Corruption is not unique to Pakistan. It afflicts all the countries in the world. What is alarming in our case is its pervasive incidence and widespread societal acceptance. Transparency International’s 2017 Corruption Perception Index ranked Pakistan 117 out of 180 countries. Corruption is rooted in subcontinent history, a cultural quirk, a consequence of systemic failure or weak accountability. Few things are certain though. The frequent changes in regimes, military or civilian, have severely crippled the anti-corruption institutions in terms of both the will and capacity to take on the monster. And there is a conspicuous lack of social incentive or disincentive to stay prudent. Interestingly, nothing on ground suggests that corruption in Pakistan declined during any regime, civilian or military.
If you look up the word corruption, it means a fraudulent or dishonest act by a person in a position of authority. In simpler terms, it is rent seeking for rendering legal or illegal services. The definition is striking in linking corruption to the powerful. That, however, does not absolve the minnows from indulgence. It can, however, be argued, that most feel compelled to grease the dysfunctional wheel and that they have little choice but to play ball.
In Pakistan’s context, corruption is frighteningly rampant given the patronage at the highest levels and an intriguing tolerance to it across all segments of the society. Broadly speaking, public procurement and public service delivery are the two major hotbeds of corruption, the blame for which can be squarely laid at the door of the of the state and its failure. Combating corruption will take a concerted effort, involving multiple stakeholders like the civil society working alongside the stat. We need a closer coordination between the institutions like NAB, Anti-Corruption and Auditor General of Pakistan. The electronic and social media is already playing a pivotal role in exposing corruption scams and enlightening the public. The situation warrants the development of an anti-corruption narrative and a relentless dissemination through curriculum and media streams for years to prevent it from infecting the coming generations.
The frequent changes in regimes, military or civilian, have severely crippled the anti-corruption institutions in terms of both the will and capacity to take on the monster. And there is a conspicuous lack of social incentive or disincentive to stay prudent
The rise of Imran Khan can be attributed to a host of factors including a general sense of dissatisfaction with the traditional political leaders/parties, middle class activism, personal charisma and a history of achievement in Cricket and humanitarian causes. I would like to add another; corruption was Imran’s mantra during his entire political struggle which spanned two decades. And he got away with it as his opponents found it virtually impossible to reciprocate his allegations. Imran Khan is perceived by most, regardless of the political divide, as a man of impeccable integrity. He is now the Prime Minister of Pakistan and continues to promise that the corrupt will be held accountable. That said, this still does not reflect any noticeable disaffection with corruption. It has sadly become a part of our value system, a rot so entrenched that containing it would take a lot more than just punishment.
Corruption is a disease like Cancer, rapid in progression and ruthless in destruction, devouring the entire organism in due course. Perhaps we could borrow a leaf from the China’s book. They have been a lot more successful in tackling corruption among state functionaries. Their primary tool has been severe punishment including capital to discourage people. The naysayers would happily spit out a dozen reasons to downplay corruption as a big evil citing primarily its ubiquity across cultures. Even if you somehow manage to secure a nod against corruption in a dialectical debate, your friend is likely to stump you by stressing the need to embrace ‘across the board’ accountability and terming the ongoing accountability drive as targeted and undemocratic. That makes me question our understanding of democracy which is actually about allowing people to select their rulers and then also holding the rulers accountable and not necessarily through recurring elections alone.
What does ‘across the board’ really mean? Is it even possible for NAB to hold the whole political lot including the incumbents, judges and generals accountable concurrently? What exactly legitimizes a drive against corruption? These questions are thrown with great verve to discredit any accountability drive including the ongoing. To be fair, NAB in Pakistan has been historically about victimizing political opponents. But then an accountability drive by a sitting government almost always risks being labeled as partial and biased. The lines are indeed blurred between what is fair and what is unfair. This ambiguity is fine as long as the accused are tried and fairly convicted. The purge has to start somewhere. Unless of course, we wish to completely devolve the accountability of the rulers to the ruled every five years, and kill NAB completely.
The writer has years of experience with both corporate and public sectors. He moonlights as a journalist
Published in Daily Times, January 12th 2019.