ON the sidelines of politics, it seems that political parties and their governments have much in common despite their constant snarling at one another. And I do not refer to their lack of power vis-à-vis the establishment or their eagerness to spend money they have done little to earn.

Indeed, they are united in quite a lot, including their efforts to assert control over the higher education institutions in their domain.

Consider the recent news items from different provinces. In Sindh, the government has passed a law, which would allow bureaucrats in addition to academics to be appointed vice-chancellors (VCs) of universities. The law has also eased the criterion for appointments by removing the PhD condition. The bill was opposed by opposition parties such as the MQM and the Jamaat-i-1slami, but such is the numbers game in the assembly that legislation by the government faces no hurdle, and opposition by the governor did little except delay the law for a short while.

As the opposition leader, according to a story in Dawn, commented, `Now an SP [superintendent of police] can be appointed as VC in a university.

In KP, another comfortably placed government also took advantage of its numbers in the assembly and amended the law to give the chief minister the powers to appoint VCs. The amendments also give the government the powers to assess the performance of those appointed halfway through a four-year term. Once again, the governor`s opposition to the law only caused a delay.

Since then, however, a petition filed in the relevant high court says that the change in law translated to `interference in the transactions and performance of universities and to interfere in their autonomy`. The petitioners argue that under the earlier arrangement, these powers were with the governor who exercised them in consultation with the provincial government and chief minister, which allowed some checks and balances.

Punjab seems to not have passed any law yet but there are reports that the government in Lahore is planning to flex its muscles similarly and centralise the sector. According to mediareports, the changes being considered would make the chief minister and ministers the head of the syndicates governing higher education institutes and remove the VCs from chairmanship. That the institutes are fearing such moves is evident from the views expressed by educationists who spoke at a recent conference organised in Lahore by the Punjab Higher Education Commission and Higher Education Department.

Even for someone who does not follow the education sector closely, it is striking that three different governments run by three different political parties seem to be trying to make similar changes to a sector at more or less the same time.

Just a coincidence? The simplest explanation is the provincial governments face governors from other parties and changing the rules is the easiest way to stay in charge.

This is possible because there have been reports of tussles or friction between the governor and the chief minister in Punjab over the appointments to universities, which had also caused delays. Similarly, in KP, the PTI government had refused to appoint the VCs finalised under the caretaker government.

However, it might not be simply an effort to address administrative hurdles and crush the `crushable` opposition; after all, most chief ministers these days really can`t do much about the bureaucrats who are appointed in their provinces, but surely other political parties and their appointees, such as governors, should not think they can also assert themselves.

There may be more to it, however. It is also an effort to gain more direct control over the spoils system which governance has become for provincial governments, and the higher education sector (mostly still funded by the centre) is a frontier that can do with some conquering, especially in an environment where budgets are shrinking, as is fiscal space.

Indeed, in larger political environs where governments are helmed by political parties that win the elections through their domination of the state apparatus or the assistance of the said apparatus,rather than popular vote infair elections, there is much clarity on what governanceis aimed at. It is focused less on the electorate and more on keeping its benefactors and facilitators happy through doling out state patronage.

The bureaucracy is, for example, key to their existence.

This can help explain the recent decisions for more direct control over universities, by allowing bureaucrats to be appointed to universities or by allowing them to run them. Or by appointing others as VCs as reward for this or that service. (It goes without saying that the bureaucracy itself might need to create more space for itself as mission creep may be denying it many of the positions it earlier assumed were the former`s hunting ground.) Indeed, these recent moves simply reveal the attitude of all governments towards education; it is seen to be no different from any other department to be used for providing `naukris` and patronage, regardless of what is said in public about the importance of higher education. And in this, higher education is treated no differently from other government-run enterprises. In fact, it may as well be a stepchild where the financial crunch within the sector is concerned.

Indeed, even those who do not read newspapers regularly may have heard of the financial crunch at most higher education institutes. One only has to run into students or teachers at public sector institutes to learn how departments are now even short of stationery at times. Students barely get funds for their activities while more and more admissions are given to those who can afford to pay rather than expect subsidised education. Indeed, successive governments have tried to reduce the higher education budget, citing the lack of fiscal space and the IMF conditionalities despite the fact that these constraints never stop governments from increasing expenses elsewhere such as the salaries of the judiciary, the bureaucrats, and even parliamentarians.OrbuildunnecessaryroadsinIslamabad.

But if the stepchildren can provide more opportunities for patronage, no government or political party will let go of it. In this quest, they are allunited.• The writer is a joumalist.