THERE is so much talk about accountability and transparency but little to show in the normal run of things.

The size of the informal economy, poor tax compliance, long delays in project execution, cost overruns and the leakage of funds are a few examples of the fault lines in the sphere of revenue collection and development spending. The outcome: a perpetual, unmanageable fiscal deficit.

And quite often than not, the rules and regulations change frequently and are complicated and cumbersome not only for those supposed to strictly adhere to them but even for those who are supposed to enforce them. This is being done when the core issue is policy implementation, unless a changed environment calls for reforms.

Then the stiff rules enforced on the capital markets, which are costly to comply with, have either forced companies quoted on the stock exchanges to de-list or discouraged others from listing. Often those dealing with commercial banks complain that bankers are finding it very difficult to follow/adhere to the State Bank of Pakistan’s (SBP) frequently issued circulars.

Despite the presence of multiple agencies responsible for ensuring accountability in the whole range of economic and social activities, the list of wrongdoings lengthens, largely unchecked.

The regulatory bodies are weak and ineffective. The sway of special interests and the powerful does not allow them the space to function properly. Accountability by outside agencies, not so well equipped for the task, has at best brought about temporary successes.

A vigilant civil agency can nip the trouble in the bud before it assumes monstrous proportions and is left to be tackled by more powerful institutions

But the relevant regulators are often thrown on the sidelines and not strengthened to carry forward or build upon any good work done in their day-to-day tasks and duties.

One cannot but appreciate the Supreme Court’s persistent efforts to get the provincial governments to hold district government elections or the marked improvement in the law and order situation, especially in Karachi, brought about by the men in uniform. Many surgical operations in the past to remove the persisting ailments had also brought about positive but not durable results. Will it be different this time?

The basic responsibility for carrying out accountability lies with civilian institutions: civilian law enforcing agencies; the Auditor General of Pakistan; regulatory authorities like the SBP, SECP and Ogra; parliamentary committees and opposition parties etc.

A vigilant civil agency can nip the trouble in the bud before it assumes monstrous proportions and is left to be tackled by more powerful institutions, lacking specific expertise.

None of these agencies and devices which may have records of good performance in the past seem to be acting very effectively now. The basic reason is that there is no social force to exercise the required pressure to change the course of events. Official agencies operate with constraints imposed by the privileged. Of course, the ultimate authority lies with sovereign voters who can throw governments out of power in case of poor track record.

No doubt civil society is more aware of its rights and obligations today, gaining much consciousness by the impacts on it of current multiple crises for which there seem to be no immediate solutions. But it lacks an effective voice in the corridors of powers.

Many are disappointed and say that democracy has failed to deliver, while in fact the third tier of government has yet to find a place in the evolving participatory democracy leading to social change.

The ultimate accountability of the government rests with the voters, but here again electoral democracy has its own limitations in the absence of institutions that give the common citizen a voice in decision-making. And this enables the elected representatives to deviate with impunity from the electoral mandate till the day of reckoning, i.e. the holding of the next general elections.

The process of accountability by the sovereign is,however, often disrupted by stolen votes or a faulty accountability process that tends to rehabilitate political parties which, on the basis of their past performance, are more likely to be rejected by the voters.

The key issue is the building of new institutions or the revamping of the old ones to serve a more useful social purpose.

The character of any institution is determined by the objective it is designed to serve and the mandate it has received.

With the concept of a ‘welfare state’ been thrown into oblivion, new ways have to be found to anchor politics and economics on the common good and participatory democracy, and to rebuild institutions on that basis.

Published in Dawn, Business & Finance weekly, October 12th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play