111 510 510 libonline@riphah.edu.pk Contact

Questions needing answers

The coalition partners, who ruled Pakistan during the past five years, claim (except MQM) that their term in office marked the epitome of democracy because it undid what ‘dictator’ Musharraf had done by imposing his brand of democracy. Musharraf is no angel; the assets (worth hundreds of millions) that he recently declared, are the proof thereof. But he had the guts to declare them; what makes the case of his opponents (self-proclaimed democrats) worse is that they didn’t have the guts to do so.

As for paying taxes, facts exposed thus far are absolutely shocking even about politicians who were considered highly principled; sadly, that long list includes former prime minister Mir Zafrullah Jamali, Mehmood Khan Achakzai, and Hafiz Hussain Ahmed of JUI-F. As time passes, more top-ranking politicians (former prime ministers and federal and provincial ministers) are joining the ranks of those who never registered as taxpayers nor paid income tax, registered as taxpayers only recently, or still haven’t done that.

Should this be the profile of those who will legislate on taxation issues to pull Pakistan out of the category of the most corrupt states whose hallmark is extremely low tax-to-GDP ratios? That in the past five years this ratio only worsened doesn’t augur well for the future.

Instead of increasing tax collection on rational basis, didn’t this lot more than double the public debt in a matter of five years over its volume accumulated in the previous sixty years? Can it deliver better results if allowed to adore the corridors of power yet again?

The last two prime ministers have been disqualified from contesting the 2013 elections following their conviction on contempt of court or their role in ongoing cases of massive corruption. The regimes they headed have left Pakistan in a financial and administrative mess.

A more dangerous reality exposed thus far points to deeper than before shady links between politicians and the bureaucracy that can effectively obstruct any effort to cleanse the system of corrupt politicians, and help install a responsible democratic set-up. The vast majority of FBR reports on candidates sent to the ECP did not specify the dates when candidates obtained their NTNs and the dates when they began filing tax returns. It is this track record (not just their past three years’ data) that could be the true test of their integrity.

While majority of the SBP reports on loan-defaulter status show no default record of the candidates, these reports should have disclosed the details of accounts held by the candidates and confirmation of the account-holding banks about candidates’ non-defaulter status.

SBP did not report a loan default by PML-N Chief Nawaz Sharif but the NAB report on him shows a pending default case in NAB’s Rawalpindi court, whose proceedings remain suspended (for over a decade) due to a stay order issued by the Lahore High Court. Given this state of inquiry data back-up, the Returning Officers (ROs) tested only the religious knowledge of the candidates, which hardly makes the scrutiny credible. Perhaps, the strategy was to ensure that candidatures of the tax evaders and loan defaulters weren’t rejected.

The outgoing regime’s refusal to cut the parliament’s term even by a minute, and to deny ECP a month’s time for proper scrutiny of the candidates, was intended to leave wholly inadequate time for scrutiny of nominations before holding of the elections became a constitutional imperative.

Not surprisingly, ROs didn’t disqualify many politicians who deserved that fate because the FBR, SBP and NAB reports were neither correctly focused nor comprehensive. Nor did the ECP post these facts on its website despite repeated Supreme Court reminders to do so. While the SC has warned about post-election disqualification of candidates if justified by their financial, tax or legal records, appellate tribunals are saddled with too many petitions seeking disqualification of candidates, which foretells post-election disqualification of many candidates.

At the same time, in more than one instance, the superior judiciary has invalidated the candidates’ disqualification on the grounds of holding degrees whose fake status was earlier confirmed by the HEC. ECP will begin printing of the ballot papers from April 19. Will it be possible to credibly and finally settle all the petitions seeking candidates’ disqualification so that ballot papers contain the names of only the qualified candidates? As of now, this seems unlikely.

ECP-desired transfer and posting of bureaucrats with suspected political links is being undertaken too slowly by caretaker regimes in the federation as well as the provinces; will this process be completed in time and will the new bureaucrats be able to revamp bureaucracy down the line?

That’s not all; several TV anchors claim they have sufficient irrefutable evidence to establish that scores of candidates (likely to be elected courtesy party support and their own clout) must be disqualified for holding the exalted status of parliamentarians.

Crystallisation of this possibility demands considering the consequences of holding elections hurriedly and disqualifying parliamentarians thereafter, and the way this would tarnish the already battered image of Pakistan’s electoral process and its democracy.

Besides, requiring that Pakistanis abroad be facilitated in casting their votes in several countries, though fair, is putting unbearable pressure on the ECP because it carries the risk of discrediting the electoral process if it falters, and that too under the glare of the foreign media. ECP’s aim to make the electoral process truly transparent was commendable but it delayed its directions to the SBP, FBR, NAB and utility services in this regard. On top thereof, the last minute administrative reshuffle by the outgoing regime ensured the failure of this ECP effort.

The outgoing regime desperately wants continuation of a democracy that ensures unchallengeable authority for the landed aristocracy. If the ECP goes ahead with elections on time, it will add one more to the list of suspect elections in Pakistan’s history.

If realism finally forces postponing the elections till these issues are addressed, will the caretaker regime be able to effectively contain the huge energy, fiscal, external and administrative crises for two to three months or, perhaps longer? It seems unlikely. That (the media and then) the ECP had to point out that officeholders of the outgoing regime continued to avail privileges, security and protocol services reflects on their sense of moral responsibility, but more so on the caretakers’ concern for resource waste.

This profile of the caretaker regime doesn’t promise much because Pakistan urgently needs substantial medium-term external funding to give it time to plug its energy shortfall (if nothing else) and put its economy back on track for recovery. Without competent finance and foreign ministers, can the caretaker regime do that?

A. B. Shahid, "Questions needing answers," Business recorder. 2013-04-16.
Keywords: Political issues , Political process , Political parties , Election commission-Pakistan , Coalition partners , Taxpayers , Tax policy , Economic issues , Superior judiciary , HEC , ECP , SBP