Daily Times

When will the liberals ever understand that all that palaver about equality is hogwash? Then again, all that noise about equality is in itself an anomaly; such gaffes are not concomitant with intelligent liberals. The more likely scenario is that all this tomfoolery over equality is a facade maintained to drive maximum Schadenfreude while the ruling elite hangs on tenaciously to power. “The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don’t have to waste your time voting,” according to Charles Bukowski.
Badinage aside, the fundamental difference between democracy and dictatorship is accountability. This observation is quite consistent with the four elements of democracy identified by US political scientist Larry Diamond and aptly juxtaposed in the definition of democracy by Wikipedia: a) a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; b) the active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; c) protection of the human rights of all citizens; d) a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
Absolutely, if any of the above elements are extirpated from the system, what is left is an ersatz democracy, or rather an oligarchy. Serendipitously, if more people were aware of how Wikipedia defines an oligarchy, claims of Pakistan being a democracy might even be a lost cause. Extracts are reproduced here for maximum punch: oligarchy is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families, who typically pass their influence from one generation to the next. Sound familiar?
And no, this article is not about the judicial commission formed to decide whether the elections were free or fair; that is left to the boorish media and those facing the Sisyphean task of proving it. But then, as someone rightly said, there are no truths; there are only perceptions.
Pakistan’s democracy scorecard, assuming that the elections were indeed free and fair, still does not add up. Critically, the equal application of the law to all citizens is perhaps the most blatant omission, although there will always be those who will argue incessantly over human rights and absence of rule of law altogether. Albeit whatever the animadversion, the common conclusion boils down to the absence of accountability. If power is actually vested in the people, why are their representatives not answerable for their actions or inactions?
The Devil’s Dictionary defines accountability as “the mother of caution”; brilliant. When mommy is away, the children will play havoc. In Pakistan’s case, mommy seems to be on a pretty long vacation.
Oxford’s concise dictionary of politics has a more erudite, obvious definition: the requirement for representatives to answer to the represented on the disposal of their powers and duties, act upon criticism or requirements made of them and accept (some) responsibility for failure, incompetence or deceit.
Dear readers, admit it, this is an eye-opener, much beyond obstreperous cavaliers of democracy motivated by narcissistic objectives, claiming that freedom of press is the soul and spirit of democracy. No it is not. Period. Who wants to hear the rest of the world’s insalubrious advice or opinions anyway? Democracy is only about equality and without accountability there can never be equality. Pakistan’s democracy is in its eighth celebrated year and blaming the Generals for everything that ails the country is an excuse that is fast losing steam. Unless it can be established that the common man, the voter even, in Pakistan enjoys an environment conducive for employment and a reasonable quality of life, there have been failures, whether by incompetence or deceit. Admittedly, differentiating between incompetence and deceit requires esoteric knowledge but that hardly matters since either is subject to accountability.
Rather than wasting precious space in building a conjectural disquisition, let us work with empirical evidence. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI), Pakistan was ranked 126 out of 175 in 2014. Whether this is an improvement or not from 127 out of 177 (the missing two could have been less corrupt) in 2013, the need for accountability is undeniable. Note, Pakistan has not challenged this ranking ever.
Admittedly, incompetence should also be answerable. As an example, the bankruptcy of the national airline of the sixth most populous country with a sizeable portion working abroad, if not corruption, is sheer incompetence. Similarly, the almost closure of the biggest steel mill in the same heavily populated developing country cannot be anything else but incompetence or misfeasance. However, whatever the cause, has any management of these corporations ever been held accountable for these twin debacles? Do not be fooled by the didactics on the perils of public sector ownership; if decisions were held accountable, decisions would necessarily have been impeccable.
However, let us focus on corruption. Despite the electronic media brashly and repeatedly claiming credit for exposing a deluge of corruption cases in Pakistan, when has someone who was responsible at the top of the decision pyramid ever been held accountable and actually punished? Note that being answerable for blatant corruption is the first step on the ladder of accountability. Failing in fiscal matters and stability is not even in the picture yet. The fact that even the media never follows corruption to the end should be raising eyebrows as well. Exposure without closure is like a bird without wings: it does not fly.
The inchoate conclusion can only be that all those publicised corruption cases, including the National Insurance Company Limited (NICL), Employees Old Age Benefits Institution (EOBI), Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA), Hajj scam and all the rumours about billions being paid as kickbacks for mega projects are figments of the imagination and there was and never has been any corruption in Pakistan. Either that or the system is inexorably corrupt.
The refined conclusion is that either Pakistan is as clean as a whistle and Transparency International should be challenged in the international court or Pakistan does not have democracy. Is that logical dear reader?

The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad. He can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com and on twitter @leaccountant