Paper reforms

The tango between merit and accountability in government institutions has placed top-level authority figures and employees against one another for decades. Another such strife is underway regarding court orders to remove undergraduate SHOs from their positions.

While the IG Sindh Police is attempting to implement this order on paper by issuing successive notifications, he has been unable to remove or transfer such unqualified personnel due to their appointments likely being a result of personal or political connections. On the other hand, SHOs argue that simply fixing appointments will not fix the larger culture of using them as scapegoats whilst protecting senior officers in times of crisis.

The inability to fix a government structure comes from the fact that every facet of the structure is riddled with corruption. While it is necessary to grant the position of SHO to only those who qualify on merit, it is also necessary to protect the SHO against unfair suspensions, transfers or blame. With such little autonomy, a merit-based unprotected SHO will remain vulnerable to the politics of higher-ups.

This issue is not isolated. Similar dynamics exist in bureaucracy, education boards and even health departments. A culture persists where rules exist on paper but are conveniently subverted in practice. Merit is compromised and accountability is reduced to scapegoating which leaves the powerful untouched. And amidst all this, the public loses its trust in law enforcement.

True reform in the police force requires both depoliticising appointments and ensuring upward accountability. This means holding senior officers, not just SHOs, answerable for failures. Without such a comprehensive strategy, every attempt at reform remains superficial. The ultimate harm from such practices would then become irreversible: the erosion of civilians' trust in institutions, as cycles of corruption continue to undermine governance.