close
Friday March 29, 2024

Veil of hypocrisy?

Legal eyeThere is a long tradition of philosophers (Rousseau, Kant, Hobbes, Locke) alluding to the ‘veil of ignorance’. Rawls used the concept most succinctly in his essay ‘A theory of justice’: “No one (ought to) know his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he (ought

By Babar Sattar
July 11, 2015
Legal eye
There is a long tradition of philosophers (Rousseau, Kant, Hobbes, Locke) alluding to the ‘veil of ignorance’. Rawls used the concept most succinctly in his essay ‘A theory of justice’: “No one (ought to) know his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he (ought to) know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like”, while judging the fairness of an idea or principle. In others words, the fairness of an idea ought to be determined before knowing what role you would be assigned in the world where the idea is implemented.
So if you are debating slavery, you don’t know whether you would be born a slave or a slave owner. While determining the rights and responsibilities of gender classes or majorities and minorities in a community, you function from behind a veil of ignorance (in a thought experiment) not knowing what side of the fence you’ll wake up on. The idea when used to judge the behaviour of our political elite is most useful in exposing its thinly veiled hypocrisy. And you need no thought experiment here. All you need is to compare things said while in opposition and things done when in power.
The PML-N is most disturbed about the list submitted by our comatose NAB to the Supreme Court of the 150 mega-corruption scandals under investigation; it prominently features the Sharif brothers along with other political bigwigs. Shahbaz Sharif felt obliged to hold an aggressive presser waving a letter issued by National Bank in 2014 in an effort to redeem his family’s reputation and preach his virtue while dismissing corruption accusations that have been around for a decade and a half. Did he manage to covert cynics to believers?
Let us concede that the Sharifs have finally paid off the last paisa of their business loans and nothing has been written off. Does that sufficiently address larger questions about the PML-N’s approach towards accountability and investigation of specific allegations against the Sharifs? Has the PML-N taken any steps to create transparent structures of accountability now that it is in power? Is any drastic change apparent in the PML-N’s approach to distribution of state largess this time round? Has patronage been extinguished, has a level playing field been established providing the politically unconnected equal access to state power and resources?
When, in the Asghar Khan Case, the Supreme Court endorsed the allegation that dirty money was used to prop-up the IJI in 1990 and ordered the FIA to investigate the matter, the PML-N had objected to the FIA doing the job due to its dismal performance. While offering itself for accountability, it had sought the creation of a judicial commission for the purpose (the PML-N was very fond of commissions back then). Has Nawaz Sharif ordered the creation of such commission now that he can do so himself? Has the FIA (now in mint condition under Chaudhry Nisar’s supervision) moved on this matter?
In the celebrated Charter of Democracy, the PML-N and PPP had agreed, “to replace politically motivated NAB with independent accountability commission, whose chairman shall be nominated by the prime minister in consultation with the leader of the opposition and confirmed by a joint parliamentary committee with 50 percent members from treasury benches and remaining 50 percent from opposition parties…” The PPP introduced the Holders of Public Office (Accountability) Bill in 2009. The PML-N didn’t endorse the bill for it wanted (amongst other things) a serving Supreme Court judge to head the commission.
This bill went nowhere and after two and a half years of meaningless wrangling, it was withdrawn by the PPP and replaced by the National Accountability Commission Bill 2012, which also went nowhere and is probably still gathering dust in the National Assembly. So if NAB was vindictive during General Musharraf’s regime and biased during the PPP’s regime, has the PML-N proposed a solution if NAB is still incompetent under its own regime? Has the PML-N’s enthusiasm for an independent accountability body waned now that it is in power or does it believe that corruption is no longer an issue for Pakistan?
During the peak of the dharna, Nawaz Sharif vowed to conduct a performance audit of ministers to weed out the incompetent. Did the resolve wane along with the dharna? When the PML-N was in opposition, it wanted absolute transparency in distribution of state largess – high profile appointments and award of contacts etc. So frequent was Khawaja Asif’s presence in the Supreme Court, challenging abuse of political patronage in discharge of state authority (whether challenging LPG quota, or rental power cases or public appointments), that the bar council should have considered granting him an honorary licence.
Khawaja Asif is one of the mainstream political leaders who braved Musharraf’s rule with grit and honour. Back in 2004, he recounted the fetters on democracy in a Harvard conference and told a largely pro-Musharraf audience that in Pakistan it was time to stand up and be counted. He was never shy of speaking his mind in the National Assembly even with a uniformed dictator in power. Is Khawaja sahib’s allegiance to the principles that he defended while in opposition apparent in his work now that he is in power?
In the Khawaja Asif case, the SC ruled that the process of making high profile executive appointments must be rigorous, transparent and meritorious. Khawaja sahib had taken the case to the court protesting political appointments being made by caretakers. While hearing the matter, the apex court has commented that principles being emphasised would apply even when the petitioner’s party was in power. Within months of being sworn into office, the PML-N was back in the SC claiming absolute privilege to make executive appointments.
How different is the governance of the power sector under Khawaja Asif’s watch today in comparison to his predecessors? To put it politely, it is still in a shambles. So for example Pepco was originally created to play a temporary and transient role when the power sector was decentralised and corporatised in 1997. But headed by water and power ministry baboos on ‘acting charge basis’ it still sits smugly at the centre of the power sector, usurping the power of power companies to promote and manage their own employees.
If the power sector is to be treated and run as an attached department of the federal government, why not pack up the companies that create the illusion of the government not being in the business of running power utilities? And the PML-N seems headed that way. Over the power crisis, it keeps threatening to take K-Electric to court or nationalise it. But then it also claims to be preparing Lesco and Fesco for privatisation. Is this some deviously clever power sector reform plan, beyond the grasp of lesser minds, to tease investor interest before centralising or nationalising power utilities once again?
The problem with power in our socio-political culture is not only that it tends to corrupt but also that it tends to render the incumbents blind and deaf. Those in power can see no evil and hear no evil. Surrounded by flatterers and sycophants, anyone critical is a conspirator, a mischief-monger or the paid-lackey of an enemy. For an objective bystander, the metamorphosis that circulating power elites undergo in Islamabad from the days in opposition to the days in office is so predictable that it fails to amaze anymore.
For PML-N leadership the time to stand up and be counted is now. This is no time to preach virtue. It is time to walk the talk. And the clock is ticking.
The writer is a lawyer based in Islamabad.
Email: sattar@post.harvard.edu