Private enterprises walking in footsteps of govt institutions

Barring a few government institutions and enterprises, the majority of them have degenerated over the decades and the decision makers are still in choppy waters, either unable to extricate from the decay, rot and mess or leisurely allowing these enterprises and institutions to further deteriorate and collapse.

The draconian nationalization was the first attempt to destroy these institutions. Excessive stuffing of political workers, non-merit personnel, ignorant officers transferred from bureaucracy, coupled with unchecked corruption and mounting losses worsened the ecosystem.

Over the past decades, these organizations have been haemorrhaging scarce financial resources and have been responsible for the annual Budget deficit.

This tragic situation is like Sophocles’s ancient Greek play Oedipus Rex. The play is famous for its perfect execution of a sudden reversal of private sector from great power to ruin, coupled with a moment of recognition when the leader announcing nationalization convinced the citizens that the unbridled wealth of the über riche has been reined in but then came a time when the people realized the ghastly truth of his actions.

An uncomfortable reality is beginning to emerge. Some of the habits that contributed to the decline of public institutions appear to be finding their way into sections of the private sector.

The issue is not ownership. Private enterprises are fundamentally different from government organizations.

The issue is culture. When institutions become dominated by personalities rather than systems, influence rather than merit, and positions rather than purpose, the conditions for decline begin to emerge regardless of whether an organization is public or private. This is particularly troubling because the private sector has historically been the source of entrepreneurship, innovation, investment, and job creation.

Entrepreneurs built businesses by identifying opportunities, taking risks, developing products, entering new markets, and creating value. Their success depended not on authority but on initiative; not on influence but on performance.

Yet there are growing signs that parts of business community are gradually exchanging elements of this entrepreneurial culture for a more bureaucratic mind-set. Loyalty becomes more valuable than competence, leaving organizations dependent on individuals rather than durable ecosystems.

The challenge becomes particularly visible during leadership transitions. Organizations built around systems can survive changes in leadership. Organizations built around personalities often struggle to transfer authority, retain talent, and maintain strategic direction once founders or dominant figures step aside.

Over time, such arrangements produce familiar outcomes: slower decision-making, reduced innovation, resistance to new ideas, and weak institutional continuity. The boardroom gradually begins to resemble the bureaucracy it once criticized.

What is happening to the trade organizations? In days of yore, the office-bearers of Chambers and Associations were less involved in trade politics and more focused on issues faced by members, and the respect and honour was earned not demanded.

Today, just like the national political instability, most of the trade bodies, including FPCCI, which is touted as the apex body, have become forums of different groups and alliances. Millions are expended on creating hype during elections. Character assassination of genuine businessmen is a norm not an exception. Little Caesars have become Godfathers and have manoeuvred their way into becoming Patrons-in-Chief of their organizations.

A junta or a cabal ecosystem has developed. Instead of becoming one united force, there is animosity, hostility, and indifference among them. Today, many trade organizations increasingly resemble miniature political systems. If business leaders want to change the country, then they must unite and force the decision makers to bring change so that Pakistan prospers.

The self-aggrandizement structured by these business leaders ensures into a preposterous situation where the emphasis is on regurgitating sycophantic accolades, homages, and tributes whenever the chief guest is a government official, a senior personality from political hierarchy, or someone who matters in the corridors of power.

In many trade organizations, office-bearers are mere showpieces while the leaders attend or become a part of important government councils or bodies. This environment is music to the ears of bureaucrats as well as politicians. They have a readymade counter game-plan, courtesy this dictatorial environment.

An interest-group mind-set operates differently. It seeks to protect positions, secure advantages, influence decisions, and preserve existing arrangements. Historically, entrepreneurs were builders. They established industries, expanded exports, introduced technology, created jobs, and opened opportunities for others. Their focus was on growth, competition, and value creation. Entrepreneurs seek competitiveness and new opportunities. Interest groups seek protection and the preservation of existing advantages.

The distinction matters because one expands opportunities while the other merely competes for a larger share of existing opportunities. No economy can prosper if the culture of enterprise is gradually replaced by the culture of entitlement, influence, and administrative manoeuvring.

Business community is considered a very strong and potent force anywhere in the world. The opinions, views, and concerns of business community are taken with all merit. A united business community can do wonders and scale up the nation’s economy.

The sad fact is that despite all announcements coming out of Pakistani trade organizations, the ground reality is that business community is rudderless in turbulent seas. What has been the real time achievement of business leadership in the last couple of decades? Has it done any soul-searching to grasp reality? They profess through bombastic statements and press releases that they have done wonders whereas they are seldom taken into confidence by policymakers and powers that be.

The Oedipus Rex syndrome is overarching both in officialdom as well as in trade organizations. Over the years, corrosion has creeped into both dispensations. There is a gradual breakdown in both the systems. No one wants to introduce sanity nor wants to change because the present scenario benefits officials, politicians, and business leaders.

Private enterprises, which refer to trade organizations, have followed the administration and have become a warped up bureaucracy themselves. The private sector’s greatest contribution has never been wealth alone. It has been entrepreneurship. The entrepreneur asks, “How can I create value?” The bureaucratic mind-set asks, “How can I preserve influence?” The future of Pakistan’s economy may well depend on which of these questions becomes more conventional in boardrooms of chambers, associations, and business institutions.

The tragedy is not that businesses engage with government. The tragedy is when business leaders begin to admire the very bureaucratic culture they often criticize. To paraphrase Shakespeare, “the fault, dear business leaders, lies not in our stars, but in you for you are the red interest groups”.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2026