PM, NAB and corruption

Collective personal and institutional descent

There was some sporadic whispering of a supra-constitutional body or an anti-corruption agency parallel to NAB for some time. These whispers turned into talk of the town when Prime Minister publicly warned NAB against undue harassment of some ‘innocent’ people. Criticism and discussion on the subject intensified when Punjab chief minister, federal information minister, Punjab law minister and some other PML-N leaders jumped into the fray.

The debate over accountability and anti-corruption institutions assumed added significance because of some recent amendments by the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa government in its accountability law in order to curtail the powers of the chairman of KP Ehtesab Commission despite the fact that anti-corruption slogans are the very raison d’etre of PTI as a distinct political party.

So, what is actually wrong there? Why was the PPP crying foul when there was action in Sindh? Why the ANP started protesting in KP against the ‘selective use’ of accountability mechanism in the province? Why, of all the parties and leaders, Imran Khan’s PTI would try to dull the blade of its most useful and beneficial knife before it even started cutting? And why, after defending its activities in Sindh, the federal and Punjab governments have started publicly complaining against NAB?

There may be different reasons for all of these people and entities to act and react the way they are doing at present but there are three common factors which make accountability, and every other process and mechanism, ineffective in this country:

• Self-righteousness and disregard for law on the part of the leaders/ruling elite;
• Weak social and political institutions;
• Skeletons in almost everyone’s cupboards

Viewed holistically, all these factors appear to be only different manifestations of one, single malady, and that is lack of independent institutions; our lack of interest to develop them even now and let them be strong, is turning it into a terminal disease. It is so because absence of independent institutions gives birth to a sense of self-righteousness among the leaders, which leads them to search for shortcuts (even for doing good things), that in turn make them susceptible to break laws inculcating in them disregard for law, and that ends up having them skeletons in their cupboards. The cycle then becomes vicious; they start resisting the creation and development of institutions, including the ones which may someday make them accountable.

What makes crimes go unpunished in this land of the pure? It is because of; a) unwillingness of the ruling elite and their cronies in lower cadres to submit before law; b) incompetence and incapacitation of the investigating/prosecuting agencies, and; c) a flawed, outdated and rotten judicial system. All these things together, again, are just symptoms of one, single problem; weak institutions or lack of strong institutional mechanism to run a society.

But the question is why every government – political and military – since the creation of the country has failed to address these shortcomings and evolve strong political institutions? Is it lack of vision and understanding? Is it incompetence? Is it that they don’t want to establish rule of law? Is it the fear that, being corrupt, they will be among the first victims if institutions are strengthened and rule of law established?

There can be questions and more questions. And there can be as many different answers. But the fact of the matter is that there are all these and many more other reasons at play which have cumulatively resulted in a state of affairs in which we currently find ourselves stuck in.

The colonial legacy made a mockery of the rule of law and did not allow indigenous social and political institutions to flourish. Breaking rules made one appear to be one among the elite, it made one appear strong and influential. Old institutions were weakened, modified beyond recognition, or done away with altogether. New ones were created on the patterns of the ones that existed back in the colonial powers own societies. But old or new, modified or mixtures all the institutions and rules were left open for manipulation. Rules were made to be broken. If not, they were bypassed by the legal use of that magic word ‘discretion’. The colonialists used it to play games with law and make available a room for themselves to bend them according to their wishes and interests.

That legacy is still continuing. For example, under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, “the Chairman, NAB, may, in his discretion” …after the return of the amount “determined by the Chairman, NAB”, recommend to the concerned court to let the culprit get off scot-free (Sec 25 [b]) and walk away with lots of stolen money. In principle, there is nothing wrong with it as the concept exists in the legal systems of many other societies and countries. But it all depends on how the society is organised and how institutions work in that given society. And that’s things start to differ.

But in order to try to get some answer to our original question as to why our leaders since the creation of the country didn’t address this grave problem, it is pertinent to keep in mind that the leadership in the beginning was faced with the legitimacy problem and most of the time its energies were consumed by the constant effort to perpetuate itself in the office. After nine years, it was a completely new ballgame in which the law of the land was trampled under the feet of the man on the horseback. The name of this new game was ‘might is right’ and the ball was replaces by the gun; but it was still called a ballgame. In this new game the constitution ultimately became a toy in the hands of military dictators. That game is still on but with a changed outlook.

This made a mockery of the constitution from which flows all the law of the land that, in turn, provides a legal and moral basis to all the institutions in the society. This fact also instilled a sense of insecurity in the minds of all the politicians who come to power; they don’t have the power of the gun but the legal cover of a ‘twelve-page booklet’ which the man on the horseback could tear up anytime he wanted. Further, after the visits of four such horsemen to the country, a new style of politics was introduced in which only the moneyed people could survive.

A broken system, weak institutions, selective application of law, great insecurity, traditional patronage politics, a bureaucracy that has been partner in crime of every ruler, whether civilian or military, since time immemorial, a political class which is a combination of those feudal who are known to feed on the blood of teeming millions and those nouveau riche, who acquired wealth in no time under the tutelage of one military dictator or the other. Add to it a military establishment that is always waiting in the wings to exploit the shortcomings of civilian side to use for personal and institutional interests, and you find yourself where you are, and where everyone, from politicians to military generals and from bureaucrats to judges, has his/her stakes in the status quo; hence, the resistance to change.

Now, this is not a question as to how to get out of this quagmire as it has a more obvious answer; ‘build and strengthen institutions’. The real question is how to do it. That is really a million dollar question as we have so far failed to find an answer to it. Neither can we find a solution all our national problems of about 70 years in just 1,500 words.

But we have to begin somewhere even by taking a few baby steps towards our cherished destination. The first among them will be to agree on a grand reconciliation. The second, military doesn’t intervene in politics, directly or indirectly, ever again. Third, politicians sit together and agree on a consensus new Charter of Democracy for say, coming ten/fifteen years. Fourth, revisit internal and external policies. Fifth, everyone (powerful) submit to the rule of law, voluntarily. Sixth, banish words ‘discretion’ and ‘discretionary powers’ from our statute books. Seventh, apply law in letter and spirit and allow no one to go unpunished if he or she commits a crime, no matter how minor.

Though it seems a tall order and some of the things appear to be unpractical, yet these are the things which we will have to do if we are interested to continue as a viable state and society and if we want to exist in the comity of nations as an equal and respectable member. And above all if we are interested to live like human beings in a civilised society.

At the moment we as a society have stooped so low, despite the tall claims that we make about ourselves all the time. Almost everyone has his hand in the pie and almost everyone has his share in corruption to the extent that his/her situation allows him/her to indulge in. On the other hand, there is widespread perception about the involvement of political class in large-scale corruption with the public aspirations and demands for strong anti-corruption measures. In order to start this long and time-consuming journey, the government has to take the initial steps of establishing/revamping independent anti-corruption bodies with the consensus of all the stakeholders, including the people, the political parties, the judiciary and the military establishment.

Or the other way can be a local version of the Arab Spring in which lots of blood is shed and havoc played with the existing system without any viable alternative or replacement on offer. No personal wealth or isolated institutional strength can then help to stave off the imminent social chaos and catastrophe.