Retrospective tariff hikes

Last week, National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) authorised Karachi Electric Supply Corp (KESC) to increase its power tariffs retrospectively, the first part of that tariff rise being back-dated to January 2012, impliedly by seven months.
There has been no formal announcement of tariff increases by KESC. According to press reports, the tariff levied in January will be increased by Rs 1.04 per unit, that levied in February by Rs 0.04 per unit, and that levied in March by Rs 1.60 per unit. Are these price increases the result of KESC's afterthought or is it that KESC had asked for these increases on time, but Nepra delayed their sanction? Nepra did not consider it appropriate to explain this quandary although it should have felt obliged to do so, given the controversial nature of its sanction.
To begin with, is such a tariff increase morally defendable? Is it fair to assume that consumers saved the amount payable on account of the retrospective levy to pay it whenever demanded, because their sixth sense convinced them to do so? In an environment of hyper inflation, could they have done that?
Besides, is the retrospective levy legally defendable because, to the commercial and industrial consumers, this delayed action did not permit increasing the prices of their goods/services accordingly to recover the increase in power tariff through the price mechanism?
If KESC's consumers now resort to legal action, and a court accepts their complaint, the supporters of the in-power regime will call it judicial 'activism'. Recently, in a TV talk show a PPP parliamentarian blamed judicial activism (ie punishing corrupt practices) for paralysing the state administration.
What was beyond his capacity to explain, was the paralysis that is the hallmark of the coalition's administration, even in sectors that haven't yet been held accountable for their failures. The fact is that the landlord majority in the parliament has shown little in terms of its administrative abilities.
Despite this track record, the coalition insists that it must be allowed to complete its term as if in the next four months, using a magic wand, it will put everything right that has been wronged for the past four-and-a-half years despite judicial warnings. Each time democracy descended on Pakistan, a two-thirds of its suppressed electorate was forced to vote the landlord class into power, and each time this class ripped the country, and when threatened with its expulsion, its stalwarts claimed that they weren't given enough time to put things right.
But the incumbent regime is close to completing its term. During its term, didn't the regime make this country worse off in every way, especially its image abroad that virtually killed the prospects of foreign inflows? Didn't it do that more recklessly than ever before?
The coalition partners realise that, given the way they administered the state in the last four-and-a-half years, they need the security that comes with being in power because without it, they could be taken to task by over 80% of the population, and that too in a ruthless manner.
Rumours are rife that coalition partners are planning another amendment to the constitution to extend the sitting parliament's term by a year. Reportedly, this amendment is to capitalise on the opportunity created by the retirement of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the COAS in 2013.
Should this happen, it won't surprise anyone because what this regime has thrived on is its power to legislate just about anything, above all, laws that absolve it of accountability. That is some manifestation of its obligations to the electorate whose mandate it claims as its strength! The worst part is that, whenever questioned about its mal-administration and corruption, all the regime's supporters have to offer in explanation is the corruption by earlier regimes. It effectively means "if they (previous regimes) could do it, why are you so angry about our doing the same?"
Not one of them, including federal and provincial ministers, realises that this explanation impliedly confirms governments in Pakistan were, and will always be irresponsible and corrupt. This perception, that threatens the very concept of government, is taking roots and holds out horrible prospects.
Then there are those (in powerful positions) who brush aside the idea of a non-partisan caretaker regime with sufficient time (not just 90 days) to eradicate the whole variety of evils that plague our society, to ensure that subsequently, responsible democrats take-over, and credibly deliver on the promise of democracy.
The retrospective tariff increases, that KESC has been authorised to levy, are a reflection of how the in-power regime is blatantly negating the promise of democracy - the option democracy gives to the people to decide on the moral and social acceptability of state actions.
It is actions like these that have steadily destroyed the image and credibility of the state offices. As a matter of fact, such actions prove that Pakistan's self-acclaimed democrats (who created Nepra) know precious little about what democracy stands for and delivers.
All their claims are mere deceptions aimed at somehow getting into power to then do what serves their own interests. It is a shocking scenario because it gives credibility to the claims of the extremists who label the state offices as institutions legally empowered to commit daylight dacoity.
This scenario must change because it threatens the very existence of the state, the government, and its institutions. But the sitting regime lacks the vision, integrity, professionalism and, above all, the commitment to bring about this revolutionary change in the bureaucratic mindset.
For mending the ways of the bureaucracy, the political leadership has to be twice as smart and committed to putting things right. Impliedly, it has to be professionally more competent to point out and fix the flawed practices of the bureaucracy, not benefit from its corrupt ways. The in-power regime lacks all this. As a matter of fact, it survives on the flawed practices of the bureaucracy because these practices are used by the bureaucrats, more viciously than for the previous regime, to benefit the members of the in-power regime and their cronies.
Any self-respecting and morally up-right bureaucrat wouldn't have seconded the idea of retrospective increases in power tariffs. Committed bureaucrats always accepted personal damage but refused to comply with politicised initiatives of the government. That lot became extinct because it wasn't just ignored or punished, but sacked by the hundreds by the regimes beginning 1958. As long as the corrupt keep occupying the corridors of power, this process cannot be halted. For that you need a committed caretaker regime with at least a 90-week (not 90-day) mandate.