AS planned, the government introduced a new accountability bill in parliament on Monday. And as expected, it is a flawed bill. The National Accountability Commission bill that has been sent to a standing committee for vetting and approval before being returned to the full house for a vote — expected sooner than later — will be examined and critiqued outside parliament in the days ahead as its language is digested and its implications understood. Already, however, two glaring issues have arisen: the ‘good faith’ exemption in the previous bill, now withdrawn by the government, has been retained while the clock on accountability has been set back only as far as October 2002. Limiting accountability to the last decade for public office holders is a particularly egregious flaw in the new bill. Previously, the government wanted to go as far back as 1985 while the PML-N had insisted on 1947 as the starting point from which accountability of public officials could be undertaken under the law that is to replace the Musharraf-era National Accountability Ordinance. Ten years is a particularly short period and one that conveniently excludes the so-called decade of democracy in the 1990s when the PPP and PML-N traded office every couple of years or so and claims of corruption and other wrongdoing were rife. As a signal that the government is serious about accountability the 10-year limit is a particularly poor idea: few will believe the government is interested in across-the-board accountability if it’s limited to only a slice of our history.

The retention of the ‘good faith’ exemption to accountability is also problematic. If the language is drafted loosely and the use of the exemption not tightly patrolled — and who can expect politicians to implement the language of legislation to their own disfavour? — accountability could become a farce. For example, if a lucrative contract for an important public-works project is handed out without proper vetting and transparent bidding, could the public office holder later claim the project’s importance justified cutting corners (and presumably lining the pockets of allies and family in the process)? To be sure, a draconian accountability law could in some circumstances have adverse effects if it makes public officials too skittish about performing their duties as they fear prosecution by an overzealous accountability machinery later. But as it stands, the ‘good faith’ exemption appears too broad to be justified.

Yet, will the bill receive the scrutiny it deserves inside parliament? From Monday’s events, it appears that the PML-N’s objections may be more for the cameras than substantive. Behind-the-scenes understandings could scuttle necessary scrutiny of an important law.