Dr Bilawal Kamran
A new transparency survey has once again brought into sharp focus a paradox that lies at the heart of Pakistan’s governance crisis. While fewer people report personally paying bribes or directly encountering corrupt practices, a large majority still believes that corruption is deeply embedded across state institutions. The Ipsos–FPCCI Index of Transparency and Accountability (iTAP) reveals a striking gap between lived experience and public perception, exposing not just concerns about corruption but a much deeper crisis of trust between citizens and the state.
According to the survey, 68 percent of respondents said they had not personally faced a situation where they were asked to pay a bribe. Yet these same respondents overwhelmingly believed that bribery remains common in government departments. Similar patterns emerged around nepotism and illicit enrichment: most people rarely encounter these practices firsthand, but remain convinced they are widespread. This disconnect reflects a long-standing erosion of confidence in public institutions, shaped by history, media narratives, and repeated governance failures rather than daily personal interaction alone.
In many ways, the survey suggests that Pakistan’s public institutions are suffering from a reputational burden far heavier than the actual experiences of most citizens. This reputational loss is not trivial. Perception surveys may not measure corruption in precise, legal terms, but they are powerful indicators of public frustration and disillusionment. They capture how people feel about the state, especially at points where governance intersects with everyday life. In that sense, the iTAP findings act as a barometer of public anger and fatigue with systems widely seen as unresponsive, inefficient, and unfair.
The results also highlight how reputational damage can extend even to departments with which people have limited direct contact. Institutions such as the Federal Board of Revenue, district administrations, and the judiciary rank among the most corrupt in public perception, despite minimal interaction with many respondents. This shows that distrust is no longer based solely on personal experience but has become embedded in the collective imagination. Once an institution acquires such a reputation, reversing it becomes extremely difficult.
The consequences of this trust deficit are far-reaching. One striking example is taxation. A significant portion of the population would rather pay higher indirect taxes than engage directly with the tax system as registered taxpayers. This preference reflects not just economic calculation but fear, mistrust, and the expectation of harassment or unfair treatment. In this way, reputational damage to state institutions directly undermines compliance, weakens revenue collection, and reinforces a vicious cycle of poor governance.
Yet the survey also offers a measure of cautious optimism. It shows that digitisation of state functions, particularly through mobile applications and automated systems, can help rebuild public trust and improve accountability. Institutions that have reduced face-to-face interaction and discretionary power score significantly better in public perception. Nadra’s high satisfaction ranking and the improved image of the traffic police, attributed to the introduction of e-challans, illustrate how technology can narrow the space in which corruption operates.
Technology, of course, is not a cure-all. Digital systems cannot eliminate corruption entirely, nor can they compensate for weak political will or flawed institutional design. However, they can reduce opportunities for abuse, limit discretionary authority, and create clearer audit trails. Most importantly, they can change how citizens experience the state — from one defined by arbitrariness and suspicion to one shaped by predictability and transparency.
Ultimately, the iTAP findings underline a crucial lesson for Pakistan’s reform agenda. Restoring trust in public institutions requires more than anti-corruption slogans or selective accountability. It demands consistent reforms that improve service delivery, reduce discretion, and make the state more visible as a problem-solver rather than a source of anxiety. Until that happens, the gap between perception and reality will continue to widen, carrying heavy costs for governance, compliance, and the social contract itself.
