In the world of business there are several styles of management. Good governance depends upon the style that you prefer, and which is suited to the environment in which you operate. Well run companies run like well-oiled machines with minimum of conflict and great team spirit that pushes the company upwards from one milestone to the other.
The first thing that is taught to the top management is “crisis management” so that in case the company faces a crisis it can come out of it unscathed. Different styles are not limited to management of companies only. Political management of a country also has different styles of governance.
In Western countries, and especially in social welfare states like Canada, Sweden and Finland, the entire exercise of political governance is aimed at providing maximum welfare and assistance to the common man. It will not be wrong to say that the style of governance in these countries reminds one of the rule of our own Caliphs and specially Caliph Omar whose systems are followed in these countries.
The entire government machinery works day and night and spends sleepless nights, so the ordinary citizen can sleep in peace and is never short of the necessities of life. A friend of mine from Finland informed me that on her retirement from a PR job in the private sector she will get a pension of Euro 4,000 equivalent to nearly Rs400,000 in Pakistani currency. What do you get on retirement in Pakistan after paying millions in taxes? Maybe not even enough to buy a kilo of sugar. A real difference in style of political management.
A style of political management very popular in the third world and something that we have lived with for past 62 years is the opposite of “crisis management”. It is called “management by crisis”.
This is a unique and novel way to keep on ruling without lifting a finger to try to either improve the conditions of the people or to enhance the economic plight of the nation. How it works can be the basis of a very interesting study in political management, but so far it is lacking attention from Ivy League institutions in the US who usually carry out such studies. This is an amazingly innovative concept. In a nutshell the country is run by creating one crisis after another.
You will be greatly surprised by this statement but wait till you hear the benefits of this style of running a country. If your government feels beleaguered and threatened and you find yourself surrounded by determined reporters digging into every deal and exposing government weaknesses you can use this novel method to dig yourselves out of the hole in which you find yourself. The idea is based on fighting forest fires. In case of large forest fires the only way to stop them is to set fire to some of the woods yourself so that both fires engulf each other and burn out. This is the same with “management by crisis”.
If the crisis is created through exposure of some scandal, just counter it with a bigger crisis. You can start a firefight with your partners in the government and inflame their feelings so there is an atmosphere of confrontation in the country, or you can fire some top people resulting in their parties leaving your bosom and presto!
You have a much bigger crisis that will draw the attention of the most determined media guru. Suddenly the new crisis is forgotten, and the whole nation starts speculating on the bigger crisis. Opponents of the government get the false feeling that the government is about to depart, and they start daydreaming of fresh elections. Suddenly the whole focus is shifted and now you can breathe with ease. Now just let the crisis simmer in its own juice and wait it out.
You know full well that no one is leaving the government, and it is only a matter of time before everyone plays buddy again. The most important thing is that the fire threatening you has been extinguished. How one crisis after another threatens the very fibre of the democratic system is not really your problem. Or is it?
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments