EVERY game has rules. Playing the game well is not measured only through winning and losing, it is also judged by how it is actually played. Breaking rules and getting away with it, even if that means a win, is not considered fair or desirable. Cleverness, within the rules, is acceptable, but pushing beyond the rules or the spirit of the game does not garner respectability for teams and players.

If players emphasise quality, put in hard work to prepare for the game, irrespective of winning or losing, they earn the respect of both spectators and their opponents. Winning or losing is not in the players’ control in any case; they can only control their intentions and attitudes and their level of preparedness, the means they will employ on the field and their effort during the game.

The outcome of a game is dependent on several factors and is not, usually, in the control of any one player — though, of course, there is a correlation between player preparedness, effort and outcome.

Those who do not play by the rules end up creating a trust deficit.

Our praise, thus, should not be dependent on outcomes alone. It should take into account how players have gone about playing the game. Player incentives should also not be based exclusively on outcomes, but on a broader set of objectives: preparedness, effort, talent and performance.

What holds for games, holds for most other areas too. How do we judge if a person has been and is worthy of public office? Does he/she play by the rules? Does he/she have the requisite training or qualification? Does he/she put in the effort? If so, they deserve to be in office. If not, they do not.

Those who do not have the right training, do not play by the rules and do not put in the effort, end up creating a trust deficit irrespective of the outcome. Trust has very interesting properties. It is built up slowly: a person has to be trustworthy in many actions and situations before trust is fully developed. But, even a single deviation, a single dishonest action can destroy trust that may have been built up over months or years. Once trust is lost, rebuilding it is even harder.

Currently, many of our institutions, organisations and individuals suffer from the problem. Does anyone in Pakistan believe figures that the government gives for inflation, GDP growth or unemployment in the country? Is it any surprise that people do not trust government figures and pronouncements?

Over the last 15-20 years how many times have government figures been challenged by international and national organisations? How many times has the government ended up with egg on its face when having to acknowledge its mistakes? And they have not emerged from these controversies unscathed — in terms of the loss of trust too.

Most recently there was a controversy on the GDP growth rate achieved last year as well as the one budgeted for next year. The government has not been able to resolve the issue. The IMF was given one figure and there was another one for the people in Pakistan. When this was pointed out, it was said that the figure given to the IMF was a ‘misprint’. Can anyone believe that a government would, while giving one of the most important figures to its main lender, allow a misprint to go through? And if it was a misprint why was nobody punished for the error?

Government efforts at calling it a ‘misprint’ have only increased the suspicion that the government has been trying to cover up things after being caught red-handed. Subsequent lies have only increased suspicions. The amount of energy that has gone into the controversy around the GDP growth figure recently, with the government giving different figures, holding information back from the people to suit the launch of bonds, trying to manage lenders and borrowers, and facing challenges from international as well as local observers, though significant, seems to have only lowered trust levels further.

Dependability is important for positions of leadership. But in conditions where trust levels are low, dependability suffers.

One reason why most of the current political leaders are not having a good time right now is that almost none of them enjoy any trust on the part of the population at large or even their followers. There seems to be sufficient circumstantial or real evidence over the real or presumed wrongdoing of all. The arguments, even from the supporters of one leader or another, are about their leader being the better of the lot or being the lesser evil or, at best, an untried entity. The issue of ‘let our turn come’ typifies these defences.

Lack of trust and dependability leads to fear as well. We fear giving power and authority to our leaders. All of our leaders’ actions, irrespective of intentions, lead to fears of corruption, nepotism and self-interest. This creates a vicious cycle of lack of trust and lack of empowerment.

We have tax officers to collect tax. But we do not trust them so we create space for officers who keep an eye on tax officers. Then we have the FIA keep an eye on the tax department as a whole. And then we have NAB to keep an eye on all. I am sure I have missed other agencies. Finally, there is the judiciary to ensure that the executive, as a whole, is kept in check. But has the entire system delivered more trust and dependability? Fear has only led to more fear and uncertainty.

How do we create systems where we elect and select people who have the right qualities for positions of power, authority and responsibility? How do we select or elect the right people? Clearly, trustworthiness is an important criterion to look for. But how is this quality to be selected? That will be ‘the’ question for the next election and beyond given the direction of the current political dialogue in the country.

The writer is senior adviser, Pakistan, at Open Society Foundations, associate professor of economics, LUMS, and a visiting fellow at IDEAS, Lahore.

Published in Dawn, October 10th, 2014