Regardless of the effect the PTI had on political fortunes, it succeeded in emphasizing the significance of the law governing the raising and use of money for political purposes, just as it was intended that it would for the political classes, who must adhere strictly to the letter of the law.
But five months later, it's become clear that this was just another instance of overly optimistic thinking. Every elected official serving in the national, provincial, and senate assembly as well as the Senate was constitutionally required to submit a copy of their account of assets and liabilities to the ECP at the end of the fiscal year. However, according to data from the ECP, not much has changed this year, with 570 or 48% of lawmakers being members of parliament.
It is not a recent legal requirement that elected MPs submit their yearly declarations of assets and liabilities. For more than 20 years, this has been a component of the legislative framework governing the use of funds in politics. As astounding as it may sound, over the past 20 years or so, the majority of elected legislators, if not all of them, have missed the deadline until the ECP, as required by law, temporarily suspends their membership in the assemblies, makes this information public, and only reinstates their membership after they submit the necessary statements.
The figures do provide an embarrassing account. According to information provided by the ECP, just 610 of the 1191 legislators who make up our Senate, national assembly, and provincial assemblies have submitted accounts of assets and liabilities.
This legislative obligation is detailed in the Elections Act of 2017, which was passed by parliament with political consensus—something that appears absolutely unusual in the heated political environment of today. According to clause 137 of the law, each lawmaker must annually submit to the ECP a copy of their account of assets and liabilities, which must include the assets and liabilities of their respective spouses and dependent children, on or before December 31 of each year.
The paragraph goes on to specify further that the ECP must publish the names of members who failed to provide the required statement of assets and liabilities within the required time frame in a press release on January 1st of every year. Then, on January 16th, the ECP issues an order suspending the membership of any assembly and senate members who fail to file their mandatory yearly statement of assets and liabilities by January 15th. Until that time, the member is unable to perform their duties.
The Elections Act of 2017 goes into additional detail about how important it is for legislators to provide accurate annual declarations of assets and liabilities. According to the law, if a legislator submits a statement of assets and liabilities, and it is later discovered to be materially false, the member may be prosecuted for engaging in corrupt behavior within 125 days of the day the statement was submitted.
Under Pakistan's legal framework governing political finance, which is used to describe all money and funds that are raised and spent for political purposes such as for electoral campaigns, party and candidate funding, and how this funding is regulated and disclosed in a political system, the annual submission of statements of assets and liabilities is part of the disclosure requirements for candidates and elected representatives. Our electoral laws also mandate expenditure caps and the disclosure of crucial financial information from parties, candidates, and legislators.
Use of money in politics exposes democracy to the risks of policy capture in the absence of effective regulation. In addition to the critical requirement of developing adequate capacity of financial monitoring, scrutiny, and enforcement in the ECP, our political finance system requires a limit on election spending by parties and a transparent system of regulation of public, private, and corporate funding to parties and candidates.
So what does the fact that almost half of our elected officials missed the annual deadline for the legal disclosure obligation mean for citizens? Does it demonstrate their adherence to the law? Or is there no long-term political impact because missing a few deadlines equates to little more than a tap on the wrist in the shape of a temporary suspension of membership? Whatever the case, one thing is certain: the name and shaming of legislators that was incorporated into the bill has not led to better legal compliance by the very legislators who pushed this into law.
Is it difficult to comprehend Pakistan's dismal performance year after year in the worldwide Rule of Law Index simply in light of this context? What hope is there for the nation's democratic government, which is so closely linked to the rule of law, if our MPs routinely show such contempt for the letter of the law?
You must be logged in to post a comment.