I HAVE just received a brief taste of the embarrassment our leaders cause to expatriate Pakistanis by their endless corruption and puerile behaviour: while on a brief visit to England, I have already come across two damning reports against Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto in the mainstream press.

First, the Sunday Telegraph carried a story about our prime minister running amok at Harrods: apart from a #5,000 bed and thousands of pounds spent on linen and other goodies, the reporter painted a very funny picture of Mr Nawaz Sharif's security guards being unable to keep up as the PM shopped as though there were no tomorrow. The article included a comparison of Third World leaders who had been shopping recently at Harrods: Pakistanis will be pleased to learn that our minister topped the list for conspicuous and vulgar consumption.

All this, of course, at a time when we are being asked to tighten our belts to face the foreign exchange crisis that confronts us. Mr Sharif has made a number of requests to his businessmen colleagues to shell out a few million dollars each out of their overseas accounts to see us through. He would have been a little more credible had he made a significant donation himself instead of going on a shopping spree in London.

A few days after this sarcastic news item appeared, the Times carried a piece on Asif Zardari's and Benazir Bhutto's estate in Surrey. It was alleged that neighbours had seen her at the famous property, and details about the extensive lands and the cost of the property were printed. Actually, at no point has the former prime minister flatly denied that she owns the estate, equivocating by asking why she could not buy property in England if Nawaz Sharif could own several flats in Central London. This lame argument has not gone down well either in Pakistan or in England. Neither leader has grasped the fact that people in England are most unimpressed by such a vulgar display of wealth. When Arab sheikhs flaunt their unearned petro-dollars, most people laugh at them while relieving them of their money. BB and Nawaz Sharif have placed themselves in this category.

Against this backdrop of the usual sleaze in high places in Pakistan, the recent revelations and resignations from the British cabinet provided a refreshing counterpoint. Here was Peter Mendelson, the second most powerful man in Britain, resigning because he had taken a loan to buy a house from a colleague before the Labour Party swept to power. The loan itself was perfectly legal; what was deemed improper was the fact that he had not informed Tony Blair of the transaction. Also, as Mendelson's ministry was investigating Robertson, the minister who had lent him the money, there was a potential conflict of interest. In the event, both ministers resigned as soon as the story appeared in the press just before Christmas.

In Pakistan, we have a sitting prime minister against whom there are allegations of defaulted loans and unpaid taxes. According to his tax returns filed with the Election Commission, and quoted by Aitezaz Ahsan on the floor of the Senate, he paid less than Rs 500 as income tax in three years. Then we have Benazir Bhutto, the ex-PM, who, together with her husband, is alleged to have salted away millions of dollars abroad; the Swiss magistrate investigating her questionable dealings with Cotecna and SGS, two Swiss firms, has detailed her and her husband's extensive foreign holdings.

I suppose one could go on and on about the strongly suspected and often alleged chicanery and corruption in high places, but the contrast I am trying to make here is between the thick skin of our politicians, and the prompt accountability that underpins democracy in developed nations like Britain. This is not to suggest that corruption is totally absent in Whitehall; far from it. But when somebody is caught with his hand in the till, the chances are that the whistle will be blown, and heads will roll.

In Pakistan, the press continues to expose crooks in high places day in and day out, but to little avail. When these revelations reached a certain critical mass, the Establishment - comprising GHQ, the presidency and our shadowy and powerful intelligence agencies - used these news reports, columns and editorials to throw out the government of the day, replace it with an interim arrangement and then tried to manipulate the elections. Now, of course, this is no longer an option, thanks to the constitutional changes introduced by Nawaz Sharif to protect his government.

But at no point has any politician in power paid any heed to allegations of sleaze made in the press. This refusal to clean up its act has cost several governments heavily, but this ostrich-like approach remains ingrained in the psyche of our rulers. They really believe that they were elected to enrich themselves, and any suggestion that they have a responsibility that goes beyond adding to their personal account is rejected as sour grapes from the opposition-inspired press. For these people, democracy is about one thing, and one thing only: con the people to vote your party to power and then cling on to amass as much money as possible.

Under these circumstances, it is difficult to see when genuine accountability will take root in Pakistan. Until that day arrives, I suppose we will just have to make do with Saifur Rahman's inefficient and one-sided version.