EDITORIAL: A Business Recorder exclusive noted that during the run-up to the Senate elections the Prime Minister was informed by parliamentarians that they are victims of the “system’s bias” defined as reluctance of bureaucrats to sign off on development projects in their constituencies due to fear of unjustified notice by National Accountability Bureau (NAB), their ineligibility to become members of boards of directors of state-owned entities and even opening bank accounts by being labeled as politically-exposed persons (PEPs). To deal with these complaints, Prime Minister Khan set up a four-man committee consisting of Minister of Education (convener), Minister for Defence, Minister for Science and Technology and Advisor to the Prime Minister on Institutional Reforms and Austerity to determine the reasons for delays in projects/bias.
It is important to note that the Khan administration has repeatedly complained about the partisan approach by senior bureaucrats appointed/promoted during previous administrations dragging their feet in following the directives of the incumbent executive while at other times has acknowledged that the fear of NAB notice/action is a factor in delays in issuing notifications approving projects. In January 2020, the government issued an ordinance and upon its lapse a bill was prepared that sought to take account of these concerns. However, to date, these issues have not been dealt with. While the opposition members continue to accuse NAB of undertaking severely partisan accountability, government parliamentarians accuse NAB of being responsible for bureaucrats’ reluctance to implement executive directives particularly those envisaging project disbursements.
The proposed amendment to NAB laws has remained hostage to politics in this country with the government routinely hurling charges against the opposition of seeking a ‘National Reconciliation Ordinance’ for its senior leadership (pertaining to both PML-N and PPP) under the money laundering act whose passage was required to meet the Financial Action Task Force’s conditions to forestall placement on the black list; while the opposition continues to lament the partisan nature of NAB inquiries and references against its senior leadership. In this context, it is relevant to note that during the PPP and the PML-N governments the subject of NAB’s partisan performance routinely surfaced with Nawaz Sharif attacking its actions against businessmen and senior bureaucrats when he was Prime Minister yet neither sought amendments to the NAB ordinance – a policy that continues to this day.
To add to this untenable situation is the recent successful resistance by the All Pakistan Provincial Civil Services Association to the 12 March 2021 decision by the Establishment Division to increase the number of federal bureaucrats on provincial posts from 299 to 1121 – a 305 percent rise, a decision taken without consultations of all the stakeholders.
The hallmark of the present government, like its predecessors, has been to take decisions based on their stint while in power while completely overlooking the distinct possibility of a time when it will be in opposition. And it is this short-sighted view that accounts for administration after administration not only taking decisions that it believes benefit it politically in the short-term (though on many an occasion it derails the development process) but is also a major stumbling block in ensuring the passage of necessary legislation of national interest through discussion in parliament with the opposition.
Today our parliament and the general public remain polarized. Reports also indicate that this polarization extends to the cabinet with the Ministry of Finance failing to share the International Monetary Fund’s document with the Law Ministry while inexplicably requiring it to vet legislation drafts that are required to be enacted as prior conditions under the IMF covenant document. While no doubt the Ministry of Finance has taken the Prime Minister on board on the document yet as per the Supreme Court the government constitutes the cabinet and not only the Prime Minister. Recent policy decisions indicate a set of “prior” conditions agreed by the economic team, including a raise in the electricity tariffs, gas tariffs and petroleum tariffs (which were strayed by the Prime Minister the second time in one month) with obvious implications on the budget deficit which will have repercussions on other taxes and/or reducing expenditure. There is therefore a need for all ministers to be more open with their cabinet colleagues and at the same time parliament must be the forum where all documents are shared to ensure a meaningful debate. In this context, it may be recalled that parliament was informed that the government had not agreed to revisit the National Finance Commission award, an assertion that was not accurate as the IMF documents revealed.
There is therefore a need for the government to take the initiative and share all documents with other cabinet members as well as with parliament (in-camera if necessary though the IMF uploads the detailed document on its website as soon as its board approves a loan or tranche release) and to come up with a procedure to ensure the limited liability of bureaucrats. Additionally, it may also be appropriate to launch a more rigorous senior bureaucratic/cabinet member appointment process given the sustained poor performance of many state-owned entities/ministries/departments. While acknowledging that it is the prerogative of the executive and not of the courts or parliament to make appointments yet sadly the situation has become so dire that some judicial/parliamentary activism in this regard is desirable.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021
Comments
Comments are closed.