PAKISTAN’S recurring economic crises are often framed as failures of fiscal discipline or external shocks. Yet, perhaps the deeper, more enduring hurdle, as indicated by the IMF’s Pakistan: Governance and Corruption Diagnostic Report, released last November, lies in the ongoing erosion of governance, a rules-based administration and public accountability. Economic fragility is more than figures on a balance sheet. It is what is generated cumulatively by weak institutions, discretionary power and compromised oversight. The GCD provides an in-depth diagnosis of these shortcomings, offering an opportunity for course correction, if the rulers resolve to address its findings.
The GCD does not identify corruption as isolated transgressions put together; instead, what it underlines is the systemic weakness of governance arrangements that favour selectiveness over the rules and secrecy over transparency. We can see a similar pattern across fiscal management, market regulation, financial oversight and the justice system. In all these, authority becomes fragmented, internal controls are weak, appointments politicised and accountability is limited. These factors do more than enable corruption; they normalise it. Thus we see rent-seeking in everyday administration. NAB and FIA, the two major national institutions mandated to combat corruption, are used openly by the ruling elite for political engineering and settling scores against opponents.
In the absence of an independent judiciary, the rule of law, which is the bedrock of any functioning economy, is similarly compromised. Both legal certainty and investor confidence are shaken when faced with huge case backlogs, a plethora of special courts and tribunals, and judicial appointments widely seen as opaque. This results in businesses avoiding formal dispute resolution; they prefer, instead, to take recourse in informal arrangements that only further entrench inequality and weaken institutional legitimacy. Reactive anti-corruption efforts, meanwhile, result in a skewed approach. High-profile prosecutions might be headline news but do little to rectify vulnerabilities that encourage corruption.
The GCD’s policy recommendations are, by and large, sensible and aligned with good international practice. They include a level procurement playing field, end-to-end e-procurement, rationalising business regulations and strengthening audit independence, besides improving the effectiveness of AML-CFT rules and laws. The GCD also suggests reforms for policy, revenue administration and public investment management. But the question implicit in the diagnostic is, why haven’t such reforms already taken root? True, to exit the FATF grey list, some concerted efforts did yield positive results through successfully investigating and prosecuting cases of terror financing and illicit financial flows. Subsequently, the creation of a federal-level Anti-Money Laundering Authority improved coordination and monitoring. The report acknowledges this.
The question implicit in the diagnostic is, why haven’t such reforms already taken root?
Civil society’s perspective is helpful in taking a holistic view of the governance paradigm. Numerous reform blueprints exist in the country but what is missing is sustained implementation that rejects political interference. It is all too often that governance reforms become technocratic exercises, instead of being seen as political and social projects. Informal power structures have diluted or reversed reform gains.
Moreover, while the report acknowledges, in principle, the importance of non-state actors, it does not bring in civil society, an independent media and citizen oversight into the reform architecture — a notable omission. In fact, in many foreign environments where formal checks and balances are weak, public scrutiny, investigative journalism and community monitoring have been useful curbs on power and its misuse.
Civil society, therefore should be treated as a central actor in reform — and not as a peripheral stakeholder. Its main role is that of an implementation watchdog. By systematically tracking reform commitments, budget allocations, procurement practices, and institutional performance, civil society organisations, academia and the media can help bridge the gap between policy adoption and practice. Independent scrutiny can sustain reform momentum beyond electoral cycles and expose backsliding that might otherwise go unpunished.
Second, civil society has the ability to boost evidence-based public discourse. It is easy for technically complex governance reforms to be buried in bureaucratic jargon. In fact, they should be translated into easily comprehensible analyses, which explain, for instance, how tax exemptions compromise tax equality or how loopholes in procurement inflate costs. This can inform parliamentary debate and improve public understanding. Strategic use of access-to-information laws can also expose the gaps between official claims and administrative reality.
Third, civil society can be a constructive policy interlocutor. Reforms will face resistance or capture unless there is consultation. Professional associations, research institutions and sectoral watchdogs are in a position to give solid feedback on regulatory burdens and service-delivery failures. Such engagement will strengthen the state itself, by anchoring policy in lived experience.
Last, there is a critical role for civil society to play in preventing corruption and inculcating the ethos of integrity. At points where the state’s oversight is at its weakest, community monitoring of development projects, procurement observation, budget tracking and awareness drive can discourage corruption. In the same vein, sustained advocacy against arbitrary exemptions in taxation can bring the consequences of elite privilege under scrutiny and build public support for an equitable tax base.
However, an enabling environment is essential for civil society to play its due role. Access to information, protection of civil space and institutional consultation are prerequisites for durable reform. Recent moves that weaken transparency — such as diluting asset-declaration requirements for legislators — negate the spirit of accountability the GCD emphasises, risking further erosion of the public’s trust.
In the final analysis, the GCD’s value lies in the choices we have. Governance reform cannot be episodic, crisis-driven or externally imposed; it must be rooted in constitutionalism, rules-based administration, and an informed and engaged citizenry. Economic recovery without institutional repair will always be fragile and prone to reversals. The challenge is not simply to implement another set of reforms, but to reclaim the idea of the state as a neutral, accountable and lawful custodian of public interest — a task that demands both political courage and civic vigilance.
The writer, a former police officer, is director of Centre for Governance Research, an independent policy and advocacy think tank.
Published in Dawn, February 7th, 2026
