CPEC Authority reflects poverty of thought

Pakistan’s golden duck will now be headed by a former military man. After establishing it through an ordinance to showcase their seriousness about the CPEC to the Chinese, the government has now placed the CPEC Authority (CPECA) Ordinance before the National Assembly. Are these moves necessary, and whether they will deliver? There are no clear-cut answers to these questions, but they are worth asking.

Regardless of his superb economic coordination credentials, by appointing of a former military man, as the chairperson of CPEC Authority, the government has only strengthened the notion that the CPEC is born of the strategic womb and that business and economy will remain secondary to strategic thinking.

Section 3 of the CPECA Ordinance clearly states that “the authority will be with the Planning, Development and Reform Division, as per the Rules of Business 1973”, by which account it should be reporting to the federal planning minister Asad Umar. The notification of appointment of Lt. Gen (Retd) Asim Saleem Bajwa’s as the body’s chairperson also states CPEC Authority as being under the Ministry of Planning, Development and Reform.

Yet be it the appointment of the body’s chairperson, CEO, Executive Directors and Members or the making of CPECA’s rules, and the submission to its annual report – all rest directly with the Prime Minister. This is unlike many other attached departments and supra authorities that either report to the Federal Government or to the Cabinet, and in some cases, present their annual reports to the senate or the national assembly. The planning minister is nowhere to be seen in the ordinance.

In fact, there are no search committees to appoint the top staff of what is the supposed to drive the country’s ‘game changer’. Perhaps that is the very idea, to speed things up on the CPEC front.

But this, in other words is a tacit acceptance by PM Khan that his government is unable to fix the cogs of governance and does not expect to do so in the near future – not even after the appointment of PM’s right hand (or is it left) Asad Umar as federal minister planning who is touted for his go-getting corporate approach. Hence, the need for an ‘authority' that is directly under the PM. Then again!

In Pakistan, there is already a body called the Planning Commission, which is “the apex planning and  coordination  body under  the  Chairmanship  of  the  Prime  Minister”, and since October 2013 that  body has been made responsible for functions that were previously given to the Planning, Development and Reform Division (PDRD) under the Rules of Business (as amended to 19 August 2019). The PDRD is to act as the Secretariat of the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission’s functions have overlaps with the broad functions enlisted for the CPEC Authority. For instance, one of CPECA’s functions is “to ensure inter-provincial and inter-ministerial coordination for CPEC related activities”. The PC on the other hand (as per Cabinet Division’s resolution No.4-6/2006-Min-I) is also tasked to do coordination of economic policies. Is it so that coordination for CPEC related policies and implementation will be done by one body, and non-CPEC related policies and implementation by another?

The CPEC Authority is also tasked to conduct “sectoral research for informed decision making and long-term planning”. The ordinance is silent whether or not this sectoral research is in relation to the CPEC. If it is in relation to the CPEC (which is a plausible assumption) then is it not fair to ask whether CPEC-related sectoral research would be done by one body and non-CPEC related sectoral research by another, considering that research is also the Planning Commission’s job.

In other words, for example, CPEC related leather or rice research and policy coordination will be done by the CPEC Authority and non-CPEC related research and policy coordination for these sectors will be done by Planning Commission?

Bear in mind that Planning Commission already has a think tank called Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) whose VC is a member (research) of the commission. There also exists a CPEC Centre of Excellence, whose de-facto job is to do CPEC research and show CPEC in positive light, the latter – “ensure narrative building” - also being one of CPECA’s functions. (See also BR Research’s CPEC Authority, Aug 21, 2019)

The CPECA may be able to ensure narrative building, especially under the current chairperson who has previously overseen public relations for his former employer. But how will the authority “ensure inter-provincial and inter-ministerial coordination” when the Council of Common Interests, the Planning Commission, and the Ministry of Interprovincial Coordination haven’t been able to ensure these.

The ordinance in question is silent. The CPECA has not been given any special powers that give authority to the Authority to “ensure” this coordination, save for the power to call for any pertinent information from “any person involved, directly or indirectly, in any China Pakistan Economic Corridor related activity or any matter incidental or consequential thereto,” failing which is punishable. But this sanction of punishment still does not ensure the coordination part.

If indeed CPEC Authority is really the panacea for poor governance, then effective provincial representation on the authority’s board as well as representation of key economic miniseries would have been a prudent choice. At the risk of repetition, research and coordination for CPEC-related development on transport, energy, trade & industry, agriculture, tourism and finance, cannot be different from non-CPEC related development. There cannot be CPEC industrial policy and a non-CPEC industrial policy.

In that light, the CPEC Authority only reflects the administration’s poverty of thought, marked by the assumption that the iron hand of authorities can bypass the formalities of the CCI and other platforms of coordination, that are much needed to be improved to ensure improved governance.