Conflict of Interest through a broader lens

COI can be an obstacle for national prosperity and can deny opportunities to qualified individuals

A conflict of interest (COI) amongst political leaders and public officials has existed as long as there has been a republic. However, to understand this conflict, it is important to acknowledge that it is a complex matter. Globally, a COI refers to a person or an organisation that has multiple interests, financial or otherwise, especially where serving one interest could involve working against the other.

Situations that manifest out of a conflict of interest can lead to either legal or illegal behaviour and often times such situations are not black or white but mostly grey.

The most common conflict of interest seems to arise from a situation where a person stands to gain monetary gain or is influenced into certain decisions by friendships in a political setting, where the common good is overlooked. There are now some laws in place to criminalise such activities especially in the public sector, and, in certain circumstances, can result in prosecution.

When the principle of COI is applied in a narrow manner, it can serve as an obstacle towards attaining national prosperity by denying opportunities to qualified individuals as their professional background or family or business associations can be highlighted negatively by some quarters merely to discredit them. In order to take a more holistic approach towards COI, we need to understand that there are and always will be competing interests and what is important is how public officials handle such situations to ensure that national interest is always paramount.

What should be put in place is a countervailing mechanism to balance COIs. The government should take on required experts and qualified candidates for a particular position without fear of those officials being painted in a negative light unjustly while diligently performing their duties.

The point to understand is that there are no fixed formulas to avoid a COI. Similarly, there is also no standard way to define what constitutes ethical behaviour and an impartial stance when an individual holds a position of influence apart from definitions set in relevant laws. The implication here, instead, is that strong, responsible democracies are able to resolve issues that result from a clash of the personal interests of the office holder and the public through a mature approach. As such, it focuses on strengthening relevant laws and state institutions in order to increase public trust in them and to increase transparency so that a situation where interests collide does not arise.

There is a difference between a perceived conflict due to a certain set of circumstances, and an actually conflict which helps a public official gain benefits at the cost of the betterment of the public. Financial gain is often also synonymous with such a situation. Hence transparency is the best policy when holding public office so that people know that there are no ulterior motives, especially when tough decisions have to be taken, which may be perceived as the manifestation of COIs.

And if a public policy decision impacts personal matters, proof should be provided that the incumbent had nothing to do with the decision and abstained from the relevant decision making.

Multiple examples globally show how engaging in COI has been detrimental to the individual’s status and position. In the US, the law relating to COI is enforced by providing penalties on public office-holders for their various acts. In the UK, the conduct of lawyers and solicitors is regulated by the creation of a statutory body known as the ‘Solicitors Regulation Authority’ (SRA), which has the authority to take cognisance of all matters involving a conflict of interest. However India, despite being the largest democracy in the world, has no specific laws on COI, and their public office-holders and ministers often face allegations of indulging in nepotism and other malpractices as is the case with other developing countries.

The current ruling party, PTI, as part of its anti-corruption manifesto, has been keen on legislation to prohibit COI in Pakistan. Since coming to power, it has pushed for greater transparency and clearer division between public duties and private interests of office holders. Under the belief that managing interests is critical to curbing corruption, PTI, in 2013 introduced COI legislation in the assemblies. ‘The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) Prevention of Conflict of Interest Act’ was promulgated in K-P in 2016, while similar legislation was implemented in Punjab earlier this year.

The K-P Act defines COI as “the unlawful financial benefit or a liability accruing to the public office holder or his family due to his official position”.

In the end, it is the strengthening of public institutions that can truly drive positive change in all kinds of situations, especially when it comes to COI. Once fortified, public institutions can be provided with technical skills that may help better cater to certain conflicts. As such, they should be able to establish relevant facts by distinguishing between “actual”, “apparent”, “real”, and “potential” conflict situations and be able to apply a rigorous process of checks and balances to ensure that such situations don’t materialise into negative outcomes for the institutions and the country.