Democracy begins at home…

Granted the failure of political parties in submitting their financial statements for audit and scrutiny by the Election Commission does not affect most people directly. However, it exposes the break-down of our fundamental democratic institutions, namely our political parties, and calls for immediate action by those concerned with the survival of democracy in Pakistan

Shahzeb Jillani

Fifteen months ago, on June 11, 1996, a very stunning revelation was made on the floor of the National Assembly of Pakistan. Exposing the manipulation of Pakistan's political affairs by the anti-democratic forces of the country, the then federal interior minister, Naseerullah Babar, had disclosed to the nation the Establishment's undercover financing of certain politicians in the 1990 general elections. To support his statement, he had presented an affidavit by Lt Gen (Retd) Asad Durrani confessing the distribution of secret funds worth 140 million rupees in the capacity of Director General Inter Services Intelligence (ISI). (Durrani was designated as Pakistani Ambassador to Germany during the last Benazir Bhutto government, supposedly as a reward for his 'services' in the toppling of Nawaz Sharif government in early 1993!) Gen (R) Durrani's affidavit had claimed that in September 1990, he had "received instructions from the then Chief of Army Staff (COAS), (now retired) General Mirza Aslam Beg to provide logistic support to the disbursement of donations made by some businessmen of Karachi to the election campaign of Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI)."

These disclosures by the then interior minister had provoked former air force chief and leader of an almost defunct political party, Tehreek-e-Istaqlal, Air Marshal (Retd) Asghar Khan, to urge the Supreme Court of Pakistan to take a suo moto notice of the issue. In his letter addressed to Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah on June 16, 1996, Asghar Khan contended that "(t)he action of Gen (Retd) Mirza Aslam Beg and Gen (Retd) Asad Durrani amounts to gross misconduct and I am writing to ask that you may be pleased to initiate legal proceedings against both these persons who have brought the Armed Forces of Pakistan into disrepute and have been guilty of undermining the discipline of the Armed Forces."

On the face of it, it wasn't clear whether the former air chief was uncomfortable with the distribution of secret ISI funds to various politicians, or was it the public disclosure of these under-cover activities by a former DG ISI and COAS that disturbed him deeply. Nevertheless, the proceedings of the case during last one year has amply proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that politics in Pakistan continues to be plagued by capital investments by the under-cover intelligence agencies. Even Gen (Retd) Aslam Beg who denied his personal involvement in the transaction of Rs 140 million, secretly deposited and withdrawn from various branches of Habib Bank to finance leading politicians of the country, admitted to ISI's funding of various political forces.

Explaining his role as the COAS in the ISI's funding of IJI, earlier in June this year, Beg maintained before the Supreme Court: "In 1990 when the money was donated by Younas Habib, ISI was acting under the directions of higher authorities. As COAS at that time, when I was informed of the matter, my only concern was that the money received by the ISI was utilized properly and an account was maintained and beyond that, I had no concern with that money." Ironically, the former COAS had not hesitated to accept his contribution to the corrupting of our political culture, as he probably saw the situation as one of Establishment's routine covert activities undertaken 'in the best interest of the country'.

The times when this scandal had hit the print-media headlines, most political analysts had focused on the issue as a classic instance of undue manipulation of political actors and events by our intelligence agencies. A number of editorials, columns and news-reports published during the course of the revelations questioned the "ability of intelligence agencies such as ISI to secretly use public funds for purposes which amount to the strangulation of our infant democracy and are also beyond the scope of their legitimate activities". Questions were also raised regarding the justification for maintaining the so-called Political Cell in the ISI since 1975, an initiative which goes to the discredit of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Even though the political and intellectual debate which started out as a result of the disclosures by our former soldiers -Naseerullah Babar, Asad Durrani and Mirza Aslam Beg- raised some really valid questions regarding the systematic undermining of democracy in the country by the intelligence agencies, it over-looked other crucial dimensions of corruption in politics. That is to say, hardly any questions were raised regarding the legal or illegal financial sources of political parties themselves.

Similarly, the failure of Pakistan's political parties to develop into strong institutions has been attributed to the undue meddling of our intelligence agencies in the political affairs of the country, which is all fair and fine. But no or little responsibility has been fixed on our political parties or their respective leaderships for refusing to hold themselves at least internally accountable for their sources of funding and expenditure.

Hence, in 1990, it was the ISI supporting the IJI. But what about the 1993 and 1997 general elections? Where did the money come from in those elections? Which agency, whether local or foreign, supported various political parties in these elections? If the leading politicians and their parties can take 'donations' from ISI's political cell or president's election cell in the 1990, who could they refuse 'donations' from in the 1993 and 1997 elections? Lastly, while most public organizations, whether government or non-government, are subject to some kind of financial regulation in the form of a periodical audit, how come our political parties have been allowed to remain oblivious to their constitutional obligations in this regard?

In simple terms, the rampant corruption of politicians and political parties in Pakistan is a manifestation of how hollow and underdeveloped our democracy is. Here, 'self-correcting mechanisms' are either not fully in place or, if they are, they are not performing to their full extent. A glimpse at our political parties will help make the point clear. The three major political parties which explicitly stand up for the ideal of democracy, such as Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) and Mutahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), are all but categorical examples of autocratic decision-making bodies.

Similarly, other political parties such as, Jamat-e-Islami (JI) and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaaf (PTI), which have been criticizing PPP and PML-N as 'the two-sides of the same coin' as far as corruption is concerned and advocating 'impartial and rigorous accountability of the looters in both the parties', have themselves fallen short of maintaining clean financial statements of their parties. Supposedly, this year both JI and PTI failed to submit their annual financial statements for the year 1996-97 to the office of Director General Audit, Islamabad, by the September 13 deadline. The fact that both the parties have chosen to evade their constitution obligation of accounting for their sources of funding and spending during last year, only exposes their sincerity to their identical pro-accountability rhetoric.

The hollow and underdeveloped nature of our democracy is further compounded by the fact that much of the public debate and discussion is dominated by particular incidents which are specific, narrow and temporary in nature. Issues or controversies on a broader level which are typically extended over longer period of time are often ignored as another story of 'an institutional failure'. Watch-dogs like the print-media and non-governmental pressure groups which typically serve as important and influential 'self-correcting mechanisms' in developed democracies, often suffer from lack of coordination in Pakistan.

While a better coordination and support has been displayed among these two institutions on some issues, such as their pro-judiciary stand in the on-going 'judiciary vs. executive debate' or their opposition to the recently passed Anti-terrorism Act, other important issues of broader nature such as police reforms, electoral reforms or financial accountability of political parties have failed to receive the required importance. And in the opinion of this author, it is this failure of the 'self correcting mechanisms' or 'watch-dogs' of our democracy which is ultimately responsible for the perpetual financial corruption in and of politics.

Granted the failure of political parties in submitting their financial statements for audit and scrutiny by the Election Commission does not affect most people directly. However, it exposes the break-down of our fundamental democratic institutions, namely our political parties, and calls for immediate action by those concerned with the survival of democracy in Pakistan.

It seems okay for a people not to address a problem which has not been brought to their notice, but what can be said of a people who choose to ignore the very erosion of their fundamental democratic institutions right in front of their eyes? Let us seize the moment and act before someone declares this a 'failed experiment of democracy' and interrupts the democratic process once again. Let us start building public pressure on our political parties to reform themselves along democratic lines and hold themselves accountable in their money-matters. Finally, let us play our role in the institutional development of political parties for, no matter how much some of us may hate the corruption of our existing political parties, their role remains vital to our developing democracy.

05 October, 1997