|
November 14, 2003
Benazir’s Case and the Corruption Scenario
A Swiss Police Tribunal hearing the appeal of Benazir, Asif Zardari, and his agent, Jens Schelgelmilch, a Swiss national, against the verdict of the Swiss judge, Daniel Devaud, convicting them of involvement in laundering some 12 million dollars collected through illegal commissions, has referred the case to a jury instead of confirming the judgment under appeal.
Benazir’s spokesman in Islamabad has interpreted this decision as a full acquittal of the accused. His loyalty to his party boss is understandable, but loyalty beyond a certain point smacks of servility, if not dishonesty.
The official statement of the National Bureau of Accountability (NAB), which is pursuing this case in Swiss courts, presents the other side of the picture. It holds out the possibility of a severer punishment by the jury.
Whatever the reality of the situation, it appears that the Accountability Bureau will pursue the case further and Benazir and her spouse will not be off the hook soon.
This development has once again drawn attention to the corruption scenario in Pakistan.
When Gen. Musharraf took over power four years back, the people at large welcomed him enthusiastically, chiefly because he held out the promise of eradicating the canker of corruption permeating the upper echelon of the political elite.
The most endemic and entrenched manifestation of poor governance, corruption had become virtually a way of life in the country. Public exchequer had been robbed dry by both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir and the country was teetering at the brink of bankruptcy so much so that it was being gleefully referred to as a ‘failed state’ by the hostile media of our eastern neighbor.
The Chairman of Transparency International, Peter Eigen, had observed in mid-2000 “Political elite and their cronies continue to take kickbacks at every opportunity. Hand in glove with corrupt business people, they are trapping whole nations in poverty and hampering sustainable development.”
Transparency International had ranked Pakistan as the second most corrupt country of the world. Three years later, the same Transparency’s index showed Pakistan at the 29th place -no mean attainment of the present government.
By the time the army took over power in October, 1999, corruption had become the norm and honesty was but a joke. Plunder had acquired a seductive logic of its own. The leadership of the country had been finding it difficult to reconcile personal with national interest or to differentiate between personal and public funds.
The situation was quite different till the dismemberment of Pakistan in December 1971. Even during the rule of Z.A. Bhutto, corruption was not the norm. But, it did mark the beginning of major kickbacks in defense purchases, in the purchase of Mirage planes for instance.
Bureaucratic corruption too acquired a justification during Bhutto’s period. His 1973 constitution did away with the chapter on civil services that had guaranteed security of service to civil servants. That chapter had formed part of all pervious constitutions. By removing that, Mr. Bhutto placed the careers of all senior civil servants at his personal pleasure. Summary dismissal of some terrorized them all. The ensuing insecurity and the enormous administrative and financial powers at their disposal tempted them to seek security in nest eggs acquired through illegal means. For sheer survival, many turned into sycophants. Since they knew the ropes, they guided the political bosses into the ways and means of making money.
The nationalization of key industries and of banks opened innumerable new portals of corruption for the bureaucrats. They made a beeline for positions in these nationalized institutions to suck them dry. That is how the system of bad bank loans started.
Corruption, nepotism and incompetence became the hallmarks of the alliance between the politicians and the bureaucrats. The rule of law through institutions yielded to governance by individuals through cabals in which the bureaucrat became indistinguishable from the politician. In this new dispensation, every time a government changed, all crucial functionaries from a TV news editor to Federal Secretary were replaced by cronies of the new rulers.
A civil servant had to be either a friend of the politicians in power or of those in opposition. If neither, he was irrelevant and disposable.
Gen. Zia encouraged corruption to deflect any challenge to his position.
The Afghan war brought a lot of foreign money and weapons into the country. Easy access to weapons led to what is known now as the Klashnikov culture. The abnormal conditions of the war admitted of the production and export of narcotics. A new breed, called drug barons, emerged on both sides of the Afghan border.
Corruption kept spreading while the leader kept chanting his mantra of Islamization. Army officers, particularly of higher echelons, had their share of the pie. Living within the legitimate means became almost an offense.
Successive political regimes starting with Prime Minister Junejo in 1985 and continuing till the October ‘99 coup of Gen. Musharraf thrived on both political and financial corruption. The two stints each of Nawaz Sharif and Benazir took corruption to levels that attracted international media attention. Their scandals smelled to the sky. It was a total descent into the abyss of corruption.
Considering the extent to which Pakistan’s ruling elite were littered with corrupt scoundrels, the rounding up of loan defaulters, tax evaders and abusers of public funds and other such rogues by Musharraf government, were hailed by the public. But the slow process evoked skepticism of the people at large. Then came the dramatic disclosure of an agreement with the Sharif family whereby its ill-gotten wealth was surrendered to the government in return for the permission to all members of the family to go into exile in Saudi Arabia.
Full details of this deal have not been made public giving rise to public cynicism about the intentions of the army. Benazir, being a feudal lady, refused to enter into any such plea-bargain and continued to assert her innocence despite the mountain of evidence against her.
The army’s role in handling these two crooks has not been as transparent as expected. Public cynicism in this respect is reinforced by the past conduct of the army high command. For instance, in 1988, the ISI was said to have got Rs.140 million from Mehran Bank to distribute among political parties favored by the army. Gen. Mirza Aslam Beg, the Army chief at that time, has himself confirmed this.
Of course, Gen. Musharraf is no Aslam Beg or Ziaul Haq. He enjoys the reputation of being an honest and straight-forward person. But, the low turnout at his referendum and his decision to go ahead with the formation of the National Security Council despite the vast opposition to the concept, give rise to many a question.
Even a year back there were 17 Lt. Generals, 23 Major-Generals, 5 Brigadiers, 7 Air Vice Marshals, 4 Rear Admirals, almost all retired, in civilian positions. Junior officers have not been counted.
Granted that he needed a team that he could totally rely on to run the administration. But, did he need such a large team?
Another relevant development has been the whittling down of the once all powerful CSP cadre, known now as the DMG. Their jobs as District Commissioners have been given to the elected Nazims. This is, however, a significant change with far-reaching salutary effects.
Perhaps the setting up of the National Security Council, the transfer of powers to Nazims, and the induction of so many men in uniform into civilian positions, are meant to ensure the continued retention of power by the army. Would not this unchecked concentration of power in the hands of persons belonging to a particular sector of the society tempt them to feather their own nests? Wouldn’t this defeat the very concept of checks and balances that Gen. Musharraf has been mentioning so very often? Why there is no transparency in the handling of corrupt persons in uniform? Perhaps the concept of “the king can do no wrong” applies to them. Is there not a single Zardari among all the wielders of power in uniform.?
Arifhussaini@hotmail.com
| 
