Sample Essay: Good Governance in Pakistan — Issues and Solutions

Topic

Good Governance in Pakistan: Issues and Solutions

Rough Work

Exam Rough Work (what you actually write in the hall: about 200 words)

• Keywords: good governance / Pakistan / issues / solutions. Not two lists: argue that the cause is institutional.
• Type: problem-solution with an argument. Thesis: the deficit is institutional (patronage over performance), so rebuild institutions; do not wait for a strong man or a purge.
• Definition: World Bank 1989 "crisis of governance"; UNESCAP's eight characteristics (sure); CPI 2024: 27/100, rank 135 of 180 (verify); WJP 2024: 129 of 142 (verify).
• Issues: 2m+ pending cases (verify); NAB 1999 and 2022 amendments (sure); colonial-design civil service (sure); Art. 140A councils delayed (sure); 2022 floods, about 33m affected, 1,700+ dead, $30bn+ (sure).
• Root causes: elite capture, UNDP 2021 about $17.4bn (verify); tax-to-GDP about 10% (sure); no PM full term (sure); personalised governance.
• Counter: strong man (Ayub 1960s, Singapore, China). Rebuttal: 22 families and 1971 (sure); Singapore's CPIB 1952 and 1960 Act (sure).
• Proof: Ehsaas 2020 with NADRA, about 15m families (verify); Georgia 2004 police reform (sure).
• Way forward: independent accountability and court reform; merit civil service; Art. 140A; broaden the tax base; digital services and RTI 2017 (sure); IMF diagnostic 2025 gain of 5 to 6.5% (verify).
• Discourse: narration in Ehsaas and Georgia; description in the 2022 floods; argumentation in the counter-argument section.
• Hook: "Pakistan does not lack laws." Closing idea: patient institution-building, not a purge.

Full thinking (study version)

Steps 1–2 of the playbook — roughly 25 minutes on the rough sheet, before any outline exists.

Topic:    Good Governance in Pakistan: Issues and Solutions
Keywords: good governance (a defined concept, not a slogan) / Pakistan / issues / solutions
Type:     Problem–solution, but it still needs an argument, not a list
Scope:    Pakistan's state institutions — courts, bureaucracy, local government,
          accountability, taxation. NOT party politics. NOT a history of
          every government since 1947.
Thesis:   The deficit is INSTITUTIONAL (incentives reward patronage), not a
          shortage of laws, money or honest people → slow institution-building
          beats both the strong man and the one-time anti-corruption drive.

Topic → Prompt (the decode)

"Issues and solutions" looks like an invitation to write two lists. That is the trap: fifteen problems, fifteen fixes, no argument, and an examiner who has read the same essay two hundred times.

The hidden debate is about the cause. Pakistani public discussion blames people (corrupt politicians, lazy officials) and therefore demands people-based remedies: a sweeping NAB drive or one honest strong leader. The essay's move is to relocate the cause from character to incentives. The same Pakistani officials who fail at home succeed inside rule-based systems abroad, so the problem is the system they work in.

Why this is balanced, not one-sided: it concedes that decisiveness and continuity matter (the strong-man case gets a fair hearing), and it admits reform is slow. What it refuses is the idea that a personality can substitute for institutions.

Trap: listing every problem ever named (population, terrorism, inflation). Those are consequences or separate essays. Only keep issues that are failures of how power is exercised.

Brain dump (3 minutes, unfiltered — grouped as the points land)

Definition and measurement

• World Bank 1989 Sub-Saharan Africa report → "crisis of governance"
• Six Worldwide Governance Indicators; UNESCAP's eight characteristics (table below)
• CPI 2024: 27/100, 135th of 180 · WJP Rule of Law 2024: 129th of 142 → say they are perception-based signals, not exact verdicts

Issues (symptoms)

• Justice: 2 million+ pending cases (LJCP); property cases outlive litigants
• Accountability politicised: NAB 1999, 2022 amendments, two years of Supreme Court litigation
• Civil service: colonial ICS design, short tenures, transfers as reward/punishment → Ishrat Husain, Governing the Ungovernable
• Local government: Article 140A + 18th Amendment → elections delayed, councils dissolved; devolution stopped at provincial capitals
• 2022 floods (narration + description): a third of the country under water, 1,700+ dead, 33 million affected, $30bn+ damage and losses → encroachment, unmaintained drainage, slow coordination

Root causes (why it persists)

• Elite capture: UNDP 2021 → ~$17.4bn / ~6% of the economy in privileges (an estimate — say so)
• Narrow tax base: ~10% tax-to-GDP; exemptions in the trillions of rupees; agriculture and real estate lightly taxed
• Political discontinuity: no PM has completed a full five-year term
• Personalised governance: schemes branded with leaders' names and dropped by successors

Counter-argument — state it generously

• A strong man gets it done: Ayub's 1960s (~6% growth), Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, China's infrastructure

Rebuttal — re-read their own examples

• Ayub → Mahbub ul Haq's 22 families → 1968–69 protests → 1971
• Singapore → CPIB 1952 + Prevention of Corruption Act 1960 + a merit-based civil service = institutions, not personality

Proof that reform works

• Ehsaas Emergency Cash 2020: SMS to 8171 → NADRA + NSER check → Rs 12,000 via biometric → ~15 million families
• Georgia 2004: whole traffic police force dismissed, new patrol police, single-window public service halls

Way forward

• Independent accountability + judicial case management
• Civil service: specialisation, protected tenure, results-based evaluation
• Local government under 140A: fixed terms + a formula-based share of provincial money
• Tax: publish and cut elite exemptions; IMF Governance and Corruption Diagnostic 2025 → ~5–6.5% output gain in 5 years
• Digital services + RTI 2017 + KP Right to Services 2014

The Eight Characteristics of Good Governance (UNESCAP)

The standard definition to quote in any governance essay. Name all eight in the definition paragraph, then use the right-hand columns to show the examiner that every issue in the essay is a failure of one of them.

Memory hook: "PRT-RCE-EA" — Participation, Rule of law, Transparency · Responsiveness, Consensus, Equity · Effectiveness, Accountability.

Stance (one sentence)

Pakistan's governance deficit comes from institutions that reward patronage over performance, not from a shortage of laws, money or capable people, so lasting improvement will come from patiently rebuilding accountability, merit and service delivery at every tier, not from a strong personality or a one-time purge.

Clusters

Sequence

Definition (with the eight characteristics) → Pakistan's measured standing → symptoms, ending on the floods as the human cost → root causes that explain why symptoms survive every government → the strong-man objection and its rebuttal → proof that institutional reform works (home, then abroad) → five reforms in dependency order (law first) → a conclusion that turns "character" into "institutions".

Technique on display: the diagnosis decides the cure. Placing root causes before the counter-argument means the strong-man option is already weakened when it arrives: the reader has just seen that personalised governance is one of the causes. The rebuttal then reuses the other side's own examples (Ayub, Singapore) instead of reaching for new ones.

Cut — and why

• Islamic concept of governance / Riyasat-e-Madina. A strong essay on its own, but here it adds length without evidence; keep it for an Islamiat answer.
• Party-by-party blame. Makes the essay partisan and contradicts the thesis that the problem is structural.
• Terrorism, population, inflation as "issues". These are consequences or separate topics, not failures of how power is exercised.
• Opening with a Quaid quotation. Banned by the brief, and it signals a rehearsed essay.

---

Outline

• I. Introduction
  • Thesis Statement: Pakistan's governance deficit is rooted less in a shortage of laws, money, or capable individuals than in institutions that reward patronage over performance; lasting improvement will therefore come not from a strong personality or a one-time anti-corruption drive but from patiently rebuilding accountability, merit, and service delivery at every tier of the state.
• II. Understanding Good Governance and Pakistan's Standing
  • A. The concept: from the World Bank's 1989 "crisis of governance" to the six Worldwide Governance Indicators and UNESCAP's eight characteristics of good governance
  • B. Pakistan's position on global measures of corruption, rule of law, and state effectiveness
• III. Issues: Symptoms of the Governance Deficit
  • A. A slow justice system and a weak rule of law
  • B. Corruption and a politicised accountability process
  • C. A colonial-era civil service built for control rather than service
  • D. The erosion of local government despite constitutional guarantees
  • E. Failure of service delivery in crisis: the 2022 floods as a case study
• IV. Root Causes: Why the Deficit Persists
  • A. Elite capture: privileges for powerful groups, UNDP 2021
  • B. Narrow tax base and exemptions protecting influential interests
  • C. Political discontinuity and civil-military imbalance
  • D. Personalised decisions instead of dependable institutions
• V. Counter-Argument and Rebuttal
  • A. Counter-argument: decisive strong-man or technocratic rule delivers governance faster (Ayub Khan's decade of development; Singapore; China)
  • B. Rebuttal: gains without institutions prove temporary, and Singapore's success was institutional rather than personal
• VI. Evidence That Institutional Reform Works
  • A. A domestic success: NADRA and the Ehsaas Emergency Cash programme of 2020
  • B. An international lesson: Georgia's police and public-service reforms after 2004
• VII. Way Forward
  • A. Depoliticise accountability and reform the justice system
  • B. Build a civil service rewarded for results
  • C. Empower local governments with protected tenure and finances under Article 140A
  • D. Broaden the tax base and end elite exemptions
  • E. Use digital governance and citizen rights to reduce discretion
• VIII. Conclusion

Essay

Pakistan does not lack laws. Its statute books contain anti-corruption ordinances, right-to-information acts, service-delivery guarantees, and a Constitution that obliges every province to devolve power to elected local councils. Nor does it lack talent, as Pakistani engineers, doctors, and administrators routinely excel abroad within systems that function by rules. Yet the ordinary citizen encounters the state as a maze: a land record that cannot be corrected without a bribe, a court case that outlives the litigant, a hospital without medicine, and a city whose streets flood with every monsoon. The national debate on governance is usually conducted as a search for culprits, whether dishonest politicians, an overbearing bureaucracy, or insufficient resources, and its remedies consequently swing between sweeping accountability campaigns and appeals for a single honest leader. Both responses misdiagnose the illness. Pakistan's governance deficit is rooted less in a shortage of laws, money, or capable individuals than in institutions that reward patronage over performance. Lasting improvement will therefore come not from a strong personality or a one-time anti-corruption drive but from patiently rebuilding accountability, merit, and service delivery at every tier of the state. The task is slow and demanding but, as both domestic and international experience demonstrates, entirely achievable.

Good governance entered mainstream policy analysis when the World Bank's 1989 report on Sub-Saharan Africa attributed that region's economic stagnation to a crisis of governance rather than to a shortage of capital alone. The concept has since been refined into six dimensions measured by the Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators: voice and accountability, political stability and the absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific identifies eight characteristics of good governance: participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus orientation, equity and inclusiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, and accountability. The significance of this framework lies in its shift of attention from who holds power to how power is exercised. A state may hold regular elections and still govern poorly if its courts are slow, its officials unaccountable, and its services captured by the influential. These criteria allow Pakistan's difficulties to be measured rather than merely lamented, the necessary starting point for any serious reform.

Measured against these standards, Pakistan performs poorly. In Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2024, the country scored 27 out of 100 and ranked 135th of 180 countries, a decline from the previous year. The World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index for 2024 placed Pakistan 129th of 142 countries surveyed. On the World Bank's indicators for government effectiveness and control of corruption, Pakistan has for years remained in the lower third of countries assessed. These rankings rely partly on perception and should be read as broad signals rather than precise verdicts. Nevertheless, their consistency across different methodologies and across decades points to a structural problem rather than the failing of any single government, which explains why the symptoms examined below have survived every change of administration.

The first and most corrosive symptom is a justice system that cannot deliver timely remedies. According to reports of the Law and Justice Commission of Pakistan, more than two million cases remain pending across the country's courts, the great majority in the district judiciary where ordinary citizens seek redress. Civil disputes over property routinely span a decade or more, and the burden falls heaviest on those who cannot afford repeated hearings or influential counsel. When contracts cannot be enforced quickly and disputes cannot be resolved predictably, citizens turn to informal settlements, jirgas, or personal connections, while investors price in the risk of arbitrary outcomes. A slow court is not a mere administrative inconvenience. It converts legal rights into privileges available only to the patient and the powerful, and it weakens every other accountability mechanism that depends on judicial enforcement.

Closely linked is the problem of corruption and, equally damaging, the politicisation of efforts to combat it. The National Accountability Bureau, created under the National Accountability Ordinance of 1999, has been accused by successive governments, and criticised in observations of the superior courts, of pursuing political opponents while sparing allies. Its governing law was substantially amended in 2022, challenged before the Supreme Court, and litigated for roughly two years, a sequence that shows how accountability itself became a contested political instrument. When prosecutions appear selective and high-profile cases collapse after changes of government, public trust erodes in both directions: the corrupt fear little, and the honest official fears being made an example. Accountability perceived as vengeance ultimately deters decision-making rather than dishonesty, producing the policy paralysis that officials themselves frequently describe.

The civil service, the machinery through which every policy must pass, remains organised on principles inherited from the colonial Indian Civil Service, which was designed to collect revenue and maintain order rather than to deliver services. Generalist officers rotate frequently between unrelated posts, often with tenures too short to complete any project, and transfers are widely used as instruments of political reward and punishment. Dr Ishrat Husain, who later led the federal government's institutional reform effort from 2018 to 2021, documented in Governing the Ungovernable how recruitment, promotion, and performance evaluation had become detached from results. The consequence is an administration that is procedurally busy but poor in outcomes, in which an officer is rarely rewarded for improving a school or penalised for a failing hospital. This mismatch between incentives and results explains why well-drafted policies so often fail at the stage of implementation.

The clearest illustration of the gap between law and practice lies in local government. Article 140A of the Constitution, reinforced by the Eighteenth Amendment of 2010, obliges each province to establish elected local governments, devolve political, administrative, and financial authority to them, and have their elections conducted by the Election Commission. In practice, provincial governments have repeatedly delayed these elections, dissolved councils before the end of their terms, and retained control of the funds that local bodies require. Municipal functions such as sanitation, drainage, and primary health therefore remain with provincial departments located far from the neighbourhoods they serve. The result is a structural paradox: power devolved from the federation to the provinces in 2010 has largely halted at the provincial capitals, leaving citizens with the tier of government closest to them either absent or powerless.

The human cost of these weaknesses became unmistakable in the summer of 2022. Beginning in June, monsoon rains of exceptional intensity submerged, at their peak, roughly a third of the country. Villages in Sindh and Balochistan stood as islands in brown floodwater that lingered for months; families sheltered on raised road embankments beside drowned livestock, while stagnant pools bred malaria and waterborne disease. The Post-Disaster Needs Assessment later recorded more than 1,700 deaths, over 33 million people affected, and combined damages and losses exceeding 30 billion US dollars. The rain was a climatic event, but the scale of the catastrophe was partly a governance failure: construction on natural waterways had been permitted for years, drainage and embankments had not been maintained, and coordination among federal, provincial, and district authorities proved slow. The floods demonstrated that weak governance, in a moment of crisis, is measured in lives and livelihoods.

These symptoms share common roots, the first of which is elite capture of the state. The United Nations Development Programme's National Human Development Report on Pakistan, published in 2021, estimated that privileges enjoyed by the country's most powerful groups, including the corporate sector, large landowners, the political class, and the military establishment, amounted to approximately 17.4 billion US dollars, or around six per cent of the economy, in a single year. These privileges took the form of tax exemptions, subsidised inputs, preferential access to land and credit, and favourable pricing. The importance of the finding lies less in the precise figure, which is an estimate, than in what it reveals about incentives. When the state distributes advantages to those with access to power, the pursuit of access becomes more profitable than the pursuit of productivity, and institutions are bent to protect that distribution.

The same capture is visible in the fiscal structure of the state. Pakistan's tax-to-GDP ratio has hovered around ten per cent for much of the past two decades, among the lowest in the region. At the same time, the Federal Board of Revenue's own reports have estimated the annual cost of tax exemptions and concessions in the trillions of rupees. Agricultural income, real estate, and much of the retail sector have long remained lightly taxed, partly because their beneficiaries are well represented in the legislatures. The consequence is a state that lacks the revenue to pay competitive salaries, maintain infrastructure, or fund its courts adequately, and that relies instead on borrowing and on indirect taxes that fall disproportionately on the poor. A narrow tax base is thus both a product of weak governance and a cause of it, completing a cycle that administrative reform alone cannot break.

The second root cause is chronic political discontinuity. No elected Prime Minister of Pakistan has completed a full five-year term, and the country has experienced several periods of direct military rule alongside long stretches in which civilian authority was constrained. Each abrupt transition has brought fresh priorities, reshuffled bureaucracies, and abandoned projects, so that policy horizons rarely extend beyond the next political crisis. Institutions mature only over time, because trust in them accumulates through consistent behaviour over many years. Where the rules of political competition are themselves unsettled, officials rationally orient themselves toward whoever holds power at the moment rather than toward the law, and governance becomes a matter of survival rather than service.

Moreover, governance in Pakistan has tended to be personalised rather than institutionalised. Major initiatives are frequently identified with individual leaders, branded with their names, and discontinued by their successors; programmes flourish while a determined chief minister or secretary supervises them personally and decline once that individual departs. The pattern extends to appointments, where loyalty often outweighs competence, and to lawmaking, where ordinances frequently substitute for parliamentary deliberation. Personalised governance can produce impressive short-term results, but it cannot outlast its patron, because it never builds the procedures, data systems, and accountability mechanisms that allow performance to continue without supervision from the top. This observation leads directly to the most persistent argument against the thesis of this essay.

It is frequently argued that Pakistan's governance would improve fastest under a strong, decisive authority unencumbered by the compromises of electoral politics. Proponents point to the 1960s under Field Marshal Ayub Khan, when economic growth averaged around six per cent a year and Pakistan was cited internationally as a model of development planning. They also point abroad, to Singapore's transformation under Lee Kuan Yew and to the Chinese state's capacity to build infrastructure at remarkable speed. This argument deserves serious consideration, because it correctly identifies decisiveness, continuity, and administrative capacity as ingredients of effective governance, and because the frustration with gridlocked democratic politics is genuine.

However, the evidence supports a different conclusion. Ayub Khan's decade of development ended in mass protest in 1968 and 1969, after the economist Mahbub ul Haq showed that some twenty-two families controlled about two-thirds of the country's industrial assets. The growth had been real, but it had been captured, and the resulting sense of injustice, particularly in East Pakistan, fed into the crisis of 1971. Singapore, meanwhile, succeeded not because of personality but because of institutions: the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau, established in 1952 and strengthened by the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1960, a meritocratic and well-paid civil service, and rules applied to the powerful as firmly as to the weak. The lesson of both cases is that decisiveness without institutions produces temporary gains, whereas institutions produce durable ones. The strongest example offered for the strong-man model therefore confirms that Pakistan's remedy lies in building institutions rather than in awaiting an exceptional individual.

Pakistan's own record also shows that institutional reform works when it is designed well. When the Covid-19 lockdown of March 2020 cut off the daily wages of millions of workers, the federal government launched the Ehsaas Emergency Cash programme within weeks. Applicants sent their national identity card numbers by text message to a single short code. Eligibility was checked against the National Socio-Economic Registry and the citizen database of the National Database and Registration Authority, and payments of 12,000 rupees were collected at biometric points of sale across the country. By the programme's close, approximately fifteen million families had received assistance, and international observers, including the World Bank, noted its speed and transparency. The success rested on foundations laid over two decades, namely NADRA's identity database built since 2000 and the poverty survey developed for the Benazir Income Support Programme after 2008. It proves that Pakistani institutions can deliver when data, rules, and technology replace discretion.

International experience reinforces the point. In 2004, the newly elected government of Georgia, then among the most corrupt states of the former Soviet Union, dismissed its entire traffic police force, by commonly cited accounts some fifteen thousand officers. It replaced the force with a smaller, better-paid and professionally recruited patrol police. It simultaneously simplified licensing, moved public services into single-window centres, and published official procedures so that discretion could no longer be sold. Within a few years, international surveys recorded a dramatic fall in the reported incidence of petty bribery. Georgia's case shows that entrenched corruption is not a cultural destiny but a set of incentives that can be redesigned, which is the principle that must guide Pakistan's own way forward.

Reform should begin in the courts, because every other reform depends on credible enforcement. Accountability should be entrusted to a body insulated from executive influence, with fixed tenures for its leadership, clear evidentiary standards, and time limits on investigations, so that it deters corruption without paralysing honest decision-making. In parallel, the judiciary requires case-management reform: digital filing and tracking, strict limits on adjournments, and wider use of alternative dispute resolution for commercial and family matters. A justice system that decides quickly and predictably would restore the deterrence that selective prosecutions have failed to provide, and it would give every subsequent reform an enforcement mechanism on which to rely.

The second priority is a civil service rewarded for results. Officers should be permitted to specialise in fields such as finance, health, or urban management, granted protected minimum tenures in their postings, and evaluated against measurable targets rather than through confidential reports that record loyalty more reliably than performance. Recruitment and promotion should rest on transparent competition, and pay should be rationalised so that honest officers can live on their salaries, a principle Singapore regarded as essential. Such reforms would reorient the bureaucracy from controlling citizens toward serving them, converting policy intentions into delivered outcomes.

Furthermore, local government must be treated as a constitutional obligation rather than a political convenience. Provinces should enact laws guaranteeing fixed terms for elected councils, protecting them from premature dissolution, and assigning them a formula-based share of provincial resources on the pattern of the National Finance Commission Award. Functions such as sanitation, primary education, and basic health should be transferred together with the staff and budgets required to perform them. Governance that operates close to citizens is also easier for them to observe and to hold accountable, which makes local democracy one of the most effective anti-corruption instruments available to the state.

The fiscal foundation of governance must also be broadened and made fairer. Exemptions that benefit powerful groups should be reviewed and published annually, agricultural and real estate incomes brought into the tax net on the same basis as salaried incomes, and the Federal Board of Revenue's systems digitised to reduce discretionary contact between taxpayers and officials. The International Monetary Fund's Governance and Corruption Diagnostic Assessment of Pakistan, published in late 2025, estimated that a comprehensive package of governance reforms could raise output by roughly five to six and a half per cent over five years. Fairness in taxation and efficiency in the state are, in other words, economically productive rather than merely desirable.

Finally, technology and transparency should be used to shrink the discretion on which corruption depends. Computerised land records in Punjab, e-Khidmat service centres, and online tax filing already demonstrate that removing face-to-face transactions reduces opportunities for bribery. These tools must be joined to enforceable citizen rights: the right-to-information laws enacted by several provinces and by the federation in 2017, and the Right to Services law passed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 2014, should be applied with penalties for non-compliance and with published performance data. When citizens can see what the state promises and verify what it delivers, good governance acquires a constituency that no single government can easily ignore.

Pakistan's governance problem is often described as a problem of character, and its solution is consequently imagined as the arrival of an honest leader or a sweeping purge. The evidence examined in this essay points elsewhere. Poor global rankings, a congested judiciary, a colonial-era bureaucracy, suspended local councils and the devastation of 2022 all describe a state whose institutions reward access over performance, sustained by elite capture, political discontinuity and personalised decision-making. The strong-man alternative delivered growth that could not outlast its patron, while NADRA and the Ehsaas programme at home, and Singapore and Georgia abroad, show that rules, data and incentives can transform the conduct of a state within a generation. Good governance is therefore neither a luxury to be pursued after prosperity nor a gift to be awaited from an exceptional individual. It is the patient construction of institutions that function regardless of who occupies office: courts that decide promptly, officials rewarded for results, local councils with real authority, and a tax system that asks the powerful to contribute their share. The work is slow, yet it is the only path by which the Pakistani state can become as capable as the people it serves.

Check before use

• Recheck the World Bank indicators, Transparency International rankings and UNDP figures for their correct report years.
• Confirm applicable laws and dates for civil-service and local-government reform.