Bangladesh, undoubtedly, is a hotbed of corruption. It receives recognition annually from the global anti-graft body called the Transparency International (TI) in this connection. For past many years, the TI has been, unfailingly, placing Bangladesh among the most graft-ridden countries on its corruption perception index (CPI).
In the early 2000s, for five consecutive years the country had occupied the top slot of the TI's CPI. Since then its position has moved either a few notches up or a few notches down in the upper rung of the index.
In such a highly corruption-infested country, the people would obviously expect their government to initiate appropriate measures to combat corruption which is largely responsible for making their life miserable.
When the country returned to the path of democracy in 1991, all political parties made commitments to the people to fight corruption effectively. The multilateral donors also wanted the governments to initiate effective actions against all-pervasive corruption in the country.
Two governments representing the political divide ruled the country by turn during a decade until 2000. But they did not do anything tangible to bottle the evil genie called graft. They even failed to frame a law facilitating the establishment of an independent anti-graft body. Most of the politicians were found dishing out public statements supporting strong measures against systemic corruption.
The BNP during its second stint in power, between 2001 and 2006, constituted the much-aspired anti-graft body called, the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC). But the Commission appeared like a lame-duck entity. While the media was rife with stories on graft at high places of the BNP-led alliance government, the ACC took an indifferent approach. In fact, the people chosen by then government lacked competence and enthusiasm to fight graft.
The army-led caretaker administration that had ruled the country for two years without any constitutional mandate, apparently, declared crusade against corruption, mostly indulged in by political leaders and high government officials. But its actions against graft appeared to be very much selective and carried certain hidden agenda. So, the common people who initially liked the anti-graft move turned sceptical about its real outcome.
The Awami League-led 14-party alliance government that came to power through the December 2008 general elections during its five year tenure also did not do anything to reduce the extent of corruption. Rather allegations have it that incidence of graft increased during the immediate past government.
Mr. Golam Rahman, the immediate past ACC chairman, on occasions took a tough posture against graft. But he could do nothing against the key figures who were allegedly involved in Padma Bridge graft, Hall-Mark scandal and the latest stock market manipulation. While leaving the ACC, Rahman had admitted that ACC was a 'toothless and clawless tiger'. That was a belated realisation on his part for most people were aware of that fact for long.
The reason behind dwelling on a sort of genesis of the ACC in the previous paragraphs was a recent interesting observation made by one of the commissioners of the ACC when a private TV channel reporter wanted to know from him whether the ACC would initiate any move relating to alleged accululation of wealth by a section of politicians, now candidates for the January 05 parliamentary polls. Newspapers for the past few days were reporting on wealth accumulation mainly by Awami League leaders and lawmakers on the basis of their affidavits submitted to the Election Commission along with nomination papers.
The ACC commissioner in question said the Commission would not do anything that would unsettle the ongoing election process.
It appears that the ACC is more sensitive to the election process than to its main task of combating graft.
Then why did the ACC chairman express resentment over the addition of the provision to the ACC Act under which the ACC would be required to seek permission from the government before starting graft cases against public officials?
There should not be any double standard in taking actions against graft if the ACC wants to prove its effectiveness and neutrality. The process of appointing members to the ACC needs a thorough review with a view to ensuring the placement of competent and efficient people at its helm. Â
Unfortunately, all the national institutions have been more or less on the verge of ruination due to their politicisation. The two big parties are responsible for it. What is more disturbing is that with the passage of time the intensity of politicisation has only increased. The politicians do admit that they have set the rot but they appear to be disinterested to stem it. That is where the problem lies.
zahidmar10@gmail.com
Should ACC be an onlooker?
Shamsul Huq Zahid | Published: December 23, 2013 00:00:00 | Updated: November 30, 2024 06:01:00
Share if you like