The mainstream political discourse in Pakistan seldom contains the nuance that would help in understanding the complex issues that the country faces today. Amidst the melange of accusations and counter-accusations, ranging from pedestrian commentaries of the casual political observer to vitriolic quarrels of stalwarts of political parties, little room is left for informed debate and meaningful deliberation. While it would be unfair to attribute this phenomenon solely to Pakistani politics, nevertheless, it should not be used as pretence to refrain from injecting a dose of complexity to the mix. Of course, complexity demands seeing the present through the lens that take into account both the continuities and changes of the past so that the two can be sifted from each other. This can be particularly effective in detailing the narrative of the transformation of bureaucracy in Pakistan, which has long been viewed as a static entity. Pakistan inherited a weak state structure on the eve of independence. Makeshift offices had to be made that were extremely ill-equipped to carry out basic functions of the state. Even worse was the lack of industrial base in the area that constituted Pakistan. In that dismal state of affairs, the only ray of hope was the qualified bureaucracy of Pakistan, which was previously part of the Indian Civil Service under colonial rule. Within a couple of years bureaucracy was firmly in control, and it managed most of the affairs of the state, ranging from micro-level administration to macro policy decisions. While the dominance of non-elected state institutions is certainly no cause for celebration, nevertheless, strong bureaucratic organisation allowed the state to pursue policies that were necessary for its survival. In such uncertain times, the most immediate imperative was industrialisation. State planners realised that without industrial units Pakistan would not be able to sustain its economy. For the state to embark upon rapid industrialisation, it needed foreign exchange — one resource it was acutely short of. Here economic imperatives dictated a partnership with a foreign power to supply these needed funds, and hence Pakistan became a willing partner of the United States in curbing communism. Pakistan’s alliance with the United States brought a great deal of development and military aid into the economy. This was the time when it was believed by the United States that investing in developing countries would prevent the Soviets from increasing their influence. At the academic level, this was the era of modernisation theory according to which aid for developing countries would jump-start their supposed transition from ‘traditional’ to ‘modern’ societies. All this gave bureaucracy a central role in managing the aid that was coming into the economy and directing it towards industrialisation. Not only were state bureaucrats actively involved in planning for the economy, but also in some cases they even directly assumed the role of entrepreneurs as they made industrial units and sold them off to members of the bourgeoisie at attractive prices. Meanwhile, since industrialisation required importing capital machinery, an over-valued exchange rate was adopted, which effectively reduced the cost of imports. Naturally, in the absence of sufficient exports that would have resulted in a balance of payment crisis. However, state planners came up with a scheme in which licences had to be obtained by businesses for limited access to foreign exchange. Moreover, export bonus schemes were devised that rewarded businesses with access to foreign exchange if they met certain export goals set out by government. This made the bureaucracy disproportionately powerful in comparison to the bourgeoisie. It was state bureaucrats who managed foreign inflows and controlled access to foreign exchange. In effect state resources flowed through them, and the bourgeoisie had to adhere to the policies that they had devised. This state of affairs continued into the 1970s when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto nationalised most of the major industries of Pakistan, and bureaucracy assumed direct control. However, Bhutto had a difficult relationship with bureaucracy, and the changes that he made to it, especially removing the constitutional protection that it enjoyed before, laid the foundation for its subsequent decline. This interacted with the shift to neoliberalism as the dominant development discourse in the 1980s. While Pakistan had already started privatisation under the rule of General Zia-ul-Haq, it had not officially adopted the neoliberal prescription until 1988 when it signed the first aid deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) under its structural adjustment programme. Forces of neoliberalism had a profound impact on not just the economy of Pakistan but also the structure of the state. Neoliberalism is an ideology that is a mix of negative freedoms espoused by liberalism and a free market based economic policy. In particular, neoliberalism calls for limited government as it holds that excessive bureaucratic red tape acts as an impediment for the growth of businesses. Neoliberalism’s currency as the dominant development discourse in the current era gives it a subtle form of power as all other development schemes are measured against it. On a much more concrete level, neoliberalism has behind it the weight of international lending institutions, in particular the IMF and the World Bank. This means that for countries like Pakistan in which there is a heavy reliance on these lending institutions, their neoliberal prescription naturally has to be followed in order to secure the next loan or aid package. The transformation that the state structure is undergoing as a result of neoliberal policies is subtle yet effective. The economic role of bureaucracy is in decline as funds that are coming in the country are continuously calling for its retreat from the business sphere. Moreover, as bureaucratic culture is increasingly being viewed as déclassé and démodé, autonomous bodies are increasingly emerging that pride themselves on having professionals from the private sector. All this means that bureaucracy no longer has the central role in economic planning that it once had, and space is increasingly being ceded for private firms and multinational companies to invest and flourish. This raises the question of whether the changes that are taking place in the state structure are good or bad for Pakistan. Pakistani bureaucracy has for long been viewed as a repressive apparatus of the colonial times that rules rather than serves. In light of this, it may appear absurd to suggest that bureaucratic retreat from the economic sphere is not necessarily a good thing. However, bureaucracy has an internal logic to it, which, in all its lethargy and conservatism, is able to work for the benefit of the larger national interest. As the fortune of individual bureaucrats is closely tied with the influence of their department as a whole, and the web of procedures and regulations governing its business leaves little room for going against the system altogether, bureaucracy acts as a regulator that slows things down just enough so that implications of new developments and changes can be wisely considered. Greed of multinational and private sector, on the other hand, knows no bounds and these companies are only motivated by the desire to make more money. Here, bureaucratic regulations, although a nuisance to private companies, are necessary to ensure that the state and its citizens are not exploited as a result of their operations. This must not be taken as a case for bureaucratic rule as democracy demands subservience of public servants to publicly elected officials. Nor is it a call for bureaucratic control of businesses. The point that is being made is that public authorities have an important role to play in economic development. Hence, in the environment in which bureaucracy is consistently being pushed away from the economic sphere, there is a need to renegotiate the role of bureaucracy vis-à-vis private businesses. And for that to happen, the current stigma attached to bureaucracy needs to be countered. The writer is an assistant editor at Daily Times