This article focuses on analyzing essential ingredients to initiate and sustain a successful anticorruption strategy. The basic objective of this policy paper is to recommend a set of policies based on the lessons drawn from the success of anti-corruption strategies in other countries. Taking Pakistan as the test-bed, it relates to the design, initiation, and pursuit of anti-corruption activities. The article elaborates a six-step anti-corruption strategy suggesting that to eradicate corruption effectively, the country must initiate these preconditions. It should: (1) restore the public confidence by showing political will to fight corruption; (2) restructure its main anti-corruption agency; (3) establish an anti-corruption inter-agency coordinating board; (4) reform the police, (5) initiate programs and curriculum for anti-corruption awareness; (6) establish a watchdog from the civil society with an advisory role. The strategies suggested in this article are based on the successes of anti-corruption agencies in Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia, and Georgia.

The principles of accountability and transparency are fundamental and central to the bulk of United Nations (UN)Conventions and other international legal instruments. However,accountability within an institution requires in-depth impartiality, equality,and neutrality. The role of the UN and other organizations is significant,particularly for the achievement of sustainable development goal (SDG) goal16. In this context, this paper focuses on the obligations of institutions for achieving sustainable development goals 16. It aims to discuss the role of human rights-based institutions, including mechanisms, standards, and institutional arrangements, and explores their obligations. It also identifies the obligations of non state actors and argues that such actors can be managed/well-ordered with the accountability tools and guidance provided by SDG 16 for achieving accountability, peace, justice, and good governance at all levels. Finally, it discusses challenges for overall sustainable development.

This article explores the institutionalization of the Islamic governance principles of adl (justice), shufra (consultation), muhasbah (accountability), maqasid (public interest), and stewardship in Pakistan and Malaysia. A corpus of 2000 current documentary resources was compiled. The analysis reveals two different pathways. Malaysia has placed more stress on procedural formalism: compulsory consultations with published minutes and response to comments, earlier audits with more prominent follow-through, and ex-post facto reasoning (which invariably indicates constitutional preeminence) to cope with civil Sharīah overlaps. Pakistan more frequently mobilizes adl and public interest through adjudication and public-interest litigation, which produces salient precedents and access via legal-aid references, but with less routinization of consultative and stewardship protections in social and family-law arenas. Our suggested reforms include standardized consultation windows and reason-giving, cross-system standing reference procedures, maqasid-congruent public scorecards in priority sectors, and a new module we call neo-Sufi accountability.

Good governance has become a focal point of good administration of the populace, and sustainable development, especially in developing nations, where institutional weaknesses tend to discredit the state's capacity. This paper analyses the concept and reality of good governance in the Pakistani public service with special reference to transparency, accountability, and bureaucratic corruption. Regardless of the numerous governance reforms and introduction of accountability mechanisms, Pakistan has been grappling with poor service delivery, poor institutional control, and deteriorating trust in the institutions of the state. Qualitative research design was used in the collection of data, which was conducted based on semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and secondary governance indicators. The results indicate that policy systems that promote good governance are formally present, but there is inconsistency in their execution because of political interventions, poor accountability systems, and the presence of bureaucratic cultures.