Corruption in the country

Improvement in Pakistan's economy has not been accompanied by a corresponding improvement in corruption that remains on almost the same level as in 1998 which perhaps is the main factor for the increasing inequalities in the country.
Governance was and still remains the main issue in Pakistan. The most respected barometer of governance and transparency is the corruption perception index introduced by Transparency international in 1995.
It measures the transparency in governance and administration in a country on a scale of 0-10. A score of 10 indicates a corruption-free society while the corruption level increases as the score declines.
Pakistan scored 2.25 points in 1995 in the TI corruption perception index. The score declined to only 1 point in 1996 when Pakistan was declared the second most corrupt nation in the world.
The transparency score improved to 2.5 in 1997 further improving to 2.7 in 1998 before declining to 2.2 in 1999. Pakistan was not included in the transparency survey conducted by TI in 2000 due to the military take-over.
However, when the country was included in 2001, its transparency score was 2.3, that improved to 2.6 in 2002. Last year the transparency score again declined slightly to 2.5 out of a perfect score of 10. In other words it means that the corruption level in Pakistan is around 75 percent.
This perception is in line with the evaluation of the learned Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan Dr Ishrat Hussain who in a speech delivered at Lahore last year said that only 30 percent of the development funds are properly utilised the rest are wasted due to corruption or incompetence.
It means that if this wastage could be controlled, the benefits of development could be tripled even with current annual development expenditure.
The corruption perception index of Pakistan might improve that year when Transparency International announces it on the 20th of this month.
Those might rejoice at this who compare Pakistan with the most corrupt countries, however the ranking would still be a matter of shame when compared with most transparent countries.
A country could be termed as better governed if it secures at least 5.1 points out of a total transparency score of 10.
Corrupt but rich officials and individuals are accepted as respected members of the society in Pakistan.
The rich corrupt in the United States enjoyed a similar respect in the 1930's. Sutherland, a widely respected sociology professor at Indiana University stated in 1039 that people of respectability and high social status," broke laws as often as members of the lower classes, but the government, media and public didn't think of them as criminals.
Until scholars accepted that affluent and reputable people also steal, he argued, they would never truly understand the criminal mind.
The rich still get away with lighter punishments even in developed countries. In a single day recounted by Christopher Stone in his 1975 book, "Where the Law Ends," two cases being decided in a Georgia court ended so differently.
In one case, an embezzler had stolen $4.6 million from a bank. In the other, three men had robbed a bank of about $14,000.
The embezzler was sentenced to 10 years in jail; the robbers received 16 years each. In Pakistan the embezzlers are released on plea bargaining while a petty thief is sentenced to a jail term even if he agrees to pays back the stolen amount.
The highest ranking officials discreetly admit that if they wanted to oblige some friend by moving a file fast, they are not sure if they could be of help. But if someone wants them to stop a file, they can do it immediately.
This ability "to stop a file" at multiple points might carry an unofficial price at each point. These check points are basically installed to keep corrupt officials in check, could increase efficiency as well as corruption.
The corrupt use these points shrewdly to exhort money as there seems to be no end to human ingenuity when it comes to circumventing systems designed to protect the integrity of institutions and processes.
The wise reformer knows that corruption can never be entirely eliminated. Under many realistic conditions, it will simply be too expensive to do so.
The aim is not to achieve complete rectitude, but to realise a fundamental increase in honesty - and so the efficiency and fairness - of government.
Governments alone cannot hope to contain corruption. They need, and must win, the support and participation of an active but independent civil society. Corruption is endemic and everywhere. It is not just a case of public officials abusing their positions, but of people abusing their positions wherever there is easy money to be made.
The common man in Pakistan faces "petty" or "survival" corruption practised by public servants who may be grossly underpaid and depend on small rents from the public to feed their families and pay school fees. There are some who would argue that this type of corruption helps both.
This, however, is not true particularly in a society where 1/3rd of the population lives below poverty.
The common man does not have the resources even to feed himself. Scarcity of resource denies schooling to children and medical treatment to ailing. Even petty corruption beats the hell out of poverty-stricken payer.
The corruption source book of Transparency International points out that small-scale corruption may be illusory, and in fact be indicative of much more damaging forms-with lowly-paid civil servants (who may even have purchased their jobs) obliged to generate returns for their supervisors, or to produce revenue for a ruling party.
The high degree of money power used in determining the candidacy, campaign and the outcome of the elections is a commodification of peoples vote. It is a way of turning the "one-person-one-vote" tenet into the "power-of-money, number-of-votes" rule.