Daily Times

In Book Six of The Republic, Plato describes a conversation between the founding father of Greek Philosophy – Socrates and Adeimantus, where he openly questions democracy and even the democratic electoral process. Socrates believed in a more technocratic form of governance that would entrust only educated and well-informed individuals with the right to vote and choose a rightful ruler. However, in a dramatic turn of events and Athens being the birthplace of democracy, as many call it, persecuted and hanged Socrates for his crimes by a jury of 500 Athenians – an exercise of true democracy.

Nevertheless, Socrates’ death did not put an end to this century-old argument of democracy vs technocracy. On the contrary, many countries in the face of evolving global political scenarios demand more diversity in governance by including non-partisan, political experts, bureaucrats and public representatives.

Understanding technocracy and political power within a democratic system is critical in developing a consensus favouring a politician or a technocrat. Simply put, technocracy is the performance-oriented competent governance, an alternative form of representation and power in its own right. Democracy, on the other hand, is described as for the people and by the people – as popularly phrased. This is the most poorly crafted definition of democracy; it is the appointment of a politically influential technically-trained representative.

What truly undermines the legitimacy of technocracy or technocrats is their inability to understand the larger and complex needs of the people and how it is all intertwined in the grand scheme of political play as described by political representatives. In my opinion, the fear of technocracy as a challenger to party-based politics (or family-based politics in Pakistan’s case) has been the biggest hurdle in technocratic governance and institutionalisation. Another very unfortunate perception against technocracy is seeing it as a threat to democracy or an alternative to dictatorship.

Technocrats are treated in a similar vein to how white supremacists treat people of colour in the US. It is much harder for them to strive and prove their worth as policymakers and experts, even though by their academic and professional training, a technocratic opinion must be given due weightage and consideration

In an article in 2017, Ahsan Iqbal, Ex-Minister for Interior and Planning, Development and Reforms, placed technocracy equivalent to “a call for dictatorship”. While furthering his argument, he writes, “We cannot be indifferent or complacent to this narrative; it must be rebutted by all democratic forces with full force.”

This very confusion or negative connotation attached with technocracy has never allowed it a fair chance in governmental institutions. Technocrats are treated in a similar vein to how white supremacists treat people of colour in the USA. It is much harder for them to strive and prove their worth as policymakers and experts, even though by their academic and professional training, a technocratic opinion must be given due weightage and consideration. Mr Ahsan Iqbal’s opinion on technocracy is an insult to the professional acumen of these individuals who are not just visionaries or dreamers but spend years developing expertise and mastery in their core areas. I truly wish he had done better research or at least acquainted himself with the true definition of technocracy before penning a disappointing portrayal of his intelligence, if any.

Throughout political and democratic history, rulers and public representatives have always looked towards technocrats for help and support. From the great depression in the 1930s to the Era of Margaret Thatcher to the Ayyub regime, technocrats successfully turned the tables and saved the day each time. Mahathir Mohammad, inspired by the east’s technocratic reforms, adopted the motto “sogososash”, meaning “look East”, and transformed his country. A study of his political marvel will reveal numerous technocratic reforms guided by national interest and sovereignty. The success of China should not be simply attributed to a strict capitalist government. Chinese political succession has a lineage of technocrats who time and again proved their political worth and brilliance.

As political scholars gather more insights and closely observe technocratic appointments and cabinets worldwide, its importance and effectiveness become more evident. The prime example is the establishment of fiscal agencies across the EU countries and the limited role assigned to national parliaments within the European Semester. It reinforces or proves modern democracies demanding technocratisation as the global geopolitical landscape drastically changes. The British OBR, the Italian UPB, the Spanish AIREF, the Dutch CPB or the Portuguese CFP, to name a few, are some of the most successful and powerful examples of fiscal agencies. The fact that these agencies are successful technocratic institutions co-existing with a democratic system without posing a threat to their country’s public representatives should be proof enough for many nay-sayers.

The most recent example of technocratic brilliance is the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Today we see mass appearances of technocrats laced with facts, statistics and data explaining the need and requirement of the stringent protocols that have saved nations from catastrophe. In an extremely drastic attempt to prevent covid, the Australian government discouraged entry into the country of its citizens and residents from India with imprisonment and heavy fines. Now I leave it to the readers to argue the ferocity of this decision. However, the fact remains that this decision was deemed necessary in the face of national interest adopted by a democratic country after technocratic consultation.

I see great merit and legitimacy in demanding a technocratically driven Pakistan. Armed with data and knowledge and guided by national interest and sovereignty, technocrats are most certainly the need of the hour for Pakistan. Finance, agriculture, engineering, technology, auto-manufacturing, medical and biotechnology are some of the few sectors that carry a great potential to blossom under the right technocratic leadership. The growth and development of these sectors are of utmost importance to the strengthening of this nation.

The appointment of Mr Shaukat Tareen as the Minister of Finance must be appreciated. His 49 years of economic acumen and trail of success in transforming institutions is no secret. As Pakistan stabilises economically, it is the right time to develop a growth mindset, policies, and reforms to do so. Tareen has an uphill task of architecting taxation reforms, bringing the budget deficit to 5% and strengthening the housing, power and energy sectors, amongst others. With that being said, his target of 6-7 percent GDP growth is not a product of wishful thinking but rather a testament to his technocratic abilities. His confidence in achieving these mammoth financial targets would not have been possible without the groundwork laid by Hafeez Shaikh, Ex-Minister of Finance. The senate’s constant and unjust criticism of Shaikh’s endeavours speaks leaps and bounds of the insecurity politicians hold against technocrats. The insecurity stems from technocrats ability to reduce information asymmetry between officeholders and the citizens, posing a serious threat to the political prowess of technically-trained politicians. The availability of open information to the public will give rise to the demand for accountability, which many fear creates a domino effect that may strengthen national interest.

The appointment of public office holders and Special Advisors both appointed and working with the same authorities on several ministries only gives rise to the political divide between the technocrats and politicians. The need felt by the government to appoint Special Advisors on several key ministries speaks evidently about the necessity of technocrats within the system and hence must be acknowledged and implemented in the name of the greater economic and financial interest of Pakistan. We must move in the direction of a leaner hierarchical structure, the appointment of technocrats in key ministries and performance-oriented competent governance. Vision has taken thus far; however, we require technocratic wisdom for growth and stability.

The writer is Special Advisor (Pakistan Institute of Management, Lahore operated under Federal Ministry of Industries and Production, Islamabad) and Foreign Research Associate (Centre of Excellence, China Pakistan Economic Corridor, Islamabad). He can be reached at hassnain.javed@hotmail.com