Fighting corruption on its own turf
Sunday, 28 September 2008
Syed Fattahul Alim
THE Berlin-based Transparency International (TI) has released this year's score-sheet on corruption for different countries in the world. The Corruption Perception Index (CPI), on the face of it, shows that Bangladesh has improved its position among the most corrupt countries in the world. For according to the last year's CPI, Bangladesh was in the 7th place, whereas this year it is ranked as the 10th most corrupt nation. Should it not be considered as a sign of improvement in Bangladesh's status in the eye of the international anti-graft watchdog body? Far from that. And this has become clear from the TI's own statement about the development.
The seeming gain in the CPI of Bangladesh is due mainly to the fact that some other countries of the world have meanwhile championed the cause of corruption better than us. For example, Somalia, the African country devastated by civil war has now become the most corrupt country in the world, as assessed by the Transparency International, followed by Myanmar and the war-torn Iraq. One, however, wonders, among these countries except Myanmar, what does still remain of Somalia or Iraq as states that have been brought under the scrutiny of TI's assessment tools? Strangely though, both the countries are under foreign occupation and if there is at all any semblance of governance in those countries, that, too, is largely a domain of the stooges controlled by the occupation forces.
So, if any one is to blame for the corruption being practiced in those war-torn lands unrepresented by any government formed through popular will, then that disgrace has to be borne by the forces occupying those countries themselves, rather than the people of those countries. The same should be the case with Afghanistan ranked as the fourth most corrupt country after Haiti positioned itself in the third position from the bottom of the corruption list of some 180 countries selected by the Transparency International.
The case of Myanmar, however, is different as it is not controlled by any outside force. And now that all these god-forsaken places along with Myanmar and Haiti, which again is a very poor Caribbean nation in the Americas, have this year taken the first, second, third and fourth positions as the most corrupt nations on earth, Bangladesh has as a consequence changed its place on the TI's scale. But that is after all a false impression. The officials as well as the Chairman of the Trustee Board of the TI, Bangladesh do also hold more or less the same view.
Nevertheless, Bangladesh's score in the CPI of Transparency International was supposed to have made some major gains in the wake of the crackdown on corruption initiated by the caretaker government that came into office after the changeover of January 11, 2007. A large number of political leaders including two former prime ministers and other members of the cabinets belonging to the two major political parties of the country-Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Awami League-were arrested and put behind bars on charges of corruption and misuse of power during the anti-corruption drive launched by the incumbent caretaker government. The action drew huge public attention. However, at the end of the day, people are again wondering about the net outcome of the drive.
The successive governments of this country, however, had always been very vocal against corruption. But none of them could produce anything effective in their actions against this scourge that has made this country an international whipping boy. Between 2001 and 2005, Bangladesh was ranked the most corrupt nation on earth for five years in a row. So, the people naturally expected that this latest drive against corruption would be different from those carried out by the past governments. Moreover, the added feature of the present anti-corruption drive was that it was carried out by the independent anti-corruption restructured by the caretaker government.
Against this backdrop, it was not too much to hope that the TI's assessment of this year would show that Bangladesh is finally bidding farewell to its long-held image as one of the most corrupt nations on earth. The recent anti-corruption drive also received international attention and was from time to time acclaimed by the international donor agencies, the bilateral donors, diplomats and different friendly countries of the world. However, the TI's corruption index of this year hardly reflects the impact of the nationwide anti-corruption drive, if any, on the level of corruption in the contrary. On the contrary, as the head of the anti-corruption watchdog body Professor Muzaffar Ahmed has himself admitted, in spite of the long-drawn anti-corruption drive 'corruption is still endemic and systemic in Bangladesh. And petty corruption has increased in number and intensity since this government took over last year.'
Amid all these assessments and the efforts to root out corruption, the question that naturally arises is how far these activities have been helping the very issue that remains at the centre stage of the whole exercise. Recent experience of Bangladesh in its fight against corruption has brought the very issue of corruption under closer scrutiny. How should corruption really be defined, so that the spearhead of the fight might be accurately targeted against it? If corruption is looked at from the perspective of conventional morality, then the very greed for making money or profit by fair means or foul should be the number one suspect. But under the general capitalistic dispensation, especially, when consumerism drives the consumers to live beyond their means, one can hardly point a serious accusing finger at the greed for money or profit-motive or any kind of compromising attitude on the part of a mere mortal towards the higher moral values like honesty in the day to day life.
This situation gets more critical when one is talking about a least developed country (LDC) like Bangladesh, or any other member of the LDCs. In a free-market economy, on the other hand, the rat race for getting the better of others at the business place is relentless. Under the circumstances, one should not be surprised, if the moral standards, values, rules, regulations and laws are regularly sacrificed at the altar of the temptation and the pressure of the entire social milieu to keep up with the Joneses.
What is still worse, the serious income discrepancy among the different sections of the population deals the final blow to the conventional sense of propriety that keeps the average person tied to keep to whatever is still good in the fast-crumbling old order in these poverty-ridden societies.
However, the general propensity towards corruption in the poverty-ridden societies under the influence free-market capitalism and consumerism should not be seen as a proof that the poor have a penchant for corruption or that the affluent are excluded from this sin.
The fact of the matter is that the poor never get the opportunity (!) of being corrupt.
For they simply lack the necessary power to become corrupt. On the contrary, it is the position of power that gives an individual the opportunity to extort the client seeking a service or favour and get some financial benefit out of it. Small wonder, it is a free-for-all, especially under the reigning philosophy of the market economy where honesty in its traditional sense is hardly rewarding.
Why should then a few eyes should be raised when corruption, in its most primitive and ugly form, becomes so pervasive in these countries of the third world? And is it any wonder that these countries often come under the sharper focus of the international anti-graft watchdogs like the TI?
It is not a question of being apologist towards rampant corruption that rules the administration, business and society in general in Bangladesh or any other LDC. Quite to the contrary.
In fact, the question is about understanding the nature of corruption in such countries, a knowledge that is necessary for making the fight against corruption meaningful and effective.
The recent drive against corruption should therefore be lesson for the future governments to follow when they launch their own drives against this scourge eating into the vitals of society.
For it is a barren exercise to tilt at the windmills of corruption, if all the socio-economic arteries that keep supplying blood to this social cancer are kept intact and strong.
THE Berlin-based Transparency International (TI) has released this year's score-sheet on corruption for different countries in the world. The Corruption Perception Index (CPI), on the face of it, shows that Bangladesh has improved its position among the most corrupt countries in the world. For according to the last year's CPI, Bangladesh was in the 7th place, whereas this year it is ranked as the 10th most corrupt nation. Should it not be considered as a sign of improvement in Bangladesh's status in the eye of the international anti-graft watchdog body? Far from that. And this has become clear from the TI's own statement about the development.
The seeming gain in the CPI of Bangladesh is due mainly to the fact that some other countries of the world have meanwhile championed the cause of corruption better than us. For example, Somalia, the African country devastated by civil war has now become the most corrupt country in the world, as assessed by the Transparency International, followed by Myanmar and the war-torn Iraq. One, however, wonders, among these countries except Myanmar, what does still remain of Somalia or Iraq as states that have been brought under the scrutiny of TI's assessment tools? Strangely though, both the countries are under foreign occupation and if there is at all any semblance of governance in those countries, that, too, is largely a domain of the stooges controlled by the occupation forces.
So, if any one is to blame for the corruption being practiced in those war-torn lands unrepresented by any government formed through popular will, then that disgrace has to be borne by the forces occupying those countries themselves, rather than the people of those countries. The same should be the case with Afghanistan ranked as the fourth most corrupt country after Haiti positioned itself in the third position from the bottom of the corruption list of some 180 countries selected by the Transparency International.
The case of Myanmar, however, is different as it is not controlled by any outside force. And now that all these god-forsaken places along with Myanmar and Haiti, which again is a very poor Caribbean nation in the Americas, have this year taken the first, second, third and fourth positions as the most corrupt nations on earth, Bangladesh has as a consequence changed its place on the TI's scale. But that is after all a false impression. The officials as well as the Chairman of the Trustee Board of the TI, Bangladesh do also hold more or less the same view.
Nevertheless, Bangladesh's score in the CPI of Transparency International was supposed to have made some major gains in the wake of the crackdown on corruption initiated by the caretaker government that came into office after the changeover of January 11, 2007. A large number of political leaders including two former prime ministers and other members of the cabinets belonging to the two major political parties of the country-Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and Awami League-were arrested and put behind bars on charges of corruption and misuse of power during the anti-corruption drive launched by the incumbent caretaker government. The action drew huge public attention. However, at the end of the day, people are again wondering about the net outcome of the drive.
The successive governments of this country, however, had always been very vocal against corruption. But none of them could produce anything effective in their actions against this scourge that has made this country an international whipping boy. Between 2001 and 2005, Bangladesh was ranked the most corrupt nation on earth for five years in a row. So, the people naturally expected that this latest drive against corruption would be different from those carried out by the past governments. Moreover, the added feature of the present anti-corruption drive was that it was carried out by the independent anti-corruption restructured by the caretaker government.
Against this backdrop, it was not too much to hope that the TI's assessment of this year would show that Bangladesh is finally bidding farewell to its long-held image as one of the most corrupt nations on earth. The recent anti-corruption drive also received international attention and was from time to time acclaimed by the international donor agencies, the bilateral donors, diplomats and different friendly countries of the world. However, the TI's corruption index of this year hardly reflects the impact of the nationwide anti-corruption drive, if any, on the level of corruption in the contrary. On the contrary, as the head of the anti-corruption watchdog body Professor Muzaffar Ahmed has himself admitted, in spite of the long-drawn anti-corruption drive 'corruption is still endemic and systemic in Bangladesh. And petty corruption has increased in number and intensity since this government took over last year.'
Amid all these assessments and the efforts to root out corruption, the question that naturally arises is how far these activities have been helping the very issue that remains at the centre stage of the whole exercise. Recent experience of Bangladesh in its fight against corruption has brought the very issue of corruption under closer scrutiny. How should corruption really be defined, so that the spearhead of the fight might be accurately targeted against it? If corruption is looked at from the perspective of conventional morality, then the very greed for making money or profit by fair means or foul should be the number one suspect. But under the general capitalistic dispensation, especially, when consumerism drives the consumers to live beyond their means, one can hardly point a serious accusing finger at the greed for money or profit-motive or any kind of compromising attitude on the part of a mere mortal towards the higher moral values like honesty in the day to day life.
This situation gets more critical when one is talking about a least developed country (LDC) like Bangladesh, or any other member of the LDCs. In a free-market economy, on the other hand, the rat race for getting the better of others at the business place is relentless. Under the circumstances, one should not be surprised, if the moral standards, values, rules, regulations and laws are regularly sacrificed at the altar of the temptation and the pressure of the entire social milieu to keep up with the Joneses.
What is still worse, the serious income discrepancy among the different sections of the population deals the final blow to the conventional sense of propriety that keeps the average person tied to keep to whatever is still good in the fast-crumbling old order in these poverty-ridden societies.
However, the general propensity towards corruption in the poverty-ridden societies under the influence free-market capitalism and consumerism should not be seen as a proof that the poor have a penchant for corruption or that the affluent are excluded from this sin.
The fact of the matter is that the poor never get the opportunity (!) of being corrupt.
For they simply lack the necessary power to become corrupt. On the contrary, it is the position of power that gives an individual the opportunity to extort the client seeking a service or favour and get some financial benefit out of it. Small wonder, it is a free-for-all, especially under the reigning philosophy of the market economy where honesty in its traditional sense is hardly rewarding.
Why should then a few eyes should be raised when corruption, in its most primitive and ugly form, becomes so pervasive in these countries of the third world? And is it any wonder that these countries often come under the sharper focus of the international anti-graft watchdogs like the TI?
It is not a question of being apologist towards rampant corruption that rules the administration, business and society in general in Bangladesh or any other LDC. Quite to the contrary.
In fact, the question is about understanding the nature of corruption in such countries, a knowledge that is necessary for making the fight against corruption meaningful and effective.
The recent drive against corruption should therefore be lesson for the future governments to follow when they launch their own drives against this scourge eating into the vitals of society.
For it is a barren exercise to tilt at the windmills of corruption, if all the socio-economic arteries that keep supplying blood to this social cancer are kept intact and strong.