport could become a subject of great debate, resulting in waste of time and resources.”
In societies where elected representatives of the people are always under attack from vested interests, the common man is frequently urged to resign to the rule of technocrats.
In Pakistan, where every elected government has been accused of poor economic decision making, the noise is particularly shrill.
It is said that there is a terrible lack of transparency; government are unable to deliver the services they promise the public; development projects are seen as a ruse for stealing from the exchequer; bribery is alleged in key appointments and the rule of law is challenged with great regularity. Democracy is blamed for the problems.
Politicians, standing for the polls are ridiculed for being less educated than a houseful of civil servants or other technocrats. Allegations of corruption and nepotism abound. It is from among these candidates that members of all legislatures are elected. How can these assemblies then be trusted by those favouring technocrats?
It is alleged that the wise and truly qualified people cannot participate in the elections because it costs too much. The elected legislators are dismissed as “not even knowing the meaning of legislation.”
Dictators have ruled the country for more than three decades. They always claim to be free of the faults of democracy and favour technocrats. Yet, they too fail to do any better. The lament goes that the people have still to agree on an appropriate form of government in the interest of the state and its people.
Is a government of technocrats the answer?
There will be problems for sure. It is however argued that the problems of having non-technocrats as government leaders are far worse.
There is recurrent appeal to ‘powerful institutions’ to take into account the view that Pakistan can only be successful if institution stay within their limits and the corrupt are punished.
The way that country is being managed, it is said, has slowed down its progress. The drastic changes, the stuff of dreams, it is said are only possible with technocrats in the driving seat.
There is the contention that democracy does not suit Pakistan. It is sometimes premised on the observation that the public is ‘uneducated’.
Democracy is a system in which an individual is allowed to vote for the candidate he disliked least.
It is claimed without evidence that democracy has failed in countries like Pakistan.
It is claimed that Pakistan has been unable to find a solution to its debt problem because there is a lack of political will. From this, it is claimed, it follows that nothing is wrong with bringing in technocrats to manage all ministries.
The writer is a PhD scholar