We should be thankful to those few reporters, editors and newspaper owners who risked their limb and property in the last two years to publish stories of massive corruption and nepotism in Nawaz Sharif’s government. Nevertheless, as prime minister, Mr Sharif was immune from punishment. No such institutions exist, which are totally independent of and separated from the executive, to hold high government functionaries accountable for breaking the law. Even the judiciary is hopelessly inadequate for this task: its scope is restricted by the constitution and where it isn’t, the executive is able to cajole it into submission by exercising full discretion over all appointments, promotions, transfers and perks. Even the Lone Commission, which enquired into the Co-Ops scandal, was so straitjacketed by the prime minister’s narrow terms of reference that its hollow findings were a foregone conclusion.
But now that Nawaz Sharif is out of power, the interim government has set up an “Accountability Committee” to bring him to task. We are not impressed. Every time a government falls, a new one proclaims it will hold its predecessor accountable. We have lived through this barren and hypocritical experience so many times, from Gen Ayub Khan’s sacking of 303 civil servants to President Ishaq Khan’s ouster of Benazir Bhutto’s government, that most people are inclined to dismiss it as yet another self-serving political gimmick.
At any rate, two questions arise. (1) Is an unelected caretaker government legally authorised to hold a previous elected government to task? (2) If so, how can such a process be meaningful and fair? In other words, how can we ensure that “accountability” doesn’t degenerate into a “witch-hunt”?
In theory, of course, there is no reason why a legally constituted government, like the present one, cannot prosecute politicians who are alleged to have broken the law. After all, it exists under constitutional provisions and is perfectly entitled to enforce the laws of the land. A criminal is a criminal, and all alleged criminals must be dealt with in the same manner: the prosecution must prove that they are guilty of a criminal offense. And the proof of their crimes as well as the award of punishment must satisfy the due processes of law.
But this is easier said than done. The “references” against Ms Bhutto, however legally justified, made a mockery of due process. In the case of Mr Asif Zardari, the omissions of law were all the more glaring. Special courts with hand-picked judges smack of “witch-hunting” and not “accountability”. No wonder these cases have lost all credibility.
These lessons should not be lost on the new “Accountability Committee. The caretakers are entitled to hold press conferences and hurl accusations at Nawaz Sharif & Co. In turn, Mr Sharif is within his rights to haul them to the courts for libel. The caretakers may also legitimately invite members of the Sharif cabinet to defend their policies of commission and omission before the public on state-owned media. But if the intention is to lodge criminal cases against members of the previous government, the caretakers must not subvert the course of a fair trial by exploiting state-owned media institutions to tar or prejudge their political opponents.
As a matter of fact, as past experience testifies, no regime can credibly hold its political opponents to accountability without also opening itself to the same process. Unfortunately, the 1973 constitution is deficient on this count. And the various amendments enacted since then have made it less, not more, amenable to accountability. Its greatest shortcoming lies in its complete inability to address the central concerns of a democracy: the complete separation of the powers of the pillars of the state — executive, judiciary and press. How can any government ever be held accountable if it can easily bend the judiciary and press to do its bidding?
For this reason, we believe the “Accountability Committee” should be scrapped. Instead, the caretaker government should make genuine attempts to institutionalize political accountability so that future governments are continuously warned about overstepping the crease.
If this interim government is genuinely interested in institutionalising accountability, it should free the judiciary and press from the tentacles of the executive. It could also supplement such efforts by establishing an “Accountability Ombudsman” who meets with the approval of all the major political parties and whose terms of office, reference or scope cannot be circumscribed by the government in power. These steps can be taken immediately on the basis of a public dialogue among the major political leaders followed by an agreement to issue the necessary Ordinances and make them acts of parliament by the next legislature.
But is anyone listening in Islamabad? We doubt it. The cabinet is not even sure about its own position regarding Mr Sharif’s accountability. The chairman of the “Accountability Committee” says he will formally lodge cases against Mr Sharif. Yet he is using state-owned media to pre-judge Mr Sharif’s impending trial. He has also accused a high civil servant of transgressing the law. Yet the prime minister admits it was most inappropriate to level such accusations.
And so it goes on. Ad nauseam.