Perception and Reality

Political corruption is a term very often used regarding political candidates using a country’s facilities and reserves to attain private gain. It is also associated with institutional corruption, where an establishment sets new rules of ethics to control power, and dominant political figures have the ability to “expand their range of action, not just with weapons but mainly through political influence and economic investments.”

In Pakistan, however, corruptive practices tend to vary since they encapsulate a range of traditions that have been present in the region for a while, in that the country’s legislative structure is quite contradictory to the perception of power its political candidates carry. Since key political parties that have often come to serve high office, with the likes of Pakistan Muslim League - Nawaz (PML-N) and Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) have continuously handed over power through kinship, corruption has become centralized and synonymous with authority. However, due to these corruptive practices of the established powers, the country has faced a dissolution of assemblies and inconsistent re-elections. Hence, Pakistan is no stranger to a crisis of democracy.

Time and again, the country has faced severe and abrupt removals of various prime ministers, from the forced resignation of Chaudhari Muhammad Ali (1956) to the no-confidence vote that usurped Imran Khan’s power (2022). This tumultuous political tirade has disrupted the peaceful exchange of power, and from the twenty-nine Prime Ministers that the country has witnessed take office since 1947, none have completed a single term. However, it is within this vacuum, when a prime minister is removed, the National Assembly is dissolved, and power is being negotiated from one party to the next, that Pakistan is governed by a “Caretaker Government.”

A Caretaker Government is a set of governing bodies that come to play when the country is in jeopardy—they are, quite literally, taking care of a designated political position until a fresh body of elected officials comes to sit. In accordance with the 1973 Constitution and the Elections Act of 2017, the Caretaker bodies are also in charge of making sure that elections occur with openness, equity, and clarity. On paper, they are to carry out free and fair elections. However, it is an open secret known across the legislative, judiciary, and executive branches of Pakistan that for every organ of the state, the written law is far different from the ground reality.

Nevertheless, the process of selecting the caretaker government is quite banal, and its credibility, quite standard, wherein interim assisting bodies should be independent of any political inclination and fairly acceptable to all political parties. Their mandate is limited to running the affairs of the previously existing government and foreseeing the policies that have already been proposed or are in the process of maturing. In short, their primary obligation is to mediate official duties during the vacuum of shifting powers. It is a national fact and, at times, a practicing rule, that whoever becomes part of the caretaker cabinet is most often free of political ties and should not be able to influence anything. They are assigned to handle routine matters and are exhumed to pass any new policies or legislation. For they are transitionary, their national imprint is restricted to ten minutes of fame, which gives a testament to the credibility of their character. In short, they are dummy heads who the bureaucracy can report to. Hence, as a practice, such a person should be apolitical, unbiased, and equipped with somewhat of an understanding of the governance structure. Quite aptly, they must be aware of the day-to-day functionaries and familiarity with the Pakistani legal system and foreign policy to understand and make everyday decisions accordingly.

However, it is quite interesting to note how candidates within the caretaker position have often been more credible than elected officials, and a striking example comes from within the same political party. Malik Meraj Khalid, a founding father of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), was a leftist politician who served as a Caretaker Prime Minister for Pakistan from November 1996 to February 1997. He was favoured by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and inspired his political alignment from Marxist socialism, wherein he emphasized the equal distribution of wealth and promoted literacy. Although he was a caretaker prime minister, he portrayed in his demeanour a true sense of a leader who was giving and forthlooking for the nation. Ten years down the line, in 2008, from the very PPP that was envisaged by Malik Meraj Khalid, came Yousuf Raza Gilani.

Gilani had been sentenced to six years in prison prior to serving in high office. He was convicted of appointing “339 of his cronies and favourites to government departments” and “awarded contracts for the renovation of the National Assembly for Rs 18.7 million on a single quotation [without an] approval from the competent authority.” His counterpart Asif Ali Zardari was infamously known as “Mr. 10 Percent.” Zardari had a long history of corruptive practices, whether it was to “curb customs fraud in Pakistan, for which he was paid millions of dollars between 1994 and 1996,” or owning multiple “offshore companies” and monopolizing “on gold imports that sustained Pakistan’s jewellery industry,” yet, after Musharraf’s overthrow, he was elected as president.

Apart from this striking turn of political trajectories within the same party, there have been many more examples of caretakers that have been far more credible than elected heads. However, even if they are much more qualified and dignified to carry higher office, it must be noted that there is a reason they are not being elected, and that does not entirely have to do with the ever-present conspiracy of the country being run by the West—the fault also lies within the nation.

A country’s leadership and perception are two sides of the same coin. They cannot function in singularity, for they breed each other hence, a temporary fix cannot resolve an existing flaw within the nation’s fabric. An honest momentary Caretaker Prime Minister cannot alter the perception of an entire nation when the elected officials that often come to power have always been corrupt. The most significant reason for electing corrupt candidates in Pakistan would have to be an amalgamation of certain elements – firstly, a scarcity and, at this point, an absence of an honest leader who has legitimately risen from the public. Second, a realization that since an establishing force has an everlasting hold on the country, every standing candidate will either be appointed through that power hold or under its influence, and lastly, which might be the most important factor is that people want a leader who resonates with their moral compass. Pakistanis want a leader who absolves their offenses and will excuse their illegal and unethical acts. It is the attitude of a nation that is reflected within its leader, and where crime, corruption, and greed suffocate a people’s conscience, how can an honest leader come to represent them? He can, if at all, sit and witness the existing ongoing crisis. Hence, inherently, Pakistanis are not prepared to be taken care of by a sound leader, for when a nation does not live by truth, it cannot be reflected in its leader.