Institutional sanctity's farce

 Of the relative multitude of proposes of the beginning of states, the common agreement hypothesis appreciates more extensive public consent and application in current times. It asserts that men entered into a conscious contract to create societies. The moral and political standard between the ruler (the government) and the ruled (the public) is established by this contract. The people choose individuals or groups to run their affairs in accordance with the chosen norms, terms, and conditions, as stipulated in the contract. The public's choice and the government's support make the government responsible and accountable to the public. The best possible management of public affairs is at the heart of these responsibilities.

The public respects the institutions of the government in return for the realization of responsibilities and services. Additionally, the tenet of public respect for institutions is to give the government the moral authority it needs to function effectively.

The responsibilities that institutions have toward the general public are essentially what determine their sanctity. Therefore, it is absurd to assert that institutions that fail in their duties are holy. In addition, the institutions' staff members are compensated for the revenue they generate from taxes. As the genuine proprietor of society and boss draftsman of the agreement, the public's sacredness offsets that of the organizations they make through their assent.

However, the social contract's terms frequently become tampered with in favor of the powerful. In order to exert control over social life, public institutions gradually exceed their authority and begin to encroach into public spaces. Thusly, they overextend their commanded jobs and continue to commit abundances against general society for the sake of "public administrations". By doing so, they deprive people of their sense of sanctity and falsely attribute it to institutions. In addition to providing the powerful with an implied license to carry out systematic brutalities against the subjects, this false sense of institutional sanctity makes it easier for them to steal from the public purse.

They become despotic, oppressive, and extractive as a result. Each organization strives to exert greater influence and reap greater rewards than the other. This megalomania results in institutional friction and power overlap. In the end, the institutions collaborate with themselves and jointly feast on the nation because their staff members are the ones who will ultimately benefit from this. In order to achieve this, they alter their vested interests and the ritualistic laws and constitutional provisions. The individuals encroaching on the institution continue to defraud the institution of resources and authorize their excesses toward the general public. The stakes and interests of each institution are safeguarded by the other.

Ironically, the false notions of sanctity provide a haven for the failing institutions. They use the brutal laws of treason, contempt, heresy, and interfering with the performance of public duties to punish those who question the so-called sanctity. Those who dare to resist the planned heists risk exceptional punishment and, in some cases, even death. After that, they bake and feast primarily on the public and the public purse. The public loses faith in their legitimacy as true power brokers as a result of their consistent abuse and abuse of authority. In the end, they discover that their divine destiny is to live in institutional slavery. Additionally, these nations ultimately fail due to the failure of their institutions to discharge their public duties with selflessness.

In the same way as other post-pilgrim social orders, Pakistan neglected to develop proficient and responsive establishments. Bombing on their obligations towards the majority, the greater part of the country's organizations stand pertinent just under the fraudulent shroud of sacredness. Megalomaniacs, ineffective, and unresponsive to the public are their traits. The country has reached this sorry state as a result of the military's insatiable desire to play outside of the barracks, the judiciary's subpar performance, the bureaucracy's pliant practices, the unsettling greed of political parties, and the media's wolfish stance. The government must change structural and functional norms, make institutions more responsive to the public, and hold institutions accountable.