The Inevitability of Corruption...
Although I've tried to convey in the below essay that it is not, I personally hold the view that corruption is inevitable. If it were not inevitable, it would just be a trend that would simply go away like any other fad or fashion. It needs to be diligently fought, becuase it shows up everywhere...
Topic: "Corruption is Inevitable"
Corruption has usually been defined as the misuse of power and authority of a public post for personal gains. An elected/nominated official receiving commission/kickbacks for deals made on public works and development work is the most common perception of corruption amongst those not holding these posts. However, bribery is only one form of corruption. Nepotism is probably the second most common form of this seemingly all-pervasive phenomenon and sociologists have brought several other forms to our notice.
The impact of corruption is probably as equally well-known as corruption itself. It doesn't take higher education or any special mental qualities to realize the harmful effects of this phenomenon. This is largely because just about every adult has faced corruption and has participated in it by becoming a victim of it. Owners of small shops routinely pay "maintenance" money to local inspectors. College students frequently get away with minor traffic infringements by offering a smoke and chai-money to the traffic-havaldar. An anxious parent is forced to disburse cash to various levels of bureaucracy to acquire a rightful caste certificate/domicile certificate/etc for his ward. The instances are endless, and these are just the minor ones. All the victims of corruption know they could have utlized these monies for their own direct well-being; they could have been invested in more goods for the shop, monthly fees for a library or for more books for the ward, respectively. Instead they are lost forever, in the bottomless pockets of those who feel they are entitled to something more, no matter if it is illegal or immoral.
So while the all-pervading nature of this phenomenon is acknowledged, there seems to be some conflict on whether it is a legal or a moral phenomenon. Because corruption is usually perceived to include some form of money being exchanged, it is easy to classify it as an economic violation and consequently to have legal implications. However, as noted earlier, bribery is just one form of corruption. Nepotism doesn't have any direct financial implications - in fact the person being appointed does not necessarily give anything in return - being a part of the family or the community is price enough. Another instance of non-economic corruption is the plagiarism of academic work. This is certainly a form of corruption, since the act of plagiarising the work of another individual corrupts the academic system and gives an unfair advantage to the corruptor over others - he can utlize this time saved for other pursuits. Academic plagiarism is resorted to for increasing one's stature - it does not necessarily have any economic upshot.
It was only in 1977, two hundred years into its nationhood, that the United States decreed that the bribing of foreign officials by members of a US company for procuring contracts is an illegal practice. This suggests that what construes as corruption differs in different cultures. This is not the characteristic of a legal phenomenon but that of a moral one. And it is precisely because corruption is a moral phenomenon that dealing with it through legal means can only have limited success.
Corruption has historically been dealt with in different ways. The mention of public officials being on the take is found in Chanakya's "Arthashastra" of the 4th century BCE. The punishments for corruption are also known to have differed. Since most medieval actions are known to be too drastic for our times, it may be best to look at what is done today to punish the perpatrators. The most drastic punishment - the capital punishment - was meted out recently to a Chinese official for emblazoning public money. This ultimate deterrent, it may be felt, should surely make the corruptor think again. Yet, it should be remembered that it is the belief that one can get away with it that gives the final impetus, the last push, to perform the immoral deed. The Chinese judicial system managed to remain above suspicion in this particular case, but surely, inducing any lower level official somewhere within the system to doctor evidence and result in an acquittal rather than conviction, is not impossible.
Once again, its the morals of everyone involved that matter and accentuate why countering corruption is such a massive challenge.
It is thus very easy to allow pessimism to creep in when corruption is being considered. The examples discussed so far do point to a certain inevitability. Yet, the international non-governmental organization, Transparency International, has based its entire existence on the firm belief that corruption is not inevitable. While its been only a decade and a half since TI came into being, it has gained the respect of the governments of the world and was instrumental in the creation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the OECD's Anti-Bribery Convention. Surely there is some truth in their belief that corruption is not inevitable?
The TI also annually publishes its Corruption Perception Index. This CPI is used by governments and businesses as one of the tools for gauging the feasibility of doing business or development work in a particular country. Successive releases of the CPI have revealed that the developed countries perform much better than the developing and poorer ones as far as the perception of corruption in them concerned. While TI repeatedly argues that corruption is not a south-specific phenomenon, this information is not surprising - it has always been evident that corruption is likely to be more widespread in the less liberal, poorer regions of the world. But by this, it is also revealed that corruption is less in some regions, i.e. a step towards eliminating the pessimistic notion of inevitability has been taken. If it is observed to be less in some places than others, among some people than others, then surely corruption is not inevitable.
A differentiating factor could be the tolerance to corruption. Societies exhibiting high tolerance to corruption are less likely to do anything about it. The way forward could therefore be the progressive reduction in the tolerance to corruption. As the tolerance tends towards zero, corruption would consequently also begin to diminish. Figuring out practical ways for decreasing tolerance to corruption amongst the populace and implementing these ways unbiasedly can be one way. A legal framework should only be a support to this methodology.
Buddhism is based on Gautam Buddha's conclusion that Desire is the root of all Sorrow. While every religion leaves itself open to debate, it can be safely said that desire is almost certainly the root of all corruption. It has perharps well worth the effort to evaluate if this approach can contribute to the elimination of corruption.
Since perhaps only the Buddha and other such uniquely gifted souls could actually manage to eliminate all desire and thus free themselves from sorrow, pragmatism should not be discarded. Eliminating desire, at even a minuscule scale of, say, a community, is a task that would today challenge Gautam Buddha himself. The practical, analogous notion would be to fulfill the essence of that desire by a moral, legal, acceptable way. For example, civil society has always been spending proverbial sleepless nights over the corruption in the justice system. An upright, non-corrupt policeman is considered by many to be an oxymoron. While the notion is almost as untrue as the inevitability of corruption, it is very difficult to deny that corruption in the police force tends to be more well-known than anywhere else, and hence perhaps gives rise to this reputation.
So if we take just this one instance, the corruption amongst the police, can we apply a radical approach to eliminate it? For this, let us first remember that a policeman will have the same dreams and aspirations as any other citizen - the well-being of one's family, the future of one's offspring, the respect of one's friends, to name a few. It can be explored whether the actions of a corrupt policeman are based on the fulfilment of any of these aspirations. If a policeman takes a bribe to add to his child's college fund, can this bribe be made unnecessary by subsidising education for the offspring of policemen?
It is once again reiterated here that police in a country are only as corrupt as any other public institution and have been considered here only as an example that could be applied to any other public service. This is not to say that private companies do not resort to corrupt practices, but since their impact tends to be felt by a relatively smaller section of society, they can be ignored for the time being.
It is quite obvious that the notion that inexpensive and guaranteed education to one's offspring will eliminate one's tendency to turn into a corruptor, is an oversimplified one. A less naive look at things will probably throw up the possibility that subsidised education for their children will increase the corruption in the system that recruits policemen. A parallel example of this can be the failure of the post-Taliban regime in Afghanistan to eliminate poppy production and consequently drug trafficking. They felt that a good way to go about this was to provide free wheat seeds to poppy farmers to entice them to grow this foodcrop instead of opium. The result was that some existing wheat farmers outside the district where the experiment was initiated began to grow poppies instead of wheat. Their calculation was that when the experiment would be extended to their district, they would get free wheat seeds, for which they had been paying till then. A fool-proof system is only an ecnouragement for the creation of system-proof fools.
Thus there is very little likelihood of coming up with a methodology that will eliminate all forms of corruption amongst all sections of society in all countries of the world for all time. Just as the actual utility that deterrence plays in crime-preventon will never be explained suitably, the role played by organizations like TI will never reach complete fruition. Every new generation will come up with more indegenous ways of fulfilling desires in different immoral ways - innovation is the essence of mankind, after all. But this innovation can be seen in methods that fight corruption as well. Resorting to corruption is a manifestation of loose morals and high tolerance. As long as those with high moral fibre and low tolerance for corruption continue the fight against corruption, it will never attain inevitability.
Topic: "Corruption is Inevitable"
Corruption has usually been defined as the misuse of power and authority of a public post for personal gains. An elected/nominated official receiving commission/kickbacks for deals made on public works and development work is the most common perception of corruption amongst those not holding these posts. However, bribery is only one form of corruption. Nepotism is probably the second most common form of this seemingly all-pervasive phenomenon and sociologists have brought several other forms to our notice.
The impact of corruption is probably as equally well-known as corruption itself. It doesn't take higher education or any special mental qualities to realize the harmful effects of this phenomenon. This is largely because just about every adult has faced corruption and has participated in it by becoming a victim of it. Owners of small shops routinely pay "maintenance" money to local inspectors. College students frequently get away with minor traffic infringements by offering a smoke and chai-money to the traffic-havaldar. An anxious parent is forced to disburse cash to various levels of bureaucracy to acquire a rightful caste certificate/domicile certificate/etc for his ward. The instances are endless, and these are just the minor ones. All the victims of corruption know they could have utlized these monies for their own direct well-being; they could have been invested in more goods for the shop, monthly fees for a library or for more books for the ward, respectively. Instead they are lost forever, in the bottomless pockets of those who feel they are entitled to something more, no matter if it is illegal or immoral.
So while the all-pervading nature of this phenomenon is acknowledged, there seems to be some conflict on whether it is a legal or a moral phenomenon. Because corruption is usually perceived to include some form of money being exchanged, it is easy to classify it as an economic violation and consequently to have legal implications. However, as noted earlier, bribery is just one form of corruption. Nepotism doesn't have any direct financial implications - in fact the person being appointed does not necessarily give anything in return - being a part of the family or the community is price enough. Another instance of non-economic corruption is the plagiarism of academic work. This is certainly a form of corruption, since the act of plagiarising the work of another individual corrupts the academic system and gives an unfair advantage to the corruptor over others - he can utlize this time saved for other pursuits. Academic plagiarism is resorted to for increasing one's stature - it does not necessarily have any economic upshot.
It was only in 1977, two hundred years into its nationhood, that the United States decreed that the bribing of foreign officials by members of a US company for procuring contracts is an illegal practice. This suggests that what construes as corruption differs in different cultures. This is not the characteristic of a legal phenomenon but that of a moral one. And it is precisely because corruption is a moral phenomenon that dealing with it through legal means can only have limited success.
Corruption has historically been dealt with in different ways. The mention of public officials being on the take is found in Chanakya's "Arthashastra" of the 4th century BCE. The punishments for corruption are also known to have differed. Since most medieval actions are known to be too drastic for our times, it may be best to look at what is done today to punish the perpatrators. The most drastic punishment - the capital punishment - was meted out recently to a Chinese official for emblazoning public money. This ultimate deterrent, it may be felt, should surely make the corruptor think again. Yet, it should be remembered that it is the belief that one can get away with it that gives the final impetus, the last push, to perform the immoral deed. The Chinese judicial system managed to remain above suspicion in this particular case, but surely, inducing any lower level official somewhere within the system to doctor evidence and result in an acquittal rather than conviction, is not impossible.
Once again, its the morals of everyone involved that matter and accentuate why countering corruption is such a massive challenge.
It is thus very easy to allow pessimism to creep in when corruption is being considered. The examples discussed so far do point to a certain inevitability. Yet, the international non-governmental organization, Transparency International, has based its entire existence on the firm belief that corruption is not inevitable. While its been only a decade and a half since TI came into being, it has gained the respect of the governments of the world and was instrumental in the creation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and the OECD's Anti-Bribery Convention. Surely there is some truth in their belief that corruption is not inevitable?
The TI also annually publishes its Corruption Perception Index. This CPI is used by governments and businesses as one of the tools for gauging the feasibility of doing business or development work in a particular country. Successive releases of the CPI have revealed that the developed countries perform much better than the developing and poorer ones as far as the perception of corruption in them concerned. While TI repeatedly argues that corruption is not a south-specific phenomenon, this information is not surprising - it has always been evident that corruption is likely to be more widespread in the less liberal, poorer regions of the world. But by this, it is also revealed that corruption is less in some regions, i.e. a step towards eliminating the pessimistic notion of inevitability has been taken. If it is observed to be less in some places than others, among some people than others, then surely corruption is not inevitable.
A differentiating factor could be the tolerance to corruption. Societies exhibiting high tolerance to corruption are less likely to do anything about it. The way forward could therefore be the progressive reduction in the tolerance to corruption. As the tolerance tends towards zero, corruption would consequently also begin to diminish. Figuring out practical ways for decreasing tolerance to corruption amongst the populace and implementing these ways unbiasedly can be one way. A legal framework should only be a support to this methodology.
Buddhism is based on Gautam Buddha's conclusion that Desire is the root of all Sorrow. While every religion leaves itself open to debate, it can be safely said that desire is almost certainly the root of all corruption. It has perharps well worth the effort to evaluate if this approach can contribute to the elimination of corruption.
Since perhaps only the Buddha and other such uniquely gifted souls could actually manage to eliminate all desire and thus free themselves from sorrow, pragmatism should not be discarded. Eliminating desire, at even a minuscule scale of, say, a community, is a task that would today challenge Gautam Buddha himself. The practical, analogous notion would be to fulfill the essence of that desire by a moral, legal, acceptable way. For example, civil society has always been spending proverbial sleepless nights over the corruption in the justice system. An upright, non-corrupt policeman is considered by many to be an oxymoron. While the notion is almost as untrue as the inevitability of corruption, it is very difficult to deny that corruption in the police force tends to be more well-known than anywhere else, and hence perhaps gives rise to this reputation.
So if we take just this one instance, the corruption amongst the police, can we apply a radical approach to eliminate it? For this, let us first remember that a policeman will have the same dreams and aspirations as any other citizen - the well-being of one's family, the future of one's offspring, the respect of one's friends, to name a few. It can be explored whether the actions of a corrupt policeman are based on the fulfilment of any of these aspirations. If a policeman takes a bribe to add to his child's college fund, can this bribe be made unnecessary by subsidising education for the offspring of policemen?
It is once again reiterated here that police in a country are only as corrupt as any other public institution and have been considered here only as an example that could be applied to any other public service. This is not to say that private companies do not resort to corrupt practices, but since their impact tends to be felt by a relatively smaller section of society, they can be ignored for the time being.
It is quite obvious that the notion that inexpensive and guaranteed education to one's offspring will eliminate one's tendency to turn into a corruptor, is an oversimplified one. A less naive look at things will probably throw up the possibility that subsidised education for their children will increase the corruption in the system that recruits policemen. A parallel example of this can be the failure of the post-Taliban regime in Afghanistan to eliminate poppy production and consequently drug trafficking. They felt that a good way to go about this was to provide free wheat seeds to poppy farmers to entice them to grow this foodcrop instead of opium. The result was that some existing wheat farmers outside the district where the experiment was initiated began to grow poppies instead of wheat. Their calculation was that when the experiment would be extended to their district, they would get free wheat seeds, for which they had been paying till then. A fool-proof system is only an ecnouragement for the creation of system-proof fools.
Thus there is very little likelihood of coming up with a methodology that will eliminate all forms of corruption amongst all sections of society in all countries of the world for all time. Just as the actual utility that deterrence plays in crime-preventon will never be explained suitably, the role played by organizations like TI will never reach complete fruition. Every new generation will come up with more indegenous ways of fulfilling desires in different immoral ways - innovation is the essence of mankind, after all. But this innovation can be seen in methods that fight corruption as well. Resorting to corruption is a manifestation of loose morals and high tolerance. As long as those with high moral fibre and low tolerance for corruption continue the fight against corruption, it will never attain inevitability.
posted by Kaustubh R. Mone at 1:35 AM
1 Comments:
Jivo jivasya jivanam !
Post a Comment
<< Home