Pakistan is a country where almost every major development challenge has an engineering dimension. Water scarcity, urban flooding, deteriorating roads, inadequate public transport, power shortages, wastewater disposal, communications and climate resilience all require sound engineering solutions. Billions of rupees are spent on infrastructure development. Yet, ironically, the engineering community responsible for planning, designing, constructing and maintaining this infrastructure has never been provided a coherent service structure commensurate with its responsibilities.
The absence of such a structure affects engineers working both in the private and public sectors, though in different ways. In the private sector, engineers are largely dependent upon the terms and conditions offered by their employers. Their salaries, career progression, job security and opportunities for professional development vary considerably from one organisation to another. There is no effective institutional arrangement specifically looking after their service interests or establishing reasonable professional employment standards.
The position in the public sector is different, but hardly satisfactory. Engineers serving government departments frequently have to struggle from pillar to post for promotions, upgradation of posts and service benefits. In many organisations, career progression depends upon departmental service rules, availability of posts and administrative decisions rather than a properly defined engineering career path.
A young engineer may enter government service after completing a demanding professional degree and spend three decades designing, constructing, operating and maintaining public infrastructure, yet there is no nationally coherent system defining how his or her professional knowledge, managerial capability and responsibilities should develop while moving upwards.
The Pakistan Engineering Council (PEC), being the statutory body regulating the engineering profession, naturally becomes relevant to this discussion. Its responsibilities include registration of engineers, accreditation and maintenance of professional standards. However, regulation of a profession is different from providing a service structure to those practising that profession. An engineer may be professionally registered and technically qualified, yet have little institutional support regarding career progression and conditions of employment.
There is another dimension of the problem. Many important public-sector organisations are essentially engineering organisations. Railways, highways, water supply and sanitation agencies, irrigation and power organisations and development authorities deal substantially with engineering infrastructure. Though these organisations largely require engineering expertise for carrying out their core functions, their policy and administrative structures are generally dominated by the general administrative machinery of government.
There is certainly an important role for the civil service in administration, coordination, finance and public policy. The problem arises when administrative authority begins to substitute for professional engineering judgement. An engineering project is not merely a file to be processed. Decisions concerning a dam, water treatment plant, highway, sewerage system or flood protection structure can have consequences extending over several decades. Such decisions require technical understanding, institutional memory and professional accountability.
It is also not uncommon for officers in the general administrative services to have an engineering educational background. While such qualifications can certainly help in understanding technical matters, the larger issue is one of continued professional exposure. Engineering judgement develops through sustained practice, involvement in projects, field experience and familiarity with changing technologies and professional standards. An engineering qualification acquired at the beginning of a career, therefore, cannot by itself substitute for years of continuing professional engineering practice.
There is, however, another side of the issue which also needs attention. While engineers need greater representation at the decision-making level, they also need to be better prepared to effectively perform at that level. Technical competence alone is not sufficient for effective performance at the highest levels of government. A competent engineer may know how to design and execute a major infrastructure project, but senior positions require an understanding of public finance, economics, procurement, environmental and social issues, governance, negotiation and public policy.
Communication is equally important. Engineers are trained to calculate, design and solve technical problems, but not necessarily to explain complicated engineering issues in a language that a minister, secretary, financier or ordinary citizen can easily understand. Presentation, report writing, negotiation and verbal communication are therefore no longer peripheral skills; they are part of modern engineering leadership.
This weakness becomes particularly visible when an engineer eventually reaches the top of an organisation. After spending most of his career in a technical stream, he may suddenly find himself dealing with finance, legislation, institutional reforms and public policy without having received systematic training for these responsibilities. His technical recommendations still have to travel through administrative and financial channels. Unless he understands these processes and can effectively defend his recommendations, even sound engineering advice can lose its strength along the way.
The solution, therefore, should not merely be to demand more senior posts for engineers. Pakistan needs to consider a formal engineering service structure. Such a structure could provide clearly defined career progression, continuing professional development and systematic preparation for senior management. Engineers moving towards higher positions should receive structured training in public administration, economics, finance, procurement, environmental and social safeguards, communication, leadership and public policy.
Officers belonging to various government services undergo training at different stages of their careers. Engineers responsible for major public infrastructure deserve comparable opportunities.
Thus, the role of PEC deserves reconsideration in this context. PEC should not become an employment department or take over the functions of federal and provincial governments. Nevertheless, being the principal statutory engineering body, it is well placed to study the service conditions and career progression of engineers and place appropriate recommendations before governments.
PEC could develop model career structures and promote structured mid-career and senior-level programmes. Continuing professional development should not remain confined to engineering technology. A senior engineer must also understand how government works, how projects are financed, how policies are formulated and how technical proposals are presented and defended before decision-makers. PEC could thus become an important bridge between practising engineers and the policy-making machinery.
Pakistan’s infrastructure challenges are becoming increasingly complex. Climate change is altering rainfall and river regimes, cities are expanding faster than their infrastructure, water and energy resources are under increasing pressure and existing infrastructure is ageing. These problems cannot be addressed through administrative management alone. Nor can they be addressed by engineers who remain confined throughout their careers to drawings, estimates and construction sites and are suddenly expected to become policy leaders.
The country needs both: engineers who understand governance and administrators who respect professional engineering judgement.
The issue, therefore, is not simply about promotions, salaries or service benefits. It is about the quality of decisions Pakistan makes concerning its infrastructure, cities, water, energy and ultimately its development. When engineering decisions shape the country’s future for generations, engineering must have an appropriate place at the table where those decisions are made.
Author: Shahid Sohail is a water resources and urban infrastructure professional and former member (engineering) of the Capital Development Authority (CDA), Islamabad. He has extensive experience in water supply, wastewater management, urban infrastructure and institutional development and has worked as a consultant on World Bank and other multilateral development assignments.
