Fighting corruption on a moral plane
Wednesday, 1 August 2007
Syed Fattahul Alim
IN the midst of nationwide campaign against corruption, especially by the law, debates are also raging in the intellectual sphere on how better to address the social scourge along the moral plane. The Chief Justice Mohammad Ruhul Amin at a recent seminar stressed opening up another front in the fight against corruption through moral education and community's abhorrence of the corrupt elements.
Indeed, law, which is amoral, may become a blind instrument of coercion unless it has also the underpinning of morality behind it. In the existing dispensation of justice, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. But in the olden times, the adjudicator, for example the Kazi, would sometimes take a proactive role and go beyond the normal course of prosecution to find out the truth. What guided the judge of old was the moral urge to look beyond the apparent and take upon himself the additional personal responsibility to uncover the truth. But it was not only in the legal system, the moral approach was also the guiding spirit while addressing any aberration in the behaviour of individuals in society.
In this age of kaleidoscopic change in every sphere of life, morality, to all appearances, has become anachronistic. Intellectual debates are on since the era of materialism and conspicuous consumption has begun as to whether morality has any relevance to modern life. Quite to the contrary. The need of moral approach to life has far from lost its significance. It is now being felt afresh in our own society as evidenced by what the Chief Justice had said the other day by alluding to importance of moral education.
With the development in the material condition of life, especially with the rise in consumerism and creation of new kinds of wants, people's hunger for new products have also snowballed. As a result, the existing social norms that dictate the dos and don'ts in people's day to day life are growingly becoming inadequate to control the material and other human greed that give rise to corruption.
American philosopher Will Durant about eight decades back said:
"Morals, in etymology and history, derive from customs (mores): morality, in origin, is adherence to those customs which are considered essential to the health and preservation of the group. Certain customs come to be looked upon as vital to common good; they develop into "categorical imperatives"-commands not to be questioned -- and are defended by passionate prohibition, exhortations and excommunications."
In other words, morals, which are rooted in social customs, are vital to 'common good.' Since the vice of corruption comes into conflict with the common good, its addressing must also include rediscovering the social custom that once guided life in general in spite of the existence of government's policing apparatus to punish the breaker of the law and customs.
Has life and its wants changed qualitatively since the time of Durant? The American agnostic philosopher when talking about morality and the way it was undergoing transformation with time had without doubt the picture of American life in the back of his mind. Does that kind of life has any resemblance with the one we are experiencing in modern Bangladesh? From the perspective of consumerist drive for grabbing hold of material wealth, there is not much qualitative difference with the America of the thirties of the 20th century and Bangladesh in the first decade of 21st century. There are, however, a world of difference when one is considering the two social systems in quantitative terms and in the number and the kinds of creature comforts that satiated the needs and greed of the people of the two times.
In the present context, the insatiable thirst for possessing more and more of the creature comforts of modern life are at the root of corruption. How can one then hope to fight the modern type of corruption without at the same time addressing the socio-economic root that engenders it day in, day out? The individuals committing the acts of corruption are not beings isolated from the society within which they exist. So it is always not the case that the individual concerned is alone to blame for the crime of corruption. The society at large is also responsible for creating the condition to resort to corrupt practice by individuals. The competition to get the better of others in acquiring material goods is one evident source of corruption. The driving force behind the competition to beat one another in the possession of material goods is the fear of failure. One who possesses less amount of the creature comforts is looked down upon by the community as inefficient and laidback. So, community does also create a kind of pressure to go for corrupt practice.
On this score, community's role in making or unmaking a corrupt individual cannot also be overemphasised. When a community itself indulges in glorifying material possession as the yardstick of an individual's success or worth, how long would be an individual able to stand in the face of the temptations beckoning to him or her from all around?
The issue of community pressure, however, is not an argument to be lenient towards those involved in corruption. For in the final analysis, the individual is to take the responsibility for the actions he or she takes. But still a big question remains. One is concerned here with pervasive corruption in society. It is hard to find here an individual who is not touched by the scourge directly or indirectly.
Penalising the individual for breaking a socio-moral code or law is an age-old practice. The primary objective of this system is to make the person committing an offence to pay for the action individually. The secondary objective of the penal measure is to set an example before the community so much so that whoever may dare to break the rules would be treated in a similar fashion.
Now what happens when the breakers of the norm outnumber the adherents thereof?
The traditional system of penalising the individual through the traditional juridical measures may not be adequate to address the curse in the particular situation. In that case it becomes necessary to address the community itself that harbours the delinquent behaviour on the part of majority of its members.
In the present-day world, where communities are becoming connected globally, the rat race for outbidding one another in possessing ever greater quantities of material goods is spreading like a pandemic. The phenomenon of rampant corruption does also follow in its wake at every corner of the globe. Bangladesh is not also an exception.
Under the circumstances, it looks like an uneven war against a scourge that is inbuilt in the system. In such a situation, penalising the individual is not the only way to fight pervasive corruption. Understandably, policing on the individual by the government is not enough in the circumstance.
There is, however, some glimmer of hope remaining in society itself. A community where the old values still endure, where sacrifice, renunciation and temperance are generally looked upon as virtues notwithstanding the erosion it is at the moment subjected to, a moral surge in the form of a movement is still possible to be launched against the rising tide of limitless greed of an individual to acquire more than what he is need of. Reform, which is the most talked-about issue these days among the political circles, should also include morality as an important condition of leadership for individuals looking for a career in politics. For politics is about power, which is another major source of corruption.
A movement along the moral line is, however, not a panacea against corruption. It may at least help contain the curse within a tolerable limit, until the time when a political mechanism is evolved to attack the problem at its economic root.
IN the midst of nationwide campaign against corruption, especially by the law, debates are also raging in the intellectual sphere on how better to address the social scourge along the moral plane. The Chief Justice Mohammad Ruhul Amin at a recent seminar stressed opening up another front in the fight against corruption through moral education and community's abhorrence of the corrupt elements.
Indeed, law, which is amoral, may become a blind instrument of coercion unless it has also the underpinning of morality behind it. In the existing dispensation of justice, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor. But in the olden times, the adjudicator, for example the Kazi, would sometimes take a proactive role and go beyond the normal course of prosecution to find out the truth. What guided the judge of old was the moral urge to look beyond the apparent and take upon himself the additional personal responsibility to uncover the truth. But it was not only in the legal system, the moral approach was also the guiding spirit while addressing any aberration in the behaviour of individuals in society.
In this age of kaleidoscopic change in every sphere of life, morality, to all appearances, has become anachronistic. Intellectual debates are on since the era of materialism and conspicuous consumption has begun as to whether morality has any relevance to modern life. Quite to the contrary. The need of moral approach to life has far from lost its significance. It is now being felt afresh in our own society as evidenced by what the Chief Justice had said the other day by alluding to importance of moral education.
With the development in the material condition of life, especially with the rise in consumerism and creation of new kinds of wants, people's hunger for new products have also snowballed. As a result, the existing social norms that dictate the dos and don'ts in people's day to day life are growingly becoming inadequate to control the material and other human greed that give rise to corruption.
American philosopher Will Durant about eight decades back said:
"Morals, in etymology and history, derive from customs (mores): morality, in origin, is adherence to those customs which are considered essential to the health and preservation of the group. Certain customs come to be looked upon as vital to common good; they develop into "categorical imperatives"-commands not to be questioned -- and are defended by passionate prohibition, exhortations and excommunications."
In other words, morals, which are rooted in social customs, are vital to 'common good.' Since the vice of corruption comes into conflict with the common good, its addressing must also include rediscovering the social custom that once guided life in general in spite of the existence of government's policing apparatus to punish the breaker of the law and customs.
Has life and its wants changed qualitatively since the time of Durant? The American agnostic philosopher when talking about morality and the way it was undergoing transformation with time had without doubt the picture of American life in the back of his mind. Does that kind of life has any resemblance with the one we are experiencing in modern Bangladesh? From the perspective of consumerist drive for grabbing hold of material wealth, there is not much qualitative difference with the America of the thirties of the 20th century and Bangladesh in the first decade of 21st century. There are, however, a world of difference when one is considering the two social systems in quantitative terms and in the number and the kinds of creature comforts that satiated the needs and greed of the people of the two times.
In the present context, the insatiable thirst for possessing more and more of the creature comforts of modern life are at the root of corruption. How can one then hope to fight the modern type of corruption without at the same time addressing the socio-economic root that engenders it day in, day out? The individuals committing the acts of corruption are not beings isolated from the society within which they exist. So it is always not the case that the individual concerned is alone to blame for the crime of corruption. The society at large is also responsible for creating the condition to resort to corrupt practice by individuals. The competition to get the better of others in acquiring material goods is one evident source of corruption. The driving force behind the competition to beat one another in the possession of material goods is the fear of failure. One who possesses less amount of the creature comforts is looked down upon by the community as inefficient and laidback. So, community does also create a kind of pressure to go for corrupt practice.
On this score, community's role in making or unmaking a corrupt individual cannot also be overemphasised. When a community itself indulges in glorifying material possession as the yardstick of an individual's success or worth, how long would be an individual able to stand in the face of the temptations beckoning to him or her from all around?
The issue of community pressure, however, is not an argument to be lenient towards those involved in corruption. For in the final analysis, the individual is to take the responsibility for the actions he or she takes. But still a big question remains. One is concerned here with pervasive corruption in society. It is hard to find here an individual who is not touched by the scourge directly or indirectly.
Penalising the individual for breaking a socio-moral code or law is an age-old practice. The primary objective of this system is to make the person committing an offence to pay for the action individually. The secondary objective of the penal measure is to set an example before the community so much so that whoever may dare to break the rules would be treated in a similar fashion.
Now what happens when the breakers of the norm outnumber the adherents thereof?
The traditional system of penalising the individual through the traditional juridical measures may not be adequate to address the curse in the particular situation. In that case it becomes necessary to address the community itself that harbours the delinquent behaviour on the part of majority of its members.
In the present-day world, where communities are becoming connected globally, the rat race for outbidding one another in possessing ever greater quantities of material goods is spreading like a pandemic. The phenomenon of rampant corruption does also follow in its wake at every corner of the globe. Bangladesh is not also an exception.
Under the circumstances, it looks like an uneven war against a scourge that is inbuilt in the system. In such a situation, penalising the individual is not the only way to fight pervasive corruption. Understandably, policing on the individual by the government is not enough in the circumstance.
There is, however, some glimmer of hope remaining in society itself. A community where the old values still endure, where sacrifice, renunciation and temperance are generally looked upon as virtues notwithstanding the erosion it is at the moment subjected to, a moral surge in the form of a movement is still possible to be launched against the rising tide of limitless greed of an individual to acquire more than what he is need of. Reform, which is the most talked-about issue these days among the political circles, should also include morality as an important condition of leadership for individuals looking for a career in politics. For politics is about power, which is another major source of corruption.
A movement along the moral line is, however, not a panacea against corruption. It may at least help contain the curse within a tolerable limit, until the time when a political mechanism is evolved to attack the problem at its economic root.