How Corruption Fuels Governance Issues in Pakistan

According to world-renowned scholars, peace and prosperity in contemporary civilizations can only be achieved in a corruption free governance. Strong accountability system and fair judicial review must be in place to build strong nations without insecurity in the governance process. Governing without political insecurity contributed to the economic expansion of many countries around the world. Slow economic growth, limited social welfare and lack of public trust tend to increase in countries without strong anti-corruption laws and discipline in governance.

Shonchoy & Tsubota claim that political Insecurity in developing countries is one of the main destructive options for constructive relationships within societies, facilitated by weak governmental functions. Margit Bussmann reiterated this concept, pointing out that political insecurity encourages socio-political conflicts due to economic integration and impact of liberalization.

The World Bank argued in 1989 that good governance is an efficient civil service, a reliable judicial system, and an administration accountable to the public. A supplemental report from the World Bank in 1992 defined good governance as a combination of governance, accountability, a legal framework and transparency.

Even after privatization and economic reforms in Pakistan, corruption remains high; it is the same in democratic and military governments. Corruption is primarily caused by a lack of transparency, problems with public accountability, a weak judiciary and a weak legal system, the World Bank Survey reported.

Pakistan’s grip on corruption has increased day by day, resulting in corrupt governance in the bureaucracy and other state officials that have influenced the country’s internal structure. Today, thinking about good governance is an ideal dream in the state. A nation can only prosper with good governance, which is vital to its development. The World Bank argued in 1989 that good governance is an efficient civil service, a reliable judicial system, and an administration accountable to the public. A supplemental report from the World Bank in 1992 defined good governance as a combination of governance, accountability, a legal framework and transparency.

Developments are hampered by political insecurity in developing and underdeveloped countries. Political insecurity is critical to maintaining social inclusion and legitimacy within the state, as well as economic development and legal supremacy. There is no country or state without a stable political system leading to a government that is a mere battlefield of various interests. Political insecurity poses major challenges to Pakistan’s development and progress.

Accountability influences individuals’ and social lives, policy, and economy, and is vital to public governance’s success. Good governance and democracy are closely linked, and people must take an active part in decision-making.

Political Insecurity and widespread corruption hamper Pakistan’s economic growth despite abundant untapped natural resources. Review shows that natural resources increase GDP in both the short and long term, while political Insecurity negatively impacts GDP. In the long run, asymmetric results suggest that corruption increases GDP in the short run but decreases GDP in the long run. Nevertheless, the asymmetric results show that higher levels of corruption decrease GDP and lower levels of corruption increase GDP.

There are many problems attributed to political uncertainty, which can negatively affect economic growth. The implementation of good governance requires participation and cooperation, as well as socioeconomic development, such as education, employment, and the rule of law. Accountability influences individuals’ and social lives, policy, and economy, and is vital to public governance’s success. Good governance and democracy are closely linked, and people must take an active part in decision-making.

World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) have also remained relatively unchanged over time, mostly at very low levels. Also, among the most worrying developments are indicators of political stability, which have been declining rapidly since 1998. For example, the index was 1.0 in 2007, falling from 5.8 in 2003 to 11.11 in 1998. After Musharraf’s takeover in 1999, the first military administration (1999-2002) strengthened governance somewhat, according to the World Bank’s WGI. Compared to 1999, the country has made significant progress in fighting against corruption, enforcing the legal framework, and improving government efficiency. Because of this, all measures for the country (based on 2007 results) have declined other than those of regulation, public participation, and accountability.

Corruption violates national law by abusing state authority and resources. In Pakistan, for example, the elite receives state funds to ensure social peace, which leads to corruption. However, laws should be fair and just and reflect moral values. Consequently, just laws in a modern welfare state must promote economic justice to combat corruption and further enrich the powerful at the expense of the poor.

The Global Competitiveness Report (2007-2008) indicates that corruption is Pakistan’s third greatest obstacle to business growth. In addition to state bureaucracy and substandard infrastructure, approximately 40% of Pakistan’s businesses are concerned about corruption. However, Pakistan is perceived as a better business location than its neighbours. As reported in the latest Doing Business survey (June 2008), Pakistan ranked 76th out of 178 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, only outperforming the Maldives. Over time, Pakistan has shown high levels of corruption in both the public and private sectors. In 2007, the Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) reported that over 44% of the population paid bribes for services. Almost half of the respondents (around 52%) considered anti-corruption measures to be insufficient and almost 59% believed that corruption would continue to increase in the future.

The National Corruption Perception Survey was conducted by the Transparency International Pakistan Chapter in 2002 and 2006 to analyze corruption led by Bhutto, Sharif and Musharraf. The NCPS found that the first phase of each leader’s tenure was less corrupt than the second half of their tenure. The next NCPS will cover 2008, followed by annual surveys thereafter.

Civilized society must have the rule of law to stamp out corruption, but it cannot do this alone. A fair trial and equality are guaranteed within the rule of law framework. Corruption violates national law by abusing state authority and resources. In Pakistan, for example, the elite receives state funds to ensure social peace, which leads to corruption. However, laws should be fair and just and reflect moral values. Consequently, just laws in a modern welfare state must promote economic justice to combat corruption and further enrich the powerful at the expense of the poor.

The World Justice Project (WJP) concluded in a 2017 report based on a survey of 2,010 homeowners in Pakistan that the lack of the rule of law and the weak justice system are the major reasons for corruption and poor governance in the country.

The government of Pakistan is democratic but faces challenges due to a lack of accountability. Corruption is rampant, and many officials are involved in corruption. Therefore, a transparent and corruption-free system is essential to replace false and human-driven policies and improve the country’s economic system. Lack of accountability is directly responsible for the economic crisis. Corruption is reflected in high commodity prices and government dishonesty. The government should set up an anti-corruption department to address these problems, and civil servants should be paid more.

Creation of a system of accountability is inevitable that will hold individuals and organizations accountable for their actions. An expanded approach to accountability must include education and training, a clear understanding of corruption and stakeholders, protection of whistleblowers and broader applications across various sectors.

Moreover, the importance of bureaucratic accountability for reducing corruption and bad governance in Pakistan is also essential. Due to politicization, patronage, nepotism, favoritism, and intra-group prejudices within the civil service, accountability has been diminished internally and externally. As a result of a lack of political will to establish transparent bureaucratic accountability mechanisms, several areas of accountability have yet to improve or have even declined. The way ahead, lies in the hands of government whether they choose to corrupt the system or remain in the same system plaguing entire society.