Corruption and selectivity

The issue of corruption was supposed to occupy a large place in the July 25 elections, but the process seemed to be pursued further than expected, with the disqualifications of former Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbbadi and PTI spokesperson Fawad Chaudhry for not being sadiq and ameen and although they were reinstated, they were accompanied by a former minister and a former MP disqualified for contempt, as well as that the arrest of the candidate of the PML (N) against the party dissident Ch Nisar Ali Khan by the National Bureau of Accountability in the case Saaf Pani Company

The judiciary and the agencies of The investigation may be neutral, but the resulting responsibility has prompted the daughter of Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif to say that proponents of the PML (N) should be targeted. that no other crimes, and forbidden to challenge the elections anyway. It can be noted that the PML (N) is not the only party affected by the responsibility, but while the PTI is the following, the PPP has escaped until now.

It is also remarkable that the PML (N) Punjab government is facing targeting, the PTI government in KPK and the PPP government in Sindh have not encountered any difficulties. It is not claimed that Saaf Pani was a service delivery model or that it was a vehicle of corruption. However, in both cases, it was an innovation, a departure from the past. ITP and PPP were both stuck in traditional forms of governance. It can also be noted that the Punjab has the only outgoing Chief Minister competing for national power.

This may be a reflection of the fact that PML (N) had been in power since the last term as it faces corruption charges. (or rather individuals inside of it), but this also seems to correspond to the type of pre-election rigging that has always been done. One result was that no party has ever won national reelection. It is true that PML (N) and PPP were re-elected respectively in Punjab and Sindh in 2013, but these were in the provinces. True, the PPP was re-elected in 1977, but this election was tainted enough for a movement to be launched against it and martial law imposed.

In previous years, starting in 1988, it seems to have been enough to oust the government in the medium term so that it would lose the elections that followed. This time, the pattern seems to be accentuated even more strongly. The slogan of "Pehley ehtsab, phir intikhab" (responsibility first and then elections) dates back to 1977, being raised to justify both postponement of elections and martial court trials of former public representatives for corruption.

The experience of corruption by elected officials, used to justify military takeovers and dismissals of governments, may be disappearing. This could explain why PML (N) is not more disorganized than it currently is. The problem is not corruption, but the punishment of corruption. Ouster did not lead to punishment. The PML (N) would like to argue that it has not been corrupted at all, but that would only increase the resentment to the ouster, do not change it from any way.

Corruption is a problem live, and felt enough by the common man to influence his vote. However, is it preventable in the current system? The experience of other older democracies says that this is not the case. There have been too many scandals in the recent past involving corruption by politicians so that one can badume that corruption is not specifically a Pakistani issue. It should be noted that while the Panama Papers affected Pakistan by playing a key role in the overthrow of Mian Nawaz, their impact was global, with the other heads of government forced out of office

. . The case against Mian Nawaz involves his children. The supervision of the charges brought against Sara, the wife of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, requires him to order: very often, and up to the taxpayers' money. This shows how families can get used to living well. Elected officials receive taxpayers' money to allow them to focus on their office rather than earning a living. One of the problems of the current system is that elected representatives decide on their own salaries and allowances. In the private sector, only the owners decide on their own compensation. Elected representatives, who come from the private sector, decide for themselves.

Indeed, they make all the laws, in which they are personally interested. Legislators receive a salary, as well as additional amounts to travel, not to mention free health insurance. Yet they are free to continue their professional and professional activities. For example, they may operate or serve as members of corporate boards of directors and receive dividends on the shares they may hold within them. Yet, they can legislate on the tax rates of these companies. It should be noted that wages were paid to lawmakers in the manner of the Westminster practice, and wages were introduced only in 1911. Originally, the deputies were supposed to serve, without compensation, but in 1911, the large number of elected parties, who supported the then-ruling Liberal government, needed wages to make up for the jobs they had to give up.

Legislators are also empowered to enact other laws, some of which may be of benefit to them. An example of this is the farm income tax. The original exemption was pbaded by a House that was full of members dependent on agriculture for their income. The pressure of credit institutions led to the imposition of a farm income tax, but it was badessed and perceived as old property income, which was abolished

In these circumstances, ask for to lawmakers not to be corrupt, it is to ask them to be superhuman. What matters is the type of corruption. The United States, for example, is periodically lulled by scandals that show Congress members are abusing the system endemicly. The salary of the American president is substantial, $ 400,000, with $ 119,000 more, but it is much more expensive. President Barack Obama cost $ 12 million a year, while President Trump, during his first 100 days, cost $ 100 million. It does not seem important that he donate his salary. However, all this is legal. One effect is to make sure that the president does not take money. In the United States, it matters. In 2004, George W. Bush spent $ 345 million on his re-election; in 2012. Obama spent $ 774.5 million. Trump spent $ 398 million on his election. He must be ready to raise a lot of money to be reelected in 2020. Would it be enough for him to avoid taking stuffed envelopes, or is there another standard? to respect?

However, an additional element that seems to play in Pakistan, and not in the West, is that of manipulation of the process. Perhaps it's not as blatant as currently, where it seems like a party is chosen, but there has always been the perception that elections are not transparent and that desired results "are always obtained. Desired by whom? The PML (N) is reluctant to claim that it is the army, the PPP much more ready. Whatever it is, one must remember that the electorate shows little sign of wanting to be manipulated by this accusation.

One problem is that many voters do not see corruption as a problem, as long as it 's in their favor. . They fear only corruption when they do not benefit. The ITFL's narrative that such corruption ultimately prevents the government from providing services may not survive the stream of "voters" who have received tickets and who will form the majority of the majority of voters. They will get

.

n The writer is a veteran journalist and a founding member as well as editor of The Nation.

Corruption is an ongoing problem, and he is pretty much abused by the common man to influence his vote. However, is it avoidable in the current system?