7
BEHOLD Pakistan’s latest sporting craze: the game of accountability one-upmanship. One Sharif called for ‘across-the-board accountability’ and was reported to have removed a number of military officers on corruption charges; the other Sharif vowed to resign from his prime ministerial post if investigations into the leaked Panama Papers prove wrongdoing on the part of his family.
Opposition parties are gradually coordinating calls for the Supreme Court to establish a credible inquiry commission. If one is set up as the PM has suggested, one can expect the courts to take the lead in summoning politicians from across the spectrum to account for their sins. Multidirectional corruption allegations used to be a sign in Pakistan of coups to come. There’s a throwback to this in Jamaat-i-Islami leader Sirajul Haq’s decision to label corruption as ‘economic terrorism’. The word choice may appear to imply that the solution lies in military intervention.
The military set the stage of the JI chief’s coinage by linking the fight against corruption with winning the battle against terrorism, shifting the focus away from the violent ideologies of extremist groups to the venality of the political class.
This shift has already materialised in Sindh where paramilitary operations aimed at rooting out terrorist groups instead targeted PPP and MQM members suspected of engaging in corrupt activities, including involvement in organised crime and terrorism.
Moves against corruption must go beyond targeting individuals.
But Pakistan is meant to have outgrown its coup phase. Why would the military need to move in that direction when it has already consolidated power over the government and judiciary under the auspices of the National Action Plan and the Protection of Pakistan Act? Military courts and apex committees provide the security establishment with covert sway over the civilian sphere, saving it the trouble of overt rule. So why the renewed interest in accountability? Some of it may have to do with the evolving internal and regional security situation. While fending off corruption allegations, politicians have little time left to push back against establishment strategies in the region or mobilise civilian law-enforcement agencies to carry out counter-terrorism operations, thereby winning back some oversight over domestic security.
As the fighting stage of Zarb-i-Azb draws to a close, the natural and sensible progression would be for the military to cede control to civilian authorities and empower the government to implement anti-terrorism regulation and deradicalisation initiatives.
A spotlight on the corruption of government institutions and the police in particular would boost an argument in favour of indefinite involvement by the security establishment. It would also prevent disagreements such as the recent one over counterterrorism operations in Punjab from gaining traction.
More broadly, the country is preparing to reap the benefits of the improved security situation through economic revival, starting with foreign investment under the auspices of CPEC. Increased accountability pressure at this juncture will help ensure that planned mega projects are not delayed or sullied by concerns about kickbacks or other corruption.
But all players in this game must remain cautious. The taint of corruption is indiscriminate and hard to wipe off. The military is already facing questions about its reticence regarding the removal of some officers allegedly involved in corrupt activities as well as reports that they continue to receive pensions and other benefits. Mounting corruption allegations are known to be a deterrent for effective governance and project implementation. The fear of being retroactively investigated on corruption charges makes officials tasked with implementing projects reluctant to sign off on any decision. Ironically, political games aimed at taking control of projects may ultimately lead to slower implementation as corruption allegations fly in all directions.
This does not mean that Pakistan’s institutions — civilian and military alike — should not be pushed to increase transparency and accountability. Genuine anti-corruption efforts are urgently required, not least to end the vicious political cycle of accusations and counter-accusations so that everyone can get on with good governance. But to truly effect change, anti-corruption initiatives will have to move beyond targeting individuals to improving institutions. Judicial inquiries may help weed out a few individuals who have engaged in heinous corruption. But they will not fix the system that enshrines a lack of transparency.
The time has come to talk about policies and institutional reforms that would genuinely lead to greater accountability — financial disclosure systems; transparency around budget allocations and spending for all institutions, including the military; opening the accounts of all government-linked corporate entities for scrutiny; improving corporate governance requirements; better regulating asset declarations; and more.
Without a systemic approach, an anti-corruption drive will be little more than a game with no winners.
The writer is a freelance journalist.
Published in Dawn, April 25th, 2016
