Education Reform in Pakistan

Education Reform in Pakistan

Political Activism?

as a good/service and education as a basic right to

reflect on the irrelevance of the idea of public demand

to the reforms in public sector schools. The former view

lends education for analysis in demand and supply terms

but the latter leads us to view the problem of education

in political and legal, rather than economic, terms.  It is

mutually contradictory to speak of education, in the

same breath, as a basic right that must be guaranteed

irrespective of the individual circumstances — and as a

good/service that is procured in accordance with the

individual circumstance. If it has been secured as a

( justiciable) basic right, then we should not expect the

public to demand it. Rather, we should expect the legal

and executive branches of the state to “protect” it.  Basic

rights are not supplied. They are demanded as long as

they have not been constitutionally secured. After they

have been politically secured, it makes no sense to look

for their demand. Rather, the activism should focus more

on finding legal and political ways of ensuring that the

constitutional provisions are delivered in their letter and

spirit. Therefore, it is possible that when we invest our

energies in stimulating demand by “poor” parents, we

move in the wrong direction.

To recapitulate, I have briefly argued that the logic of

demand and supply works best when the scene is market

and parents are autonomous, self-contained, agentive,

and individualistic consumers. But when the scene is

described by the constitution of the state and when

education is a basic right, the logic of public demand

and its articulation is not as relevant. Basic rights are not

goods, and politicians not suppliers. Once secured

constitutionally, rights are no longer to be demanded,

they are to be guaranteed and protected, just like any

other provision of the constitution. The phrase “demand

for basic rights” typically finds expression in those

situations in which those rights are not yet secured.

Would it not sound contradictory to speak about

education as a “right” — which requires activism aimed

at its protection through political and legal guarantees

— and a “good/service” — which is subject to the logic

of demand and supply — in the same breath? What

happens when, in our rhetoric, politicians implicitly

assume the subject position of suppliers? It is only when

they assume that subject position that they can turn

around and tell us, “Look, no one is knocking at our

doors, so what do we do?” This response is appropriate

if they are positioned as suppliers of education, but not

appropriate if they are positioned as protectors of basic

rights guaranteed by the constitution. Once positioned

as protectors of basic rights they, as well as the institutions

of state in general, need to be held accountable

irrespective of demand or its aggregates. The focus of

analysis and action doesn't have to be on whether there

is (or isn't) enough demand for education and whether

or not it is articulated or aggregated.  The 18th

 Amendment

provides the reformers with a single point agenda: make

the state, its various institutions, and the political guardians

of the Constitution accountable for securing the provisions

of the Constitution.

3

 This requires a concerted, and

focused, campaign by the influential elites, civil society

organisations, and the media. I have emphasised “in-

fluential” in the preceding sentence because it is a bit of

a stretch to expect disadvantaged parents to collectively

voice their demand for education.  Some will argue that

when people can mobilise to demand freedom and the

rule of law, then why is it a stretch to expect the same

for education? Such an objection assumes congruence

between the (abstract) notions of freedom and education

as potential motivators for political action. While there

is ample historical evidence for the former as a motivator

of political action, there is little for the latter.

4

 Finally, by

way of a positive proposal, I would like to follow Amartya

Sen and Jean Drèze in saying that education is not a

sufficiently political issue (1999). Sen and Drèze were

concerned with this political deficit regarding education

in India. As they put it:

There is no question that, even in a country as

poor as India, means can be found to ensure

universal attainment of literacy and other basic

educational achievements, at least in the younger

age groups. There are important strategic ques-

tions to consider in implementing that social

commitment, but the primary challenge is to make

it a more compelling political issue. (p. 139)

Sen and Dreze argue that such was not the case in the