There are no two opinions about the fact that we are a society completely immersed in corruption, which, decidedly, is the bane of our socioeconomic development and national integration. There is also no doubt that our rulers both — military dictators and politicians — are equally responsible for this detestable phenomenon, which due to its trickle-down effect has penetrated into the entire fabric of our society. According to a saying of Saadi Sherazi, if a ruler eats one egg through corruption, the subjects will eat the entire flock of hen in the same way. That is the situation we are faced with today. Taking cue from the rulers, people are also engaged in a mad race to accumulate wealth through illegitimate and corrupt practices. Corruption has become an accepted norm in society. Law enforcement agencies, judiciary and government departments that are supposed to ensure rule of law, justice, checking corruption and promoting wellbeing of the masses are often found to be afflicted with corruption. And regrettably, there seems no end in sight to this process of self-destruction. We often heard from the rulers their resolve to eliminate corruption from the echelons of government and society as and when it suited their political interests. But the fact is that whatever accountability mechanisms they did put in place, they were meant to target their political opponents rather than an arrangement for across the board accountability. Military dictators who staged coups citing corruption as the overriding consideration with the promise to put the genie in the bottle indulged in reckless misuse of power and corruption to prolong their rules, pushing the country closer to a precipice. No wonder, the Transparency International declared Musharraf regime as the most corrupt government in the history of Pakistan. We have also witnessed sporadic movements against corruption, also mostly designed to settle scores with political opponents and gaining political mileage instead of a genuine and honest effort to hold accountable all those who have taken this country for a ride. Bringing systemic reforms to curb the culture of graft and entitlement that the present system of governance encourages has never been the priority of our rulers. The so-called movement against corruption that the opposition parties including the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has unfurled in the wake of the Panama leaks is quintessential of the politics of hypocrisy and self-aggrandizement. It appears to be a typical witch-hunt against Nawaz Sharif and his family. The opposition parties are desperately trying to make the public believe that if the alleged corruption against Sharif is proved, and he and his family are held accountable, the country will become free of corruption. That is the most misleading proposition. If the purpose is accountability and elimination of corruption, all those whose hands are soiled with corruption, no matter who they are, must be made to face accountability. A list presented in the Senate a few days ago revealed that politicians belonging to the Pakistan People’s Party, PTI, Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid, some ex-generals, Fauji Cement Company, and other prominent personalities had bank loans to the tune of millions of rupees written off between 2001 to 2009. That is only the tip of the iceberg that only indicates how people in power misuse their authority to favour their own supporters and cronies with impunity. Stories of the Surrey Palace and money stashed in Swiss banks still resonate across the country. A brother of a former COAS is under investigation for fraud to the tune of Rs 400 billion. Those demanding accountability of Sharif on account of the Panama leaks are also guilty of the same crime, if at all owning an offshore company is a crime. One really wonders at their audacity to hurl allegations of corruption at others while morally and legally speaking, they are also standing on the same pedestal. People should not pay heed to this farce, which is only meant to create chaos in the country, and possibly destabilise the government. One would also wish them to strive for systemic reforms, and campaign with the same ferocity against corruption done by the khakis, judges and other politicians, instead of wasting their energies on an issue that is not going to serve any national interest. Opposition parties are also well advised to join forces and cooperate with government in bringing about necessary systemic reforms that discourage misuse of authority by rulers, nepotism, and plug the avenues of corruption. Government and the opposition should jointly evolve an accountability mechanism, insulated against political interference, which makes no distinction whether the corrupt person is a politician, a judge, a general or a bureaucrat. Political parties can make a beginning by having all written-off bank loans retrieved — which is very much doable — to prove their honesty and anti-corruption credentials. Government and the opposition can easily legislate on the issue. That should be followed by formation of a national anti-corruption commission — a constitutional body comprising retired Supreme Court judges appointed on the basis of seniority instead of consensus between government and opposition parties — vested with the powers to probe cases of corruption against any citizen of Pakistan belonging to any profession. Another much needed systemic reform is changing the way we elect our representatives. The present single constituency system is the mother of all types of corruption. Under this system only the rich and influential persons can contest elections, eliminating the chances of well-educated and enlightened persons belonging to middle and lower middle class to even think of making to the assemblies, or serving the country in any representative capacity. The result is that in the resultant number game to clinch power, parties and their heads, invariably, prefer giving tickets to electable persons without bothering about their financial and moral integrity or reputation. When they are elected they blackmail the party heads, and resist any change that could endanger their vested interests. Furthermore, members who are elected under this system are not necessarily the ones having obtained the maximum number of votes registered in that particular constituency. In a constituency where 200,000 votes are registered, a person obtaining 40 percent of votes or even less could get elected due to distribution of votes among several contesting candidates. The winner, therefore, is not the representative of the majority. Under the single constituency system, small regional parties also fail to get due representation. Consequently, assemblies that come into being are said to enjoy the franchise of the people but are in no way truly representative bodies. The solution lies in switching over the proportional representative system that suits the genius of the multicultural and multi-lingual society like Pakistan. The writer is a retired diplomat, a freelance columnist and a member of the visiting faculty of the Riphah Institute of Media Sciences, Riphah International University, Islamabad. He can be reached at ashpak10@gmail.com