NEPOTISM, extortion and bribery have become a way of life, and not just with politicians. Except that in their case it tends to be exhibited more shamelessly.

While corruption exists in one form or the other in all societies, the major difference in our case is the extent of its pervasiveness and its implications for governance and the value system in general and the political culture in particular.

Corruption has become systematic. It has become institutionalised at all levels in a way that it has become an integral component of the administrative, social and political culture. Hence, the question, ‘Who says that our system lacks transparency?’ — when the rate to get something done is well known what greater transparency can one ask for!

At one end are the scandals involving political leaders and senior civil and military officials which is leading to a complete loss of faith in government. Hence the belief that nothing meaningful will ever be done to control it and that those perpetrating such crimes will never get punished.

So what should be done? How can we begin to institute systems and procedures that can deter corrupt practices? This is important because global competition is influencing policy and quality of governance and Right to Information (RTI) can improve governance and transparency by inducing systemic changes.

The legal right to information is critical to the effective functioning of democracies, and the wider distribution of information empowers citizens to challenge the abuse of power. The law in Pakistan requires the government to disclose some information on decisions taken or actions initiated.

But, since RTI, transparency and good governance mean different things to different people there is need for clarity on the objectives and the indicators that would assess the progress made on this front.

The freedom of information law ranks low on the basis of international best practices. It is not regarded as a serious initiative to promote and strengthen the public voice. There are too many exemptions (public-sector corporations and minutes of meetings, file notes are excluded from its ambit) on the plea that it would not be in the ‘public interest’ to share these and that doing so would weaken the decision-making process.

But then there are no clear guidelines for classifying documents as confidential, pertaining to national security, damaging to the economy, etc. for exclusion; thereby providing the potential for discretionary abuse.

Furthermore, hardly any effort has been made on the classification, archiving, indexation and retention period of these documents. Even the political leadership wants to operate behind a cloak of secrecy and is least pushed by the denial of this fundamental right. This situation is skillfully exploited by the military and civil bureaucracy, the long-term beneficiary of such a system of secrecy.

At present, the demand side for information is weak and not regarded as a mainstream issue by politicians (although the Public Accounts Committee of parliament has become active), the media, civil society, even the legal community.

Other issues dominate public narratives and concerns. There is also the aspect of general apathy and sense of servility in our culture towards authority and fear of state functionaries — ‘they can only do me harm’.

The media is also undergoing a transition and has commercial interests (government ads, ratings), while lawyers have little interest because the law does not provide for recourse to the courts although Article 19-A now provides an opportunity.

However, there are positive developments providing an impetus for public interest litigation — a growing vocal urban middle class, greater democratisation of society and polity, social media and internet exposure to related global developments and recent judicial activism against corruption and the arbitrary use of discretion.

These changes, supplemented by an assertive media and the demand for greater transparency, checking of public corruption, exercise of rights to basic services, redressal of grievances, accountability and better leadership, although episodic in nature and none of it by using RTI, are forcing governments to respond. These developments will hopefully motivate others and create opportunities.

So what indicators should be crafted to assess the improvements in RTI? What percentage of data will be objective-based and measurable? How much will be based on perception surveys — the latter is likely to be of varying quality and reliability. Also, should these indicators focus on the nature of instruments and the formal mechanisms and practices, ie comparing laws on institutional structures, capacities, systems and processes?

But then what will indicators like the number of requests for information and the number processed, complaints filed and their disposal, etc mean if civil society’s demand is weak or if the numbers worsen simply because of systemic deterioration?

What will it mean over time and space and in comparison with changes in regional countries, although indicators like the time frame for response, the disposal and resolution of complaints and reasons for delay and basis for decisions taken can still be relevant.

Nevertheless, to elicit wider public interest, indicators must have relevance and utility for ordinary citizens — on criteria and procedures for applying to government schemes, listing of beneficiaries of government schemes, recruitment policies and processes, property ownership and transfer processes, etc.

To this end, much of the effort will have to be on proactive disclosures on procedures, processes, concessions, privileges granted, periodic publication of reports, etc. Therefore, indicators should focus initially on the extent of disclosures, legal obligations to publish, limited exemptions, costs to extract information (time and money) and quality of whistleblower protection — options provided by technology making all this easier and cheaper.

Examples could relate to law and order data (crime resulting in deaths), police behaviour (complaints registered and disposed), quality of the legislature (attendance, participation in debates), etc.

In all this, the trickiest question would be how to extend the scope to include the armed forces that refuse to be accountable to the rest of society and insist on persevering with their internalised system of accountability.

The writer is a former governor of the State Bank of Pakistan.

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.