Transparency International's recent report on the increase in corruption in a democratic Pakistan, over a dictator-controlled Pakistan, has sent shockwaves through the media and, by extension, the public.
Some federal ministers challenged the methodology used by Transparency and claimed it to be flawed; others simply decided to wait out this latest tirade against their party leadership to go into oblivion, as all scandals do eventually. Their contention is that the establishment has always targeted the smooth working of democracy in this country, in general, and the PPP leadership in particular.
Is state corruption endemic to this country - be it under military or civilian control? Is it less or more prevalent in dictatorships? Is it a reflection of poor governance or the outcome of deliberate action? Is it limited to politicians or does it extend to civil and military personnel? These questions and more have resurfaced in Pakistan in the aftermath of certain revelations.
One has only to look at the revelations of last week in any major daily to acknowledge that there is a plethora of cases of corruption associated with those in power. And one must be mindful of the fact that all political parties, at present, are part of the government in the centre or the provinces, or both, - be the party regional in character or with national representation.
The latest case is that of Federal Minister Babar Awan, allegedly accepting 3.5 crore rupees as an 'inducement' with the Dogar court to exonerate those reneging on over 9 billion rupee worth of loans. To date Awan has not presented any credible evidence that would lay these serious charges to rest. His defence is that he would do so at the proper time and by implication, the proper time is not when the allegation is made with documentary evidence.
The second case, commonly referred to as the Swiss case, was withdrawn by the government of Pakistan under the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). Its status prior to the withdrawal: an appeal against a conviction of the former first couple, Benazir Bhutto and her spouse Asif Ali Zardari. The mafia style exhibited by the Pakistani Ambassador to the UK, a close personal friend of President Zardari, in physically taking possession of all the documents from the Swiss lawyer in Geneva has been witnessed by the public on television.
And the use of the term mafia style is not a reference to Wajid Shamsul Hassan's dark overcoat, a muffler and indeed the inimitable cigar, which rumour has it was Cuban, but his visit to the Swiss capital with a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) man, who incidentally was required to make a detour through London, the use of the Pakistan Embassy car to load the 12 cases of documentary proof that led to the conviction, and then to take these documents, as well as the NAB man back to the UK; and this soon after the lapse of the NRO and on the first working day after Eid. The third case involves allegations of procurement of expensive Islamabad land, at a fraction of its market value with the principal beneficiary being President Zardari and his son Bilawal. Here the implication is that a private deal that benefited the purchaser a few years back cannot technically be defined as corruption.
These three cases in the news, just this week past, are being defined as the icing on the cake - a cake defined as Pakistan's total resources and their per capita division. It does not take note of other NRO cases, notable amongst which is the increase in the wealth of some other federal ministers, difficult to justify given their known humble beginnings and their lifelong employment as bureaucrats. A list of NRO beneficiaries shows that the MQM also benefited considerably and such is the level of skepticism that many believe that the Rehman Malik-brokered recent rapprochement between the PPP and the MQM, necessary in the aftermath of the refusal of the MQM to support the PPP in the passage of the NRO in the National Assembly, was premised on mutual concerns with respect to the Supreme Court decision to deliberate on this matter from today (Monday). These two coalition partners have accused the PML (N) and PML (Q) as having no less a chequered past history of corruption than their own. Few would challenge this assertion.
Thus all sides have been guilty in the past. The NRO, so claim PPP's leadership, is not a misnomer as forgetting past indiscretions of one set of politicians has been the norm in this country's politics and refers to the ten-year deal of the Sharif brothers, with Musharraf, that allowed them to leave the country as an NRO of sorts with the PML (N). To forget the past and move on is the only way democracy can function is their contention, as it would allow everyone to forget their past indiscretions. But what about the fact that Transparency in its report has categorically stated that corruption has increased during the last year and a half? The parliament is silent on this issue and the opposition has not referred to specific cases of corruption. The only ones who have raised their concern over the rise in corruption are those parties that boycotted the elections last year. And the media and the public: it is no wonder that the skeptical Pakistani public is citing the age old proverb "you scratch my back and I will scratch yours" as a policy supported by all parties.
There are civil and military personnel who, so argue PPP stalwarts, account for the major portion of the NRO beneficiaries. No one wants them to go free either, or indeed to live their life comfortably on their ill-gotten gains. Let the cases be reopened and let them prove their innocence like the politicians; however politicians who reinstate retired and corrupt officials must bear additional blame for providing them with a forum to continue their corruption.
The PPP has argued, with respect to its own leadership and one assumes this logic must extend to the rehired bureaucrats and military personnel, that they are not convicted and therefore must be regarded as innocent till proven guilty. Be that as it may, Prime Minister Gilani did set up a committee headed by Shaukat Tarin to look at the ways and means to end corruption and the basis of this was rooted in the Transparency report. The need for this is obvious: the rank and file, be it the common man, the junior bureaucrat or indeed a junior military official - has benefited little from this system that defies meritocracy and honesty.
The committee has made a number of recommendations. First, promotions that are not based on merit - a recent example being the decision of none other than the Prime Minister to elevate several bureaucrats (already challenged in the courts) - must end and the Public Service Commission should be the only body allowed to take promotion decisions. Second, the decision to bring back retired civil and military personnel, especially those with a chequered history, and appoint them at key posts, must end as well as end the 10 percent quota for lateral entry to civil services from the Armed Forces.
And, finally, the distribution of valuable urban state land, at ridiculously subsidised rates to bureaucrats and military personnel as well as members of the media, as a state-supported policy must be done away with. Instead state land be auctioned to developers. And, the funds utilised to monetize perks given to civil servants. If subsidies on the energy sector for the poor are to go, then surely subsidised state land must also go. Third, the Establishment Division - transfer and posting wing along with carrier planning wing be placed under the Public Service Commission.
At present, the media has played a critical role in not only highlighting past corruption, but also ongoing corruption/nepotism/influence-peddling in promotions. And it is the courts that have taken up the plethora of cases as far as the rank and file are concerned. What must be a source of shame to all members of parliament is the consensus apparent on all issues that relate to lessening the clout of the influential.
Thus the tax on the income of the rich agricultural landlords remains un-levied, with the bulk of income tax collected from the salaried class. The amendments in the Freedom of Information Act, proposed by Sherry Rehman, continues to gather dust awaiting comments from the provincial governments. The process needs to be expedited and the bill enacted into law. And the Competition Commission of Pakistan Ordinance 2009 was not passed by the National Assembly where members of all the three major parties namely PPP, PML (N) and PML (Q) had expressed their reservations over some of its clauses; but by the president who re-promulgated it for four months.
The issue is not whether the public knows who has done what in the past or who is doing what at present or whether the judiciary has the capacity to take independent decisions, but how these judicial decisions will be implemented. The judicial decision on sugar price is yet to be implemented. Thus, without state support in letter and, more importantly, in spirit, there is little chance that anything will change in the near future. The fault lines are endemic to the fact that the implementer of judicial decisions has to be the government. And with the Interior Ministry, a major implementer of any judicial decision, being headed by Rehman Malik, an NRO beneficiary, doubts about the implementation are likely to grow.
Comments
Comments are closed.