How can those you rule go by rules that are against you? How can those who report to you give reports that are against you? How can those who obey you take actions that are against you? This seems to be the classic duel going on between the men in charge of the country and the men in charge of the institutions of the country. In this duel the obvious winners will be those who rule the country but the obvious losers will be those under their rule, including the public at large. The state’s institutions are supposed to be independent and empowered enough to demand explanations and actions from all involved in any relevant case or matter. However, when those who rule think that rules are made for those who are ruled but not those who rule, then institutions become victims of power play and politics. The recent overspeak by Speaker National Assembly Sardar Ayaz Sadiq is a typical example where, displeased by the Elections Commission (EC) for even entertaining a petition against the voters’ list of the recently held NA-122 election, he lashed his fury at an institution that his party had defended despite pressures from the opposition. He called them incompetent and people with mal-intention, and warned them that this was a soft warning and harsher things may follow. What was this furor about? It was about the NA-122 petition filed to the ECP by the PTI that at least 30,000 votes had been transferred before the election and only 7,000 of them had a valid record of transfer. This is not the first time Mr Speaker spoke with disdain about institutions questioning him and his party. The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was similarly warned about its “misconduct” on enquiring into high up affairs. He warned that a reference would be filed against NAB for informing the Supreme Court (SC) that it was pursuing 150 mega scams involving a colossal amount of Rs 428 billion. This included reference against the Prime Minister (PM) and Chief Minister (CM), and many other illustrious names of his party from Punjab. A similar fight is now going on between the Rangers and Sindh government. Dr Asim is the present bone of contention. But there is a larger matter at stake. Dr Asim’s confession of involvement in terror facilitation and corruption has links to the top ranks of the party. Dr Asim must be saved to save the bosses. Thus, the Rangers, who had become symbols of saviours in Karachi, have now been declared by the Sindh government as encroachers and destroyers of the “legal boundaries” of the institution. From Qaim Ali Shah to Khursheed Shah to Maula Bux Chandio the typical plea of being unlawful, unconstitutional and undemocratic has come to the fore. The only question to this political chagrin is why is this great defence of the sanctity of institutions and their boundaries, and their legality always limited to incidences where the big guns are gunned by their own subservient. This just about tells the story of what has gone wrong with the country’s ability to grow and develop. Countries depend on institutional development. Institutional development depends on system development. System development depends on merit based leadership development. When the men who run institutions are always under the line of fire for going against the grain of people who can fire them, then the institutions become contests for political muscle mania. Politicians have in the past threatened institutions and individuals running these institutions to the extent that either the individuals have resigned or the institutions have become lame extensions and execution wings of political parties. Some outstanding institutions reduced to mediocrity by this forced threat technique are the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) whose chairman, after being removed and restored many times due to disobedience to the rulers, finally left the country to save this family. He is now helping the US government to develop a system that Pakistan could have immensely benefited from. Similarly, the tribunal judge who dared to give a sentence against Ayaz Sadiq in NA-122, Kazim Ali Malik, reported that he had been threatened by the law minister, Rana Sanaullah, and when he refused to bow was duly retired from his post. This is a form of autocratic democracy where all institutions like parliament and public regulators are used to keep up the label of democracy while inside prevails an autocratic grey matter of “do as I say or…” If all institutions have to work on their dictate then it is very difficult to keep up the democratic facade. Recently, the spat between the National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (NEPRA) and ministry of water and power is just one of the many examples of this attitude. NEPRA’s very purpose is to highlight gaps in the energy sector to help the ministry improve its performance. However, while the government has been advertising massively on its progress in the energy sector, the NEPRA report clearly pointed out that the energy sector was not progressing. When this report was published the ministry of water and power launched an attack on NEPRA and there were reports of the NEPRA chairman’s job being on the line. The role and jurisdiction of the Rangers is rightly being questioned by many analysts. Ideally it should be the police that have the capability of safeguarding the lives of people living in Karachi. However, it was the failure of the police that led to the Rangers being invited to clean up the city. The failure of the police both in Punjab and Sindh is a direct result of the politicisation of these institutions. An ex Inspector General (IG) Sindh confessed in the SC that the 50 top jobs in Sindh police are decided and divided as a quota between various parties, and they then become party guards and henchmen rather than public guards. The tragedy is that under such bosses the many who do want to do a competent and fair job become rebels to be crushed. Recent question marks on the sudden disappearance of Ayesha Mumtaz from the Punjab Food Authority are still unanswered. Some say she has been indefinitely sent to a food conference to rethink her adventure of declaring Hamza Shahbaz’s company unhygienic. The Nekokara incident perhaps best describes what disobedience against wrongs can cost you. Mohammad Ali Nekokara was not only an officer with impeccable professional credentials but is academically very well qualified too. A graduate of public administration from Harvard University’s Kennedy’s School of Government, he was too competent and conscientious for the government. Instead of making him a role model he was removed from his service for disobedience against use of force on a protest. When obedience to rule of law is punished and obedience to rule of ruler is rewarded institutions and nations become playthings to be toyed with by those who are savvy at gaming in the house of thrones. The writer is director communications of the PTI in Punjab, an analyst and a columnist. She can be reached at andleeb.abbas1@gmail.com