IT IS quite amazing how much we are taken for granted by the government and how little we know of how it operates. The prime minister was reported to have told a news conference last week that the government had decided that income tax returns of all sugar mills would now be reviewed and the previous policy of reviewing the income tax returns of only a couple of sugar mills on a random basis would be abandoned. A couple of mills out of a total of how many?

This probably happens in the case of all self-assessment returns filed by mill owners, corporate entities and wealthy businessmen as well as other tax-paying citizens — that only randomly selected returns actually get checked, two or three being pulled out of each heap. This may be normal tax practice, but the sugar crisis has engulfed the press and parliament for weeks. Shouldn’t stricter scrutiny of the accounts and returns of the sugar mills have been instituted much earlier? Or was the government pussy-footing about the powerful Pakistan Sugar Mills Association, (PSMA)?

The association is so powerful that, according to another report later last week, 42 mills had not released adequate quantities of sugar despite government instructions and the highly publicised and acutely felt sugar crisis. The association is also said to have stopped releasing for the past two months reports about the quantity of sugar produced and released in the market and the stocks of each mill. The association believes the government uses these statistics against them.

Should anyone be surprised at this attitude of the association after its defiance had led to the withdrawal of the inquiry into the sugar crisis initiated by the National Accountability Bureau? There were allegations that many powerful politicians owned sugar mills and that is why the inquiry was cancelled. Questions were raised about this, but the government maintained a stony silence. In the new federal budget, instead of measures designed to put an end to the recurring crisis besetting the supply of sugar at reasonable rates, we had the sop about the opening of 100 more utility stores in the country. How was the crisis created in the first place? By the mill owners or by hoarders?

The government has proved yet again that it lacks the wisdom or the ability to anticipate emerging problems; it knew that sugar was being hoarded by the mills in anticipation of a looming shortage, and yet it sat and watched. The PSMA has now offered to sell its stocks to the government at the same price at which sugar is being imported. Whatever the other problems with the offer, it at least shows that the mills have plenty of sugar in stock.

Will this sordid business not make people wonder at just how the government works at the higher reaches and how ill-informed the public really is about budgets, tax collection figures, economic statistics (the World Bank and UNDP have just questioned the government’s poverty figures), and the real thrust of what are publicised as policy decisions? This is apart from the secrecy surrounding defence spending where any move seeking information is considered tantamount to treachery. Yet the government never tires of proclaiming how transparently it works.

It appears to be confusing transparency with creating ministerial websites, which also in all cases are not regularly updated. All privatisation deals have created controversies and the minimum or reserved price has not been revealed in all cases even after a sale has gone through. Even where privatisation has been accepted as necessary, the deals have lacked transparency and led to doubts as to whether the right decisions were made. The points being raised in the Supreme Court during the hearing of the appeal against privatisation of the Pakistan Steel Mills comprise a relevant example.

The question is one of openness and accountability as well as access to information. Accountability has never been one of our strong points. In the early years questioning the decisions taken by the Muslim League was seen as near heresy. When Ayub Khan took over in 1958 and imposed martial law, whatever little by way of accountability we had disappeared. This position has largely continued unaltered, although a new generation of journalists has come into being that is more enterprising in pinpointing and reporting on official wrongdoing and attempting to pierce the veil of secrecy that surrounds government’s working.

The first and most grievous casualty in any dictatorship, military or civilian, is accountability, and prolonged military rule has ensured that the national interest has become synonymous with the military’s interest and the interests of those industrial, feudal and business lobbies that support it. The CIA was once famously described as the invisible government of the US, acting without fear of scrutiny or accountability. In our case, the entire military apparatus, which for so long been the only dominant factor in our politics, has functioned as an invisible government.

The way in which Balochistan and the tribal areas have been treated as no-go areas for the media is before us. The slaying of journalist Hayatullah Khan has led to the most serious allegations by his family, and the prime minister has announced a judicial inquiry. But if the allegations have even a grain of truth in them, then what follow-up action will be taken must remain a matter of conjecture.

The absence of accountability has bred indifference to public opinion at all levels of governance. No serious effort is made to respond to public complaints and misgivings. This is despite the many discussions on current affairs and governance now being held on television channels in the comparatively free media atmosphere that we now have, thanks largely to globalisation and the shrinking of the communication gap. The way in which the government has failed to adequately respond to the embarrassing returns of assets filed by many of its members and supporters before the Election Commission also flies against all canons of transparency.

This raises another point. We always talk in comparative terms even about accepted principles of governance and political morality that are generally accepted to be absolute. So we don’t usually say we believe in democracy and the rule of law as an article of faith, but we say that we are a more democratic or more law-abiding government than previous governments or that we have given more freedom of expression than previous governments (if a military government happens to be in place, then we add for good measure that we have more democracy than previous civilian, elected governments).

So also that we are a less corrupt and more honest administration than administrations run by previous politicians, no matter if many of those same politicians are now also part of the existing set-up. Having declared and having actually come to believe that we are more democratic, we then begin to distort the Constitution and established systems of governance and to even to begin talking about devising a new system of government. Ayub Khan wanted democracy that suited the “genius of the people: we want the “essence of democracy”, as if this can be distilled by putting the Constitution in a barrel in an underground cellar.

Most of us have fallen into this trap of comparisons. Of course everywhere comparisons are made by politicians, the Labour Party promises to do better than the Conservatives, the Democrats better than the Republicans, the Congress better than the BJP, but the promises are made in the context of economic and social policies. Basic postulates such as forms of democracy, constitutional sanctity and rule of law are treated as settled issues. We in our years since independence have not agreed on even the most fundamental questions and remain trapped in endless and fruitless debate while those with power fully exploit the prevailing undefined and chaotic order.

The 1973 Constitution marked a turning point in our rocky political history. It promised a federal parliamentary system of government as part of a functioning democracy. It enjoyed a measure of consensus among all federating units and was an eminently workable document — if it were implemented in letter and spirit, which it wasn’t almost from day one. It must remain our main political from work, and if the Constitution is revived in its original shape and improved by amendments made necessary by the passage of time, it will ensure free elections, representative government and accountability.

With accountability will come a little more honesty in the country’s governance, and hopefully we will have less of this cosying up of various vested interests such as the sugar barons and their patrons in government and less controversial privatisation deals.

THE Charter of Democracy recently signed by former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif underlines the need for the restoration of undiluted democracy to the country. It calls upon the people of Pakistan to join hands to save the country from the clutches of military dictatorship, to defend fundamental social, political and economic rights and to make Pakistan a federal democratic, modern and progressive state.

Regrettably, since the country came into being, the political ruling class, made up largely of feudal lords and big industrialists, pursued a course that was diametrically opposed to democratic norms and principles. These rulers did not change their totalitarian attitudes and deliberately avoided pursuing policies for the political, social, economic and intellectual development of society. They not only neglected to develop democratic institutions but flouted democratic norms and failed to achieve good governance. They subordinated their political and other interests to petty rivalries and infighting.

The army, which considers itself the guarantor of Pakistan’s security and political stability, has been using the pretext of inefficiency and corruption among the ruling elite to intervene in governance, thereby stunting political growth and the democratic process. This indicates that the politicians’ conduct has been an important factor in undermining democracy. Ironically, the army, when in power, has also made no effort to improve the situation.

As a matter of fact, in order to consolidate its hold on power and legitimise its interventions it has attempted to create a democratic facade rather than proceed towards a democratic transition. It is also important to note that no military dictator in Pakistan has ever voluntarily relinquished power.

The civilian guise created by the army to mask its rule, however, does not carry conviction and has been hotly debated within and outside Pakistan. The army is well aware of the tenuous nature of its position. It is, therefore, seeking to enter into a permanent power-sharing arrangement with the politicians to govern the country in order to give legitimacy to its meddling in civilian affairs. Its argument that this arrangement will for ever foreclose the possibility of military interventions is, however, highly contentious. Regrettably, some short-sighted politicians in the country, though in a small minority, are supporting this idea without realising its full implications.

These elements tend to ignore the fact that instead of creating a durable concord between the army and its civilian partners in government there is a possibility of a permanent tussle between them as a result of which the country would be pushed towards a state of perpetual instability leading to serious problems. In any case, the main mission of the army is to defend the borders of the country. It has no right to rule it. Its constitutional role is limited to act in aid of civil power if called upon to do so by the federal government.

Regrettably, the conflict of interests between the ruling and opposition parties in the country has created confrontational tendencies on this issue which, if allowed to persist, may cause incalculable damage to democracy. It would reflect poorly on political parties if democracy suffers a setback owing to their infighting.

The political parties should, therefore, avoid indulging in recriminations against one another and act jointly and in a synchronised manner to strengthen the foundations of democracy in the larger interest of the people. However, seen through the prism of their past conduct it is unlikely that they would do so. In that event, the people of Pakistan will have to come forward to play a more assertive role to achieve the desired objective in a peaceful manner.

Sufficient evidence exists that the people of Pakistan, who are growing impatient with the absence of a credible democracy in the country, are not prepared to accept the status quo indefinitely. The establishment of real democracy in the country has, therefore, reached the tipping point. The ruling elite should show reverence for the sentiments of the people, and instead of paying only lip service to the need for a democratic Pakistan, engage seriously to develop a viable democratic system in the country by introducing reforms for this purpose.

It may be recalled that in his national address on October 17, 1999, General Pervez Musharraf had, inter alia, said, “Quite clearly what Pakistan has experienced in recent years has been merely a label of democracy, not the essence of it. Our people were never emancipated from the yoke of despotism. I shall not allow people to be taken back to the era of sham democracy but to a true one.” In subsequent statements, he reiterated the Quaid’s vision of a democratic Pakistan. He is, therefore, morally committed to making Pakistan a true democratic state as envisaged by its founding fathers.

Pakistan’s failure to achieve national integration is attributable to the gradual abandonment of democratic principles by its successive rulers. It is time to realise that the authoritarian mode of governance is more oriented towards disunity and mistrust, and a country like Pakistan which, since its creation, has been wracked by poverty, illiteracy, deprivation and the denial of basic human rights, is liable to descend towards anarchy. Therefore, the need of the hour is not to repeat past mistakes that severely inhibited the establishment of democracy in the country. Needles to say, in the contemporary world democracy is not an option but a necessity.

The writer is a former ambassador.