The traditional definition of corruption is the misuse of authority by someone in a position of authority who has duties to the general public. Such dishonest action frequently suggests the desire of personal gain.
The term “corruption” covers a wide range of behaviour, including the misappropriation of public funds and resources by government agencies, the use of state assets for personal gain, the payment of kickbacks in illegal deals, bribes, and nepotism. However, it may also take the form of less evident, legal or questionably legal acts like lobbying or state capture, where a party’s political self-interest directs the country’s decision-making process in order to covertly advance its own objectives.
The different interpretations of corruption suggest that it is a flexible and unstable idea. Although there are many phrases that conflict and overlap when describing corruption, illegality and breach of duty are the most common ones. Since corruption is a reflection of the social, political, and economic structure of a particular State, it may also be a response to subpar or unfavourable policies made by officials. People may exploit these monitoring inequalities to circumvent the law when the institutions in charge of policing compliance are ineffective or incompetent people are given positions of authority.
Corruption may occur on various levels. Petty corruption occurs where citizens interact with state representatives during the delivery of public services, whereas grand corruption occurs at the highest levels of governance and necessitates deeper infiltration into the political, judicial, and business sectors.
Corruption may become endemic, permeate the system, and give rise to a sustained corrupt hierarchy if a State is unable to control its misdeeds owing to organisational flaws, political, economic, or social instability. Conflicting interests, arbitrary policies, a lack of transparency, monopolisation of power, poor wages, and immunity from punishment are all signs of systematic corruption. These indicators are insufficient to identify corruption, however, as it is a covert activity that is challenging to watch and assess.
Since Pakistan’s founding in 1947, shortly after British India was divided, it has battled the issue of corruption. Pakistan thus acquired not only the British legal system but also the institutions that were well-known for their strong bureaucratic elite that had been brought up to support British rule. Additionally, Pakistan’s anti-corruption legislation was created to defend the political establishment rather than the entire public. Given this, it is not surprising that the anti-corruption legislation was essentially set apart from the interests of the general people. The effectiveness of the anti-corruption bodies was further harmed and degraded by the following changes of regimes between military and civilian institutions as a result of numerous successful coup d’états. This assertion can be supported by the observation that there have been no significant advancements in the fight against corruption in any civilian government.
The highest levels of corruption continue to be a huge problem for the nation and obstruct real social improvements. A change in policy has become necessary for the country’s progress, along with the strengthening of democratic institutions, particularly the judiciary. Regardless of the perpetrators, it is imperative to expose the truth in order to bring about justice or at the very least to give the general public more of a sense that corruption cannot go unpunished.
Corrupt officials are held accountable and punished severely under Pakistani law, although this only happens on paper since society frequently has a tendency to normalise and excuse certain fraudulent practices.
The major institution responsible for combating corruption is the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), which was founded by the military administration in 1999. However, the NAB faces severe funding and staffing constraints. The anti-corruption laws state that any abuse of official authority is a criminal punishable by up to 14 years in prison, although no one has ever received this sentence.
In cultures with high levels of social division, such as Pakistan, the use of public power for personal benefit is likely to create an environment where it is likely to receive societal acceptance and appreciation. This is what is known as the “moral view of corruption,” according to which an act of corruption is justified when a public official offers and receives favours from his or her relatives, friends, and supporters.
The illegal acquisition of (overseas) properties by government officials, Pakistan’s ruling class, and army personnel is not a recent occurrence. Neither are corruption, money laundering, or the laundering of corrupt funds. All facets of public life demonstrate how ubiquitous corruption, a lack of institutional isomorphism, and a lack of social cohesion are in the nation. The only time a lion works is when he is starving; else, the predator and prey coexist quietly.
However, it appears that in Pakistan, rulers, whether elected or dictatorial, never manage to satiate their appetite for wealth and power, leaving the nation swinging for decades in a cradle of political anarchy and illegal rule, where the common people are left defenceless and without any hope for peaceful development.
The highest levels of corruption continue to be a huge problem for the nation and obstruct real social improvements. A change in policy has become necessary for the country’s progress, along with the strengthening of democratic institutions, particularly the judiciary. Regardless of the perpetrators, it is imperative to expose the truth in order to bring about justice or at the very least to give the general public more of a sense that corruption cannot go unpunished.
The populace deserves a Pakistan free of corruption, based on institutions of accountability run by upright civilian and military leaders.
