Daily Times

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) is an autonomous and constitutionally established federal institution responsible for building efforts against corruption and preparing critical national economic intelligence. Despite coming into force, NAB has failed to specifically identify culprits and hold corrupt people accountable. Apart from the stage show of politically exposing such persons who unabashedly continue to perpetrate economic crimes and peddle fraud and corruption they have been shielded through socio-political patronage and are publicly sanctified by ruling leaders and politicians seeking and returning the favour for their bad times. The pillage and plunder of the property of the poor masses, now referred to as ‘economic terrorism’ perpetrated by the person now referred to as an ‘economic terrorist’, condemned nationally in contemporary times ought to first be dealt with, as the root causes for the germination of violence, poverty, injustice, rebellious armed conflicts and terrorism in our society.

Like a political cancer, corruption and hypocrisy appear to be afflicting many areas of society ranging from party politics to business and sport. Pakistan is Asia’s biggest debtor; as of March 2015, the total debt liabilities of the country stood at Rs 19, 299.2 billion. Every Pakistani now owes a debt of about Rs 101, 338. This figure was Rs 90, 772 in 2013. It was estimated at Rs 80, 894 in 2012 and was only Rs 37, 170 in early 2008 because previous rulers not only looted the country but also borrowed heavily. Yet the mere fact that NAB has made public the crimes of the country’s past leaders, bankers, industrialists, generals, land developers and former Prime Ministers (PMs) seems to give faint grounds for hope. Heedful of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF’s) blunt warning that countries are not going to want to give aid to countries that are corrupt or do not hold true to democratic principles, NAB pretends to have begun rooting out thieves and embezzlers.

The real problem lies not with civil servants but with their political masters. It is politicians who demand relaxations and sanctions that have cost the taxpayer billions. The public finances will be restored to good health only when such economic terrorists are held accountable because they have to, not because they want to. If NAB wants to avoid a repeat of the scandals that have led to criminal indictments, with plunder and graft cases expected to be filed against many more officials, then NAB should be a showcase of the administration to fight corruption, promote transparency and deliver good government.

Part of the reasons behind why the country’s social services sector, healthcare, education, roads and justice system have remained in a pathetic state is because of this economic terrorism, these thieves who plunder public coffers with impunity. However, the latest scam of the Employees’ Old-age Benefit Institute (EOBI) points to a much more complex syndicate of swindling public funds through old-age benefits to employees, which must be comprehensively addressed. Despite the previous arrests of suspects, similar scams have continued every passing year. It has become an annual ritual of plunder. NAB should think of a more effective strategy of fighting this annual plunder of government money through ghost economic terrorists. It appears the EOBI scandal is a wide network involving highly placed personnel in various businesses and related government agencies.

The government must put in place a system that makes corruption too costly a venture to undertake. This should include harsher punishments for offenders such as longer jail sentences, strict recovery of the stolen money from culprits plus other punitive actions the government may deem prohibitive. On the other hand, NAB is complimented for executing its obligation of pursuing the accountability of government resources and exposing the irregularities therein. It has partly accomplished this task. It is now upon the other government agencies to also follow suit and do their work too by retracing the ransom poor people have paid to these economic terrorists.

Much of what we know about how the public metes out blame or credit for policy outcomes comes from the field of political economy. One of the most common hypotheses in this field states that the public is more likely to hold leaders accountable for economic performance when “clarity of responsibility” is high. Under the present government, when NAB controls both the executive and the legislature, for example, people will be more likely to blame or credit NAB for economic terrorism, which they see as reflecting the executive’s vision and priorities. The perception that economic terrorism’s fate rests in NAB’s hands makes it difficult for leaders to shift blame for failures but easy to take credit for successes. In such circumstances, when the economy roars, leaders ride a wave of popularity. But when it tanks, so does their public approval.

If the present government illuminates who is responsible for economic terrorism, corrupt people would find it hard to obscure. Although this hypothesis has a good track record of explaining patterns of accountability for economic corruption, it does not explain when people will hold the government accountable for terrorism and security outcomes. There are two central reasons for this: first, there are important differences in who people perceive to be responsible for economic and national security outcomes. Second, security and economic policy failures present different opportunities for executives to create a narrative frame that benefits them.

The conditionality of accountability is focused on political scandals, which highlight the challenges involved in understanding democratic accountability. It is important to look not only at the political environment — whether the government is unified or divided — but also at the nature of the particular policy issue. By taking both factors into account, performance accountability can be viewed as a complex relationship between issue ownership, blame shifting and the effectiveness of executive and opposing narratives. In particular, the issue PM Nawaz Sharif has over security policy and economic corruption is clearly a blessing and a curse. He can often feel emboldened and less constrained by the legislature when dealing with matters of national security and physical safety. However, when the country suffers economic terrorism, Nawaz Sharif will find it hard to shift blame onto an opposition legislature, and instead is at risk of facing vocal criticisms that tend to lower his public support.

The writer is a professor of Psychiatry and consultant Forensic Psychiatrist in the UK. He can be contacted at fawad_shifa@yahoo.com