From Parliament to Prison: The Politics of Accountability in Pakistan

In Pakistan, the journey from the halls of Parliament to the stark reality of prison often seems less about upholding justice and more about the rough and tumble of politics. The country’s talk of accountability has consistently been mixed up with selective application, the constant back-and-forth of political feuds, and the jostling for power among institutions. The concept of accountability, while presented as a commitment to honest governance, unfortunately often becomes a political tool, used more to target rivals than to genuinely fortify democratic foundations.

The Accountability Paradox

Pakistan’s political narrative is punctuated by the rise and fall of its leaders, a recurring event marked by transitions from positions of influence to imprisonment when the winds shift and someone else takes over the throne. Consider, for example, the highly debated trial of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the late 1970s, or the corruption allegations levelled against Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari. And most recently, Imran Khan has experienced a similar fate, suggesting a rather predictable pattern.

It is a common observation that ruling elites often seem immune to accountability while they wield power. Rather, such scrutiny seems to commence when they lose favor with the establishment or their political clout diminishes, bringing someone else to power.

This situation invites a deeper consideration: is accountability in Pakistan truly about reinforcing democratic principles or does it primarily serve to marginalize political opponents? If the goal were, in fact, to genuinely address corruption, one might ask why the accountability process so often seems to disproportionately focus on those in opposition, while allies who hold power appear to avoid similar investigations.

Institutions as Political Tools

Pakistan’s National Accountability Bureau (NAB), ostensibly the country’s leading body for fighting corruption, presents a rather complicated picture. While launched in 1999 under General Pervez Musharraf, the promise then being to reclaim stolen assets and boost governmental transparency, NAB has become known for what some might call selective application of the law and political targeting in the name of accountability.

Indeed, it seems successive administrations have found NAB to be a useful tool for keeping their opponents on the defensive. We often see opposition figures caught up in lengthy investigations, even detained for extended periods prior to any trial, and portrayed publicly as being corrupt. At the same time, cases involving those aligned with the ruling party tend to either languish or simply vanish altogether. This clear disparity undermines the integrity of an agency that should, above all else, be ensuring accountability across the board.

Furthermore, the Pakistani judicial system also finds itself drawn into this problematic dynamic. And when courts disqualify sitting prime ministers based on what many perceive as dubious reasons or when they approve politically motivated arrests, it can deeply impact the public’s confidence in the legal system’s neutrality. Such actions often reinforce the impression that political maneuvering is taking precedence over unbiased judicial processes.

The Political Economy of Prison

In Pakistan, it seems prison can inadvertently boost a leader’s standing. Emerging from behind bars, they’re often seen as stronger, casting themselves as victims. For their followers, jail reinforces the idea that they’re resilient against oppressive forces. Take Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, for example. His execution essentially cemented his status as a martyr for democracy. Nawaz Sharif’s time in prison? It arguably amplified his image as someone battling against establishment overreach. Now, Imran Khan, too, is trying to turn his current incarceration into political gold.

This situation underscores a big irony in Pakistan’s accountability efforts: instead of cleaning up politics, it may be fueling cycles of victimhood, populism, and widespread sympathy for leaders who’ve been jailed. The very act of accountability can end up undermining the process itself, turning it into a political showdown more than a genuine pursuit of justice.

The Missing Piece

The real downside of this state of affairs and these patterns is the continuing lack of actual accountability. What Pakistan needs, more than anything, is a fair and system-wide approach to keeping everyone in check. However, these changes are hard to come by. It seems accountability is handier as a political tool than as something fundamental to democracy itself, embedded deep inside institutions.

If genuine accountability were to take root, a few things would need to happen. Firstly, there is a need for independent anti-corruption groups. These should be shielded from political meddling and their leaders picked through agreement from both sides of the aisle.

Secondly, there is the matter of judicial reforms. These are crucial for making sure trials happen promptly and fairly and that protections exist against prosecutions with political motives. Thirdly, parliamentary oversight is needed. This entails elected officials holding institutions accountable, rather than the other way around, where institutions become victims of those in power.

And we cannot forget transparency in how the government works. This means moving away from simply punishing wrongdoers and moving towards preventive measures, such as open financial disclosures, clear contracts, and accessible data. Until these kinds of changes come about, accountability will, sadly, remain a game of musical chairs, today’s leaders locking up yesterdays, only to find the tables turned on them tomorrow.

A Vicious Cycle

The accountability push in politics has not really squashed corruption or boosted good governance, has it? What it has done, though, is make the political situation even more unstable. Investment? Discouraged. Public trust? Eroded. Every time there’s another round of arrests and trials, things just get more polarized. Dialogue? Erased. Governance really takes a hit because everyone is too busy fighting about who and what is legal.

And all of these legal battles are not free of cost. Pakistan has got grave economic problems which can broadly be put under debt and inflation, but all the political and policy making energy is going into courts, prisons, and proving that the opponent is corrupt. Meanwhile, for the average person, accountability is just some faraway show, more of a reminder of the powerful squabbling than an actual help and service to democracy.

Breaking the Chains

The real issue is not whether accountability is necessary in Pakistan, but rather, what form should it take? A system that makes political activity a crime while ignoring widespread corruption is hardly a path to democracy. It seems accountability should not just kick in when leaders are out of office, it needs to be happening while they’re in power, which is to say, with real-time transparency.

As long as accountability remains a political tool, the same cycle of parliament-to-prison will keep making rounds, eroding democracy and deepening social divisions gradually. On the other hand, if genuine reforms are pursued, Pakistan might transition from this idea of selective justice to a truly systemic one – moving away from political witch hunts and towards the rule of law.

Accountability should not be a just a catchy phrase or slogan. Ideally, it is a core, foundational principle of a democratic system. In its absence of simple manipulation, parliament risks becoming just another stop on the way to prison, and Pakistan’s political system is doomed to this constant cycle of vengeance rather than progress.

*The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of TDI.