It seems Pakistan has entered the election mode with the poll date still more than a year away. The two major opposition parties, Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) have already begun their respective mobilization efforts by launching country-wide public meeting programs. Understandably, the two are using ‘corruption’ as the main weapon of their attack on the ruling PML-N. The Panama verdict’s dissection in the media on daily basis seems to be rendering this attack even deadlier for Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s government. Unable to ignore the onslaught the ruling party too seems to have been sucked into the election mode and the PM is seen, for a change, addressing public meetings outside his stronghold — Punjab.
The more than year-long public talkathon on what has been labeled as the Panamagate and the recent Supreme Court verdict in the case in question seem to have significantly dented the political image of the PML-N. The damage is likely to increase manifold in case the next elections are held on due date.
To avert this possibility the ruling Party could decide to go for early elections but not before it has solved the load-shedding problem which would perhaps tentatively fix the date of next polls sometime in September-October this year. But this would be possible only if Imran Khan agrees to dissolve the KP government in time and meanwhile the electoral reforms agreed upon are also incorporated in the system.
The main opposition parties do not seem to be interested in early elections. They seem to need at least one full year to prepare for the polls. That is why perhaps instead of asking for early polls they are asking for the PM to resign because in their opinion the SC verdict for all intents and purposes has held the PM guilty of indulging in corruption.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others, so said Sir Winston Churchill. He did not talk much about the economy, otherwise he would have perhaps said something similar about market economy as well. But when you practice the rule of majority and at the same time let the economy be dictated by free market forces it becomes almost impossible to keep corruption from eating into the very vitals of the two systems.
That is why the combination of the two is said to turn deadly for the very society that practices the two systems in conjunction unless regulated by social controls like an independent judiciary, a fearless press and a strong parliament.
That is Pakistan’s dilemma. For long it is has been trying to practice both democracy and market economy at the same time but sans the three social controls. Therefore, the rise and spread of moral and material corruption in the country which has made it impossible for electing a government which could truly be one of the people, by the people and for the people. We either had the feudal aristocracy ruling the country or the military or the big business and at times a combination of all three or a combination of any one of the two.
Declining growth rates and internal political competition fuel the anti-corruption engine in any society. These two developments can also be seen to be driving Pakistan’s own anti-corruption drives. However, in some cases, anti-corruption initiatives will amount to little more than a political campaign, only to fizzle out within a couple of years. In other cases, corruption is so endemic that political and economic changes will have little impact on a country’s ranking.
If institutions are too beholden to the political ego of the day, then a wide gap between the political elite and civil society will result, leaving ample room for a culture of impunity to develop at the top (Pakistan also suffers from this affliction). For several countries, the recent explosion of bribery scandals is the natural product of more than a decade of unprecedented economic growth. Samuel Huntington had postulated that corruption could actually compensate for weak rule of law and provide an alternative path to grow when a country becomes bloated with bureaucracy. In other words, corruption will at least get things done in countries where the formal channels of government simply do not work. This is what is perhaps happening in Pakistan.
Mainly, corruption is caused by a lack of strong institutions of governance. Experts, therefore, suggest that before launching an anti-corruption drive or putting an end to dynastic politics efforts should be made towards consensus building within the elite on the basics of running the country; what the constitutional arrangement will be, how the rulers will be chosen and replaced, what the balance between the centre and the provinces will be, and between different ethnic, sectarian and other divisions of society, what the role of religion will be, how checks and balances will be placed on the powers of both the military and civilians; how will we build institutions, which both check each other’s powers and at the same time lead to development of society; and what kind of foreign and security policies should be adopted that can help maximize tahe development of our people and strengthen national sovereignty.
A sociological approach would emphasize the differences between cultures and how they perceive corruption. For example, the West looks down on the tribal tradition of handing out positions to one’s brother or cousin, but there are parts of the world where entrusting one’s business to a stranger would be considered outright reckless [Pakistan belongs to the latter category of countries]; and geopolitics will tell you countries that are physically difficult to govern will be more prone to bribery.
If a country is internally fragmented by distinct cultures and sects that need to be brought under some form of central rule, then patronage-building will likely be an ingrained practice of the government and it will be difficult, if not impossible, to root out corruption.
The writer is a senior journalist based in Islamabad. He served as the Executive Editor of Express Tribune until 2014