Promotions not prison: ‘People themselves must be the watchdogs’
Experts agree that corruption in its modern forms is extremely hardy۔
KARACHI:
For Dr Geo-Sung Kim, the chairperson of Transparency International in South Korea, corruption has gone through Darwinian evolution and adjusted itself to new political as well as social realities. The new species we see today is more “intelligent” than its predecessors.
At the second half of the international conference on corruption on Saturday, experts discussed how hardy corruption actually is and the sustained effort required to wipe it out.
‘Delayed corruption’ is one of the newer variants. “Politicians in Korea take favours from colleagues after they come into power,” said Dr Kim. “In cases of fraud, the damage is larger than direct bribery. After the financial crises in 1997, the Korean government received recommendations from international institutions, telling them that there was need for effective institutions and educating the youth.”
Amina Khan, a senior research fellow at the Mahbubul Haq Human Development Centre, spoke about the tolerance towards corruption in South Asia. “It thrives in places where accountability is absent. Corruption in South Asia leads to promotion rather than prison.” She added that humane governance could result in tight-leashed control over corruption.
Citing examples from her organisation’s report on governance, she said that unlike developed countries, in South Asian states, there is a conflict between bureaucracy and the people. “Ownership, accountability and people voicing their concerns will control corruption.”
Prof. Rasul Baksh Rais, who teaches political science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, emphasised the need to keep an eye on watchdog bodies themselves. “Who is guarding the guardian? Plato [posed this question] to his teacher Socrates,” he said. “The fusion of the executive and legislative [branch] has become an issue.” He added that a big chunk of resources is given to executive’s patronage and it should be controlled.
Dr Rais then went on to explain the various levels of accountability. “It has four levels: political, legal, normative and social. For legal accountability, there is a need to establish rule of law. For political accountability, a voting system in villages is required. Normative and social accountability is necessary as corruption has eroded society’s values.”
Transparency International Pakistan adviser Syed Adil Gilani said that Pakistan is the 44th most corrupt country according to the organisation’s ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2011’. “The highest expenditure in bribery is in land maintenance and judiciary,” he said. Gilani added that in procurement - the contractual term for all purchases and supplies - there is over Rs400 billion worth of corruption. “Procurement is where around 80% of the government’s resources are wasted.”
Nihal Sri Amereskere, an independent consultant from Sri Lanka, said that the main focus should be on public officials. “The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) must be adopted by different states.”
Roberto Martinez Kukutschka, a research associate at the Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, took the stage next and spoke about the importance of taking context into account when trying to efface corruption. “In developing countries, corruption is not a deviation but rather the norm.” He added that there is a lack of correlation between experience and perception of corruption in low- and high- income countries.”Even with 15 years of anti-corruption mechanisms, countries have not been able to monitor corruption.” He added that the best way for people to combat corruption is to be watchdogs themselves.
Prof. Pavol Fric from Charles University, Czech Republic, said political parties are central to corruption. “In the process of commercialisation of politics, the illicit funding of political parties has become the primary engine of systemic corruption.” Fric suggested that one solution is ‘political tax assignation’. Under this system, a part of people’s income goes as tax to political parties that they choose. Dr Besim Bulent Bali, an associate professor from Dogus University, Turkey, talked about the corruption that plagues the political landscape of the country. “Turkey has been tackling corruption through two fundamental aspects: state mentality as well as legal and institutional framework.” He added that any action against corruption in Turkey which does not have democracy at its core is bound to fail.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 22nd, 2012.
For Dr Geo-Sung Kim, the chairperson of Transparency International in South Korea, corruption has gone through Darwinian evolution and adjusted itself to new political as well as social realities. The new species we see today is more “intelligent” than its predecessors.
At the second half of the international conference on corruption on Saturday, experts discussed how hardy corruption actually is and the sustained effort required to wipe it out.
‘Delayed corruption’ is one of the newer variants. “Politicians in Korea take favours from colleagues after they come into power,” said Dr Kim. “In cases of fraud, the damage is larger than direct bribery. After the financial crises in 1997, the Korean government received recommendations from international institutions, telling them that there was need for effective institutions and educating the youth.”
Amina Khan, a senior research fellow at the Mahbubul Haq Human Development Centre, spoke about the tolerance towards corruption in South Asia. “It thrives in places where accountability is absent. Corruption in South Asia leads to promotion rather than prison.” She added that humane governance could result in tight-leashed control over corruption.
Citing examples from her organisation’s report on governance, she said that unlike developed countries, in South Asian states, there is a conflict between bureaucracy and the people. “Ownership, accountability and people voicing their concerns will control corruption.”
Prof. Rasul Baksh Rais, who teaches political science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, emphasised the need to keep an eye on watchdog bodies themselves. “Who is guarding the guardian? Plato [posed this question] to his teacher Socrates,” he said. “The fusion of the executive and legislative [branch] has become an issue.” He added that a big chunk of resources is given to executive’s patronage and it should be controlled.
Dr Rais then went on to explain the various levels of accountability. “It has four levels: political, legal, normative and social. For legal accountability, there is a need to establish rule of law. For political accountability, a voting system in villages is required. Normative and social accountability is necessary as corruption has eroded society’s values.”
Transparency International Pakistan adviser Syed Adil Gilani said that Pakistan is the 44th most corrupt country according to the organisation’s ‘Corruption Perceptions Index 2011’. “The highest expenditure in bribery is in land maintenance and judiciary,” he said. Gilani added that in procurement - the contractual term for all purchases and supplies - there is over Rs400 billion worth of corruption. “Procurement is where around 80% of the government’s resources are wasted.”
Nihal Sri Amereskere, an independent consultant from Sri Lanka, said that the main focus should be on public officials. “The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) must be adopted by different states.”
Roberto Martinez Kukutschka, a research associate at the Hertie School of Governance, Berlin, took the stage next and spoke about the importance of taking context into account when trying to efface corruption. “In developing countries, corruption is not a deviation but rather the norm.” He added that there is a lack of correlation between experience and perception of corruption in low- and high- income countries.”Even with 15 years of anti-corruption mechanisms, countries have not been able to monitor corruption.” He added that the best way for people to combat corruption is to be watchdogs themselves.
Prof. Pavol Fric from Charles University, Czech Republic, said political parties are central to corruption. “In the process of commercialisation of politics, the illicit funding of political parties has become the primary engine of systemic corruption.” Fric suggested that one solution is ‘political tax assignation’. Under this system, a part of people’s income goes as tax to political parties that they choose. Dr Besim Bulent Bali, an associate professor from Dogus University, Turkey, talked about the corruption that plagues the political landscape of the country. “Turkey has been tackling corruption through two fundamental aspects: state mentality as well as legal and institutional framework.” He added that any action against corruption in Turkey which does not have democracy at its core is bound to fail.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 22nd, 2012.