Turning back on transparency

Dialling back accountability 

At a time when democratic governments around the world are tightening standards for political accountability, Pakistan has taken a worrying step in the opposite direction. The National Assembly passed legislation allowing members of parliament to conceal their personal and family assets from public view if a presiding officer determines disclosure could pose a ‘serious threat’ to life or safety. Framed as a modest balance between privacy and transparency, the bill represents, in Pakistan’s political climate, a significant retreat from the norms that enable citizens to hold their leaders accountable.

Under Pakistan’s existing law, legislators at the federal and provincial levels must annually submit detailed declarations of assets and liabilities including those of spouses and dependent children to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). These statements are then published in the official gazette for public scrutiny. The new amendment would allow lawmakers to keep these declarations confidential for up to a year, effectively shutting out journalists, civil society, and citizens from monitoring potential conflicts of interest or unexplained enrichment. While the full disclosure to the ECP remains mandatory, public oversight which is the backbone of transparency, is being dialled back.

For most Pakistanis, particularly the struggling middle and lower-middle classes, this move smacks of special treatment for the powerful. Ordinary citizens shoulder heavy taxes on income, goods, and services, even as inflation erodes household purchasing power. Meanwhile, the lawmakers responsible for collecting and managing public funds are seeking greater financial secrecy, shielding themselves from the scrutiny that is routine in established democracies.

Asset disclosure systems are not peculiar or punitive, instead they are a cornerstone of good governance used worldwide. According to the World Bank, over 150 countries require public officials to declare assets, with public access and independent oversight as critical features. These measures help prevent conflicts of interest, deter illicit enrichment, and allow citizens and watchdogs to detect sudden or unexplained changes in wealth. In the USA, members of Congress and senior executive officials file detailed, publicly accessible financial disclosure reports, enabling investigative journalists and civil society groups to monitor potential conflicts or signs of corruption. In the European Union, 19 out of 27 member states provide unrestricted online access to legislators’ financial information. Even where privacy concerns are raised, courts and transparency advocates consistently prioritize public interest over secrecy. Across South America and Africa, constitutional bodies have upheld that asset declarations belong to the public domain, and privacy claims cannot override democratic accountability. Across established democracies, there is no precedent for allowing legislators to broadly shield their personal finances from public scrutiny.

Pakistan’s proposed amendment lacks critical safeguards. There is no independent mechanism to audit confidential submissions, no external verification of truthfulness, and no clarity on how ‘security concerns’ will be evaluated or challenged. Instead, the power to grant secrecy rests with parliamentary leaders, the very officials whose financial disclosures may be at stake.

This creates fertile ground for selective transparency and undermines public trust. This is particularly concerning given Pakistan’s history of high-profile corruption cases linked to financial disclosures. The Toshakhana scandal led to the disqualification of a former prime minister over undisclosed gifts, while the Panama Papers revealed offshore holdings that contributed to another leader’s ouster. These episodes demonstrate why transparency matters, without it, conflicts of interest and illicit enrichment remain hidden, eroding democratic governance.

The country cannot hope to build strong institutions, fair governance, or a future of opportunity while the very people entrusted to protect public interest choose concealment over openness. Leaders must recognize that transparency is not optional but a covenant with the people. Without it, democracy becomes a hollow promise and the voices of ordinary citizens are drowned out by the silence of those meant to serve them.

The timing could hardly be worse. Pakistanis are struggling with a sharp economic slowdown, rising inflation, and a sprawling tax system that touches everyday essentials from fuel to food. Families are tightening belts while their lawmakers quietly shield their own financial records. This disconnect between political privilege and public hardship is not merely symbolic but deepens economic and social inequalities while weakening trust in governance.

Transparency is not an abstract ideal, it is a practical safeguard for societies where citizens must rely on elected officials to manage public resources responsibly. By expanding secrecy, Pakistan’s parliament risks making an already opaque system even more inscrutable. Confidential filings to a politically influenced body like the ECP cannot substitute for public scrutiny, the very mechanism that allows citizens, journalists, and civil society to hold power to account.

True public accountability cannot survive in the shadows. Citizens judge their leaders, not only by the policies they enact, but by the honesty they embody. When those in power hide their wealth, it sends a clear signal that self-interest outweighs public duty and that accountability is negotiable. Pakistanis are struggling to make ends meet, paying taxes on every necessity while watching the gap between their hardships and the privileges of lawmakers widen. Each act of secrecy chips away at the trust that binds society together and deepens the sense of betrayal felt by those who have been left behind for decades.

The country cannot hope to build strong institutions, fair governance, or a future of opportunity while the very people entrusted to protect public interest choose concealment over openness. Leaders must recognize that transparency is not optional but a covenant with the people. Without it, democracy becomes a hollow promise and the voices of ordinary citizens are drowned out by the silence of those meant to serve them.