A Mango Republic?
In every country of the world, patronage is built into the system in some form or the other. In the developed countries where democracies are stable and accountability is a part of the system, the potential for favouritism for material or monetary gain may be severely circumscribed but is still very much present. Denis Thatcher was eulogised for being an obsequious husband of the Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher, however son Mark was ostracised by the media for any number of major business deals. In countries of the Third World where leaders depend upon a small coterie of the rich and powerful for the acquisition and sustenance of power, there is virtually no dependence upon the masses. A Client-Patron relationship becomes much more part of the system than in developed nations. The cycle of favours ensures continuation of power, patronage ensures a mutual loyalty born out of the need for survival. The disease of patronage is not confined to Pakistan alone, that it has become rampant in this country over the past two decades does make this country a part of a more select group of nations as far as nepotism and corruption is concerned. We used to poke fun at the “Banana Republics” of Latin and South America, today we are not much different in style as well as content. As nationalists we should use our national fruit as a symbol in being labelled as a “Mango Republic” or at least being well on the way to its becoming.
The most insidious form of patronage in this country is the allotment of plots and the sanctioning of loans. Recently the Lahore High Court has taken suo-moto action to ask for details of all the plots allotted by the Chief Ministers of Punjab since 1985, the Martial Law Administration (1977-1985) having taken care to have all its actions validated and not being subject to questioning (whether any illegal acts of commission by responsible people in public office can ever be so condoned on the point of a gun is a matter of debate and conjecture but not the subject of this article). Given 1985 as a marker for discovering the wholesale gift sale of public property, the learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, Mr. Tiwana, should at the very least question the CMs about what great public service the beneficiaries performed to deserve the largesse. In order to ensure fairplay, the same exercise should be carried out in the Federal Territory and all the other Provinces. Prima-facie it would seem that many of the allottees do not even have correct addresses or have more than one plot. One wealthy and influential gentleman residing in KDA is the beneficiary of as much as 12 CM-bestowed plots, albeit in different names. It would not seem out of place as to question how such a farce was contrived and enacted by leaders who unabashedly proclaim themselves guardians of public morality and should have known better i.e. if they feel any fiduciary responsibility to the masses they were pledged to serve selflessly. Besides being an act of corruption, it is sheer hypocrisy.
With all due respects to the Judiciary, some of the members, past and present, have benefited from the largesse with respect to plots, as such their position tends to be compromised. Since charity begins at home, the Chief Minister of Sindh in 1986, a retired Judge of the High Court, allotted the first plot to himself, then proceeded to give plots to seven of his former colleagues before taking another plot for himself for good measure. All 44 plots allotted (including 12 to our KDA friend) were carved out of disputed property. Was the Honourable CM judiciously purchasing judicial insurance? While the beneficiaries cannot be accused of corruption, the fact remains that in accepting the plots of land as a gift in 1986/1987 the learned Judges may have exercised poor discretion. After all, the present COAS set up a precedent by not accepting a plot of land when he was Corps Commander. Their Lordships may well argue that they are no different from others of the salaried class who have accepted the CM’s benevolence as they could not well afford a similar plot at market prices. They would be right if that is the property allotted to them was the only one they owned but if they already possessed a plot or built up property, then one could call into question their judgement in being put in the same bracket with others. Our Higher Judiciary still commands respect in a rapidly degenerating society, the last thing we need as a nation is to have mass confidence in the judiciary undermined. Even in Colombia, afflicted with the Medellin Syndrome, the integrity of the judiciary has remained more or less sacrosanct. At the very least Colombian Judges have been vilified and harassed, in many cases they have been kidnapped and/or murdered. At least two Ministers of Justice have been assassinated, one as far away as Hungary where he had fled to as an Ambassador, such was the long arm of the lawless. While in Colombia, the tide of battle has turned and Pablo Escobar, the drug king is on the run, in Pakistan drug barons have become members of Parliament and command inordinate influence. A well-known gold smuggler continues to combine his trade with legitimate business (as is now the established form to obtain legality) and is socially very much in demand. Bureaucracy literally fawns over him and Bankers preen to get his attention (and deposits), such is the level that society has degenerated to. Yet we must thank our Heavens that the Superior Judiciary still inspires considerable respect. It is incumbent upon us to sustain this aura so as not to plunge further down into the sorry mess and circumstances we find ourselves in.
If this Caretaker Government is really honest about giving us free and fair elections it has to minimise the inordinate role that money is going to play in electing our representatives. At the very least we should create obstacles for black money from being used to influence the vote. While it may be difficult to completely eradicate money as a factor in so short a time, at least drug money and that acquired by written off/defaulting loans should be so targeted as to make it difficult for the candidates to have full use of. As investigated by Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee, a computerized list of troubled loans/advances duly prepared by the Nationalised Commercial Banks and consolidated by the Pakistan Banking Council exists. This list includes those loans which are irrecoverable, those written off, those which have been given a Moratorium and lastly, loans that have been re-scheduled. The first three easily fall in the category that need to be publicised in the public interest. What is the logic for keeping the list of defaulters a secret? We publicise the names of petty thieves and dacoits for robbing banks, why should we not publicise the names of those who take away much more money from the banks than the dacoits, mostly against false collateral? If the money is irrecoverable, they qualify for being criminals as much as bank robbers, a sort of “white collar” crime as opposed to the “blue collar” of armed bank robbery. Every government that has come to power has spoken of high ideals and a commitment to accountability, why do they fail at this altar of honesty if they themselves have nothing to fear?
Mr. Moeen Qureshi as a former international banker has considerable experience in dealing with defaulters, albeit nations. Corporate units and individuals are not much different. Defaulting loans is one of the reasons that Pakistani banks have very little liquidity, (the “ceiling has burst” answer given to prospective loan/credit seekers). Most of the defaulters are the so-called pillars of our society. At the very least by publicising such lists and stopping defaulters from competing in any elections we would start the process of bringing justice to the system. Defaulters have no moral or legal basis to vote even, let alone stand for elections! By imposing a ban the Caretaker Government would have struck a blow to the atrocious system that is the basis of Client-Patron relationship. Bankers who have allowed the default of loans/advances must not be spared either, their names may kindly also be published in full along with the list of respective defaulters. Coercion from government or political functionaries is no excuse, Mr. Maqbool Soomro gave up the President-ship of a Bank rather than be forced to give dubious loans. At one stage even his son was arrested on trumped-up charges but he did not falter. In each and every case these unscrupulous Bankers must have got some financial or material advantage of being less than responsible in the doling out of public money. One gentleman who now owns a Bank gave away as much as Rs 430 million, consider the surprise when he turned out to be the principal banker of a premier intelligence agency. In the record books NDFC is known to be one of the most robbed banks in the world, on a pro-rata basis more of its branches in Karachi have been the subject of armed dacoity than any other bank but in contrast to this physical act what is the volume of robbery through the sanctioning of loans that have become irrecoverable? NDFC is but one DFI, what about the other public sector DFIs and nationalised commercial banks? One esteemed Bank President is quite happy to be robbed by dacoits, he has a Banker’s insurance policy. Is he also insured against white collar theft? Allowing those who have defaulted on loans to stand for elections would mean that we are allowing public money to be used to further the chances of the defaulting individual. While there are many other means of influencing a free and fair election, the only way to redemption is to take some corrective action. If an impartial government like Moeen Qureshi’s cannot initiate the process, who will? And when, if at all?
One suggestion is to appoint investigating magistrates on the Italian pattern. Necessarily these must be persons of great integrity, resolve and result-oriented. Most could be retired bureaucrats or ex-Armed Forces officers. Their credentials must be strictly enquired into and when selected, should be appointed for fixed tenures in a Province different from which they belong, reporting directly to the respective Chief Justices of the High Court and at the Federal level, to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. They should have wide powers of detention, including those who do not cooperate in any manner in a public enquiry, whether they be civil servants or from the public. Unless we give draconian powers to person of calibre and sincere intention, we have no real future with respect to controlling patronage and, therefore, corruption. Given that the Caretaker Government cannot even begin to take stock of corruption in the remaining two months, it can at least set in motion the basis for institutionalising accountability.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment