Political leadership and the quest for justice
The Oxford dictionary defines “accountability” as “the fact or condition of being accountable; responsibility”. It is often used interchangeably with “answerability” which may explain why its use is so common in Pakistan – where there are often more questions than straightforward answers. Called a vital instrument in the development of good governance, it is a topic that is increasingly discussed with regards to Pakistan’s government and now also its political leaders – the figures who contest for and form said governments.
Questioning NAB’s transparency
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” is a Latin proverb which means “Who will guard the guards?”, also translated as “who watches the watchmen?”, isn’t just a Latin phrase popularly used in pop culture; it’s a statement that asks for the very answerability the politically aware demand with regards to governance and state owned institutions. Frequently – albeit phrased differently — it’s a question used in context of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). Since its creation in accordance with the National Accountability Ordinance of 1999 (Ordinance XVIII of 1999), NAB’s activities and relevance are viewed with varying degrees of skepticism. Disturbingly, it’s increasingly being called a tool of the party in power and in a recent interview with a local media channel Director General (DG) NAB Punjab verified that there was some truth to that accusation.
“Yes we admit,” said DG Syed Burhan Ali: “In Musharraf’s era, NAB registered cases on political basis.” This alarming “confession” could merely be an attempt to lay the blame on a former regime, but it does not dissuade those who question NAB’s transparency and sincerity in its efforts to deal with corruption
“Yes we admit,” said DG Syed Burhan Ali: “In Musharraf’s era, NAB registered cases on political basis.”
This alarming “confession” could merely be an attempt to lay the blame on a former regime, but it does not dissuade those who question NAB’s transparency and sincerity in its efforts to deal with corruption – and that includes the country’s political leaders. The Pakistan People’s Party has been vocal in its opposition to inquiries and accusations levelled against its leaders: Asif Ali Zardari, the Co-Chairman, expressed his disappointment at what has been called the political victimisation of those accused and summoned by NAB. He called it an attack on political leaders who were “respected in the field”, a phrase that was picked up by many leaders and PPP members on the social media. In an interview, PPP leader Qamar Zaman Qaira was also quick to add that allegations of funding terrorism raised against party leaders were incorrect.
It’s also been questioned why, with all the political leaders being brought to task, there’s a scarcity of cases against the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) — the ruling party — being reported and processed. Asif Ali Zardari has accused the prime minister of “falling back to 1990’s revenge politics” – an allusion to the complaint of political victimisation by many political leaders. The MQM has repeatedly been at the forefront of advocates of anti corruption operations similar to the Karachi Operation to be conducted in Punjab – the PML-N’s stronghold. And as recently as August this year, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf Leader Liaqat Khan Khattak accused NAB of “giving relief to thieves” with its plea bargains.
Is NAB merely a tool of political manipulation?
While reports about prominent leaders like Firdous Aashik Awan (PPP), Azam Hoti and others have been floating around in local media reports since September 2014, there haven’t been updates about said cases. And while the public may have speculated over warrants issued for prominent political leaders such as former Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani and PPP leader Ameen Fahim, all we’ve gotten is postponements, bail orders and – in the case of the big wigs — acquittals, or the cases being dropped all together.
The bottom line on NAB is that without convictions there is no guarantee that this is not, at best, a tool to manipulate and cajole the public in the ruling government’s favour. At worst, it’s a flashy distraction complete with fanfare and blaring background music to distract a public that has only recently started to become aware of terms like “civic duty” and “accountability”. The truth is that people like hearing about the vaguely understood “elite” being “shown their place” and brought back down to earth, and the idea that it was due to the government they chose and brought to power is all the more entertaining. It boosts morale, keeps people happy – or at least, satisfied — and of course: what’s good for morale is good for the government because it makes people more complacent.
The PTI’s calls for the Rangers’ involvement
At first glance, the PTI’s demand for probing of corruption cases in other provinces –Punjab in particular – by a third party is not really new. As previously highlighted, the PTI isn’t the only party that’s questioned why operations similar to the Karachi Operation aren’t being conducted in Punjab. What caught attention was the specific demand that the Punjab Rangers be included in the agencies to be involved in conducting accountability cases in these provinces — something that does not fall within the Rangers’ mandate.
Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan – the interior minister – has criticised the statement in an address. Admitting that all citizens have the right to state their opinion, he nonetheless pointed out that it was “against the law and constitution to extend any invitation to Rangers for accountability.” One would not be called wrong to question the wisdom – and the intentions — of the PTI for this statement, issued in times when a popular topic of debate is the not the possibility, but the extent of the influence of the military in Pakistani politics. Echoing the sentiment, the Interior Minister added:
“It is an unwise act on part of a political leader by involving state institutions for political gains. It is against democratic norms”
The PTI has responded to all allegations with fervour of course, and the party’s leaders have taken to social media with a vengeance. Prominent leader Dr Arif Alvi has been particularly vocal.
“When terrorists protected by MQM are caught and when corrupt of PPP are caught democracy becomes endangered,” he mocked on September 14 on Twitter. “Actually, they endanger democracy.”
‘No party accepts that politics and criminality are linked, even within their own systems,’ he said. ‘And corruption – at any level — has become the kind of activity that is not considered so bad if you can get away with it’
Alluding to a popular theory about the government institutions’ hesitation to take practical action and lambasting what his party chief called the ruling governments’ policy of “muk-mukka”, he added:
“These PPP/PML-N civilian governments endanger democracy when they hide their corruption for army/rangers to expose them despite their crying. Who wins?”
The bottom line:
The problem, as Dr Hassan Rizvi points out, is simple:
“No party accepts that politics and criminality are linked, even within their own systems,” he said. “And corruption – at any level — has become the kind of activity that is not considered so bad if you can get away with it.”
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes/Who will guard the guardians?” asks fictional hero Batman of his contemporaries when the seemingly all powerful League’s failures cost lives and the public’s trust. “We’ve got it covered”, he’s reassured.
Politicians who start crying hoarse at the mention of accountability are, admittedly, not entirely wrong. But the need for a mechanism for their accountability is real – and the only ones to suffer for its continued lack are going to be the Pakistani people. A real accomplishment of our political leaders at this point would be the establishment of such a mechanism – preferably a self imposed and self developed one. Where party discipline is thus maintained and troublemakers are removed from the party’s protection, the people can rest at ease, knowing their guardians and their interests are guarded by those they look with hope to – the guardians themselves.
