Governance and accountability

International experience and history inform that public sector governance and accountability hold key position to achieve growth, development, and prosperity. However, in Pakistan, the dialogue remains focused narrowly on corruption and its outcomes. No serious effort is made to understand the causes of corruption and to mobilize subsequent efforts to reform public sector governance. Successive governments in Pakistan have been removed forcefully or lawfully on the charges of corruption and bad governance but very little happened in political and policy landscape to alter the fundamental ingredients of this malaise. Opposition parties consider their only objective to remove the incumbent government by hook or by crook. There is a relatively lesser appreciation that opposition parties should exert pressure for reforms instead of mere removal of the government. While in the case of bureaucracy, the reform in the form of perks and foreign training remains the most favourite option and if their corruption becomes too obvious, fewer are sent to prison to ultimately get relief from the courts. No lesson is learnt from these corruption incidences and the system remains same as it was before. Moreover, monitoring has been another hallmark of poorly planned public sector reforms which never hit the ground. The use of information technology (and so-called “roadmaps”) for governance improvement being talked about in Punjab at the moment, will have very limited results in the absence of structural reforms.

Some time ago I was invited by one of the accountability organisations in the country to have a brainstorming with its top management about issues at the intersection of economic governance and corruption. I asked them how many cases of corruption are being investigated in Pakistan International Airlines (PIA). I was informed about two dozen of them. Then I told them the number of cases of corruption in PIA pending before the judiciary, ombudsmen, Auditor General of Pakistan and parliamentary committees before asking another question; have we succeeded in reducing corruption in PIA or making it a viable organisation? The answer was obviously “no”. Then I opined that we need to address the fundamental flaws in the system and carry out ongoing reforms in this regard. I do not want to say here that we should not hold accountable politicians or public officials for their misdeeds but trying to make an argument that we need to consider preventive cure alongside treatment of the disease.

Stories of corruption of politicians and public officials are not uncommon in countries from the US to India. However, the vibrant societies talk about causes of corruption and try to alter the fundamental institutional architecture to address this issue on an ongoing basis. These changes may or may not yield intended results but then they provide useful lessons for next round of reforms. Political and economic crisis is usually a good opportunity to undertake stock taking and channelize it into policy reforms. Unfortunately, it rarely happens in Pakistan.

I will outline few of the causes and will suggest policy choices in this piece before outlining way forward, however, each one of them requires a greater length of dialogue. First, we need to introduce electoral reforms starting from strict enforcement of declaration of assets and campaign expenditures to reshaping political party formation and governance. Political parties don’t choose or change their heads democratically. Due to this dictatorial style of party governance by democracy advocates, there is no mechanism of internal accountability in political parties which has led to running a political party as a family affair. Secondly, lack of meritocracy and politicization of bureaucracy has promoted nexus of bunch of ambitious bureaucrats and ruling politicians to pursue vested interests at the cost of national interest. Famous political philosopher, Francis Fukuyama, while tracing history of political order and decay in the world, considered independent and competent bureaucracy as one of the defining features of success of the nations in ancient and present times. In our case, fundamental changes are required in the bureaucratic system from recruitment and training to promotions and postings to enhance meritocracy and effectiveness of this institution to deliver services and safeguard the state interests. The starting point for such reforms should be disbanding practice of appointing retired and loyal bureaucrats in Federal Public Service Commission and training institutions. Empowerment and professionalization of Establishment Division would hold key position in this reform process. Senior bureaucrats enjoy perks and benefits far beyond their entitlements but junior and new entrants are left at the mercy of rudimentary public transport, expensive and pathetic rental housing and distortionary posting processes. Micro level restructuring is also required in a number of areas, eg, consolidation of ministries/departments. In the federal government, Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Industries and Production, Ministry of Textile Industry, Board of Investment should be consolidated into one Ministry of Private Sector Development. There are more than three dozen attached organisations with these ministries – majority of those simply deserve destiny of closure. Economic Affairs Division may be merged into Finance Division. Ministry of Climate Change and Ministry of Interprovincial Co-ordination among others should be merged with the Planning Commission. Performance, budgeting, and reporting of attached departments and autonomous bodies need serious attention. Thirdly, appointment process of heads and board members of governmental organisations, regulatory agencies and constitutional bodies need to be made accountable and transparent. Key positions in all of these bodies/authorities are filled with senior citizens who have demonstrable experience of serving the incumbent political regime. Market for talent needs to be created for attracting and retaining professionals in these organisations. Ratification by a parliamentary body may also be considered in this regard.

Fourthly, public procurement process in Pakistan, like any other country, needs a continuous reform to identify the problems and to introduce changes. Multiple checks and layers often are more dangerous than autonomy with accountability. In a study, state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in Pakistan, I explained the multiplicity of accountability layers that have been hampering performance of these companies. The same applies to the mainstream public financial management. For example, pre-auditing system of Accountant General of Pakistan Revenues (AGPR) is nothing short of a rent-seeking kiosk. Fundamental reforms are needed in the way fiscal allocations are decided, consumed, recorded and audited. Fifthly, judicial reforms are needed to enhance trust of people on this forum to impart expeditious and fair justice. Starting point for judicial reforms can be improvement of commercial litigation. Sixthly, land record management system is the most corrupt and inefficient part of the provincial and district governments. Pakistan ranks 137 amongst 189 economies in Registering Property Indicator by the Doing Business Report of the World Bank. Though, this indicator explains processes, fee and interfaces to register property for a manufacturing company in an urban area but it is indeed a reflection of rotten property management system in the country. Inefficiency and malpractices in this area promote corruption, personal disputes and clogging in the court system. Recent efforts of land record digitalization in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa need to be examined closely in terms of benefits, relevance and effectiveness. Similarly there is a need to bring police out of the claws of ruling politicians and local elites. Seventhly, participation of civil society can have a far reaching impact on governance and accountability but we will have to elucidate distinction between development contractors of international organisations and real stakeholders in civic life.

I will now point to two remaining important issues which have greater relevance to this discussion. First, we need to empower and devolve authority and resources to local governments which can serve the purpose of engaging people at large in governance process on one hand and reducing reliance on central political and bureaucratic elite, giving those lesser chances of corruption at mega scale. Decision-making at local level is not without flaws but iterative attempts of devolution will improve the scenario. Lastly, we need to realise that doing business has become much difficult and cumbersome in Pakistan. It’s easier and extremely profitable to invest in informal real estate market or taking money abroad. Strict laws of foreign exchange control cannot stop the capital flight to Panama or other tax heavens. We will have to provide amicable business environment to domestic and international businessmen to invest in country’s productive sectors. On a slightly different note; an oft-neglected – or least understood – fact in Pakistan is that businessmen are nowadays most influential and effective ambassadors of their countries. Business-to-business relations force politicians – on either side – to change foreign policy stances in favour of each other’s country. If we let our young and creative entrepreneurs flourish, they can be really helpful in boosting Pakistan’s diplomatic relations in the globalized world.

So, there is a need to develop a collective and continuous response to such grave challenges. Otherwise we will continue to witness same (or even worse) government one after another. Political, economic and social decay is accelerating with every passing day which must be arrested with domestic agenda for governance and accountability reforms. State’s capacity to invest domestic resources for research and dialogue around these ideas can produce phenomenal benefits. Massive amounts of domestic resources are wasted in futile projects and perks but when it comes to a research study, the government departments approach international agencies for peanuts. This practice needs to be reoriented with a special emphasis on domestic capacity and resources for research and dialogue on governance and accountability reforms. An independent board of leading thinkers – comprising economists, management professionals, technology experts, sociologists and political scientists among others – can be constituted to steer this process and to ensure quality and relevance of the research output.