A SUPREME COURT direction to the lower judiciary that public officials convicted of corruption should not receive reduced sentences has once again shone a spotlight on the problem of holding public officials to account. The direction has come as a bench of the Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal of a revenue officer in a case involving a bribe taken by the officer for transferring the title deeds of a small parcel of agricultural land. The offence itself is a classic case of the petty corruption rife at the lower tiers of the state, where interaction with the public is almost defined by inefficiency and corrupt practices. While it is the duty of the courts to follow the letter of the law, the superior judiciary may want to consider being mindful of the spirit of its order being misinterpreted. Corruption at the lower tiers is intrinsically linked to a breakdown of the system and therefore care must be taken to not be seen to be launching a crackdown on the easiest targets and the most vulnerable officials.

To be sure, the Supreme Court has in recent times made it a matter of priority to take the executive to task for lack of accountability across the board, whether it involves high officials or those at the lowest tiers. Repeatedly, NAB and other investigation agencies have been hauled before the Supreme Court with one purpose in mind: ensuring that accountability is fair and equal, of the powerful and of the less powerful. The results have necessarily been mixed so far because corruption and accountability, or the lack thereof, are deep-rooted systemic problems that require structural redress. No amount of verbal or written orders by the judiciary will change what is essentially a problem of institutional and societal culture. Yet, for attempting to bring the matter to the fore institutionally, the superior judiciary deserves praise and support.

The real challenge is for parliament and the government, however. Institutional reforms simply cannot be undertaken without parliamentary legislation and parliamentary legislation will not go anywhere unless the government decides to act, or is compelled to act under parliamentary pressure. Yet, reforms of all stripes and in most domains occupy a dismally low place in the agenda of the PML-N as well as of virtually all opposition parties. While corruption continues to dominate the political discourse outside parliament, none of the parties involved in that debate seem interested in institutional and systemic solutions. Until that changes, true accountability, of the powerful and the less powerful, will remain elusive. Surely, while politics rages outside parliament, the same parties can at least find a way to work inside parliament on necessary legislation — it has happened before, so why not on such a critical issue?

Published in Dawn October 17th, 2016