The chief on corruption

Army Chief Raheel Sharif’s visit to the Signal Regiment Centre in Kohat, where he specifically mentioned the efforts of the Signals Corps in providing communication support, served as a timely reminder of the great job being done by individuals and institutions – both military and civilian – to help fight extremism through Operation Zarb-e-Azb, which has added to the national and international stature of the army chief. We can only admire the effort and resolve to alter the face of a nation that has been marred by terror, violence and bloodshed. That this joint anti-terror effort must continue without tension between the institutions is something that cannot be emphasised enough. What caught the attention of media commentators, though, was the part of Gen Raheel Sharif’s speech where he called for “across-the-board accountability” to kill corruption and defeat terror. Observers obviously felt that, coming at a time when the government is under so much pressure from the opposition over the Panama Papers, the statement was too political. Commentators have wondered if it would not have been better to communicate directly with the government on such issues as there is ample opportunity for such interaction built into our institutional reality. What cannot be denied is that the corruption issue is one that has broad resonance with people anywhere, as reflected in the public response to the leaks in countries like Iceland and the UK. People understand that corruption has a bad impact on governance and, consequently, on their lives. This is precisely why we need our rulers to stand above corruption, whether it exists within the civilian setup or the military realm. They should be able to demonstrate true resolve to combat it. In a country like ours that has suffered through a succession of corrupt rulers, both civilian and military, there is real need for the people to be able to trust the sincerity of proclamations against corruption. The fact that the COAS talked about across-the-board accountability indicates an understanding that this accountability should be carried out without sparing any guilty person, no matter which institution they belong to.

Unfortunately, our history offers us little to show that claims of accountability for all will transform into reality; which is why the people of the country and their intelligentsia remain sceptical. They have come to believe, with good reason, that ‘accountability’ here is selective and becomes synonymous with punishing political opponents. Our history is replete with examples of how institutions set up to tackle corruption turned into mechanisms to victimise political opponents and protect the corrupt. Without going too far back into our history, we can look at the rule of Pervez Musharraf, who rode into power promising transparency and an end to corruption and ended up creating a King’s Party that was not exactly free of the irredeemably corrupt. He used NAB as a political weapon and yet, when his own skin was on the line, he forgot all about corruption and promulgated the NRO for exactly those that he had lambasted for corruption. He and his cronies were also accused of lining their own pockets and yet they are all now enjoying lives of luxury abroad. To many media commentators, Musharraf’s recent exit from the country, despite the grave charges he is facing, says a lot about how quickly and conveniently any notion of accountability can be trampled upon.

The COAS’ speech can be seen as a call to action. After all, as he said himself, we cannot expect to win the war against militancy without eliminating corruption. Even though establishing a direct link between militancy and corruption may be tenuous, there can be no doubt that a corrupt state allows militancy space to operate. And when every institution in the country is perceived to be corrupt, militants have an opportunity to exploit that disillusionment. Above all, what should not be forgotten at any cost is that the failures against corruption have occurred because the state and the government have woefully failed to build transparency and fair play into the system and into the institutions they set up. We should think hard about this. Anti-corruption efforts must be rescued from a situation where they become bogged down in political wrangling and in accusations and suspicions of being used for specific political purposes.