Issue 39 Vol II, May 15, 2007

C O M M E N T

BACK

Corruption curse
By Ishtiaq Ahmed

IN the last few weeks, many readers have written to me and said that Pakistan's biggest problem is corruption and not fundamentalism. Therefore, they tell me, I must fix my gaze at the right spot. One reader, Shahid Husain, put it very succinctly: "A country will survive bad politics but never bad administration".

As always, in order to express an opinion, I must clearly define what corruption is because without conceptual clarity one can go astray and end up saying nothing substantial. I shall define corruption as the recurrent misuse or rather the abuse of power and authority by an incumbent in a position of trust with regard to public funds, public interest and the common good. The abuse of power and authority is intended to provide illicit gain, economic as well as jobs, promotions and so on.

Of course abuse of power takes place in the private sphere too. Within private companies and even the household misuse of power and authority occurs, but in this essay we are going to look at corruption that occurs because of abuse of public trust.

We will, however, exclude corruption that exists in the lower echelons of the state. Petty corruption of the police constable or clerk badshah can be excused if without taking bribes their income is too low so that even the barest requirements cannot be fulfilled by being honest. We will deal in this essay with corruption that is linked to abuse of public power by senior officials motivated by no other consideration but personal greed and an irresistible urge to more power.

I am told that anyone trying to serve Pakistan with honesty and devotion is sooner than later shown the way out and instead minions and yes-men get their places. People are appointed to important positions without any regard for merit and qualifications. Moreover, land-grabbing, selling off of national property and assets below market price, and remission or outright cancellation of outstanding debts in order to get political support are now the rule rather than the exemption. Civil servants and high-ranking military officers are reportedly involved in such corruption.

The result is that demoralisation and despair pervade the lives of decent people. I know many decent politicians, civil servants and military officers who are not able to cope with the increasingly corrupt public life in Pakistan. Many try to immigrate to other countries in search of relief. A friend of mine tells me that he was framed by his superiors who wanted him to accept a share in the bribery, but resisting the pressure resulted in his dismissal.

Somebody should correct me, but I have a feeling that corruption by the administration reached entirely new proportions when General Ziaul Haq was fishing around for supporters for his retrogressive military coup. He introduced the malpractice of writing off huge loans owed to banks by individuals who in return became the linchpins of his fundamentalist regime.

Since then governments in trouble looking for allies have been bending the rules about borrowing and lending from banks so that offenders can be released from their economic obligations and made to serve the interests of the regime in power. However, such manipulations do not result in the loans dissolving. Since ultimately Pakistani banks and the government borrow money from international financial institutions the loans end up being part of the national debt. Therefore such debt cancellation is a crime against not only the living generation but those of the future too.

Perhaps we should send our policymakers to Singapore and South Korea to learn how an educated and dedicated civil service can uphold high standards of professional competence without meddling in politics. We also need self-criticism in the military about the harm it may have done to its own ethical code by playing politics. The last but not the least, our politician corps needs also to develop a code of conduct conducive to transparent and rule-oriented politics.

But all this could go waste if the people of Pakistan are not helped to rise above their constant struggle for survival. Basic education, free and compulsory, should be declared not only a constitutional right of all citizens but also a constitutional obligation of all governments. If we have an educated and well-informed citizenry and an efficient civil service backed up by well-trained armed forces dedicated to the best defence of Pakistan against external aggression, our politics and politicians will also improve.

It is time to start discussing a social contract between the state and citizens. The basic terms of such a contract should stipulate that the political system allocates tasks to individuals in accordance with their merits and competence and, applies strict rules to monitor that nobody violates the rules and regulations with impunity. In Pakistan this is given a strange twist when new regimes set up enquiry committees on corruption against figures of the former regime more out of revenge rather than as a principle. Then the next regime sets up another committee against the previous committee and so it goes on and on.

What needs to be done instead is that an autonomous monitoring body consisting of senior civil servants of impeccable reputation should be set up to constantly and impartially examine all cases of corruption and abuse of power. I am convinced if people of high moral stature are included in such a committee, corruption by civil servants can be brought under control.

The problem is of course how the military should be made accountable for carrying out its duties in a strictly professional manner. As far as I know no senior general has ever been tried by a military tribunal or a civilian court on corruption charges, found guilty and punished. That must also change.

Only the other day I received a petition issued by a committee of the citizens of Karachi called 'Sahil Bachao' (Save the Beaches) because 14-kilometres of pubic beach used by ordinary citizens in Karachi is going to be sold off to so-called property developers who want to build luxury hotels, amusement parks and other places of entertainment. The net result of all this would be that the people of Karachi would no longer have free access to those beaches. So the citizens have requested support for their petition and I have added my name to the list of protestors. What else can one do?

The writer is professor of political science at the University of Stockholm, Sweden. Email: Ishtiaq.Ahmed@statsvet.su.se

BACK

Remembering Prem Bhatia
Bal Anand

THE concept of instituting a memorial lecture in honour of eminent persons who have rendered service to the society ha always impressed me. I presume that Jawaharlal Nehru must have been the one to suggest adopting this way of institutionalizing the memory of the nation's distinguished public servants. He himself delivered The First Maulana Azad Memorial Lecture in 1958. The Patel Memorial Lectures on AIR and at the National Police Academy, Hyderabad have become prestigious events commemorating the memory of India's first information & broadcasting & home minister. As for Jawaharlal himself, his memory has been indeed best preserved in thoughtful events of the oratorical kind, not only in India but in many other places dear to him, like the Cambridge University. I am convinced that memorial lectures in terms of presentations of fresh ideas and approaches on the diverse and difficult issues before the country and in the international arena represent a nobler tradition of India.

I can recall with nostalgic pride many memorial lectures I have attended, particularly the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Lecture delivered by the eminent sociologist Margaret Mead in 1973 at the Teen Murti Bhawan.

Those were the days of no security checks, invitation cards and other so many hassles these days! Recently, I excuse myself from attending the opening of the SAARC Summit because of so many security checks involved!

These ponderings are in the context of a gracefully organized function at the India International Centre of the 12th Prem Bhatia Memorial Lecture on May 8, 2007. The Centre has become over the years one of the coziest corners for cultural and literary functions, patronized mostly by the select audience of retired civil servants and personalities from all walks of life – with a larger sprinkling of the egg heads and silver citizens. The Prem Bhatia Memorial Lecture was indeed a solemn occasion for a large circle of friends of the late veteran journalist.

After the formalities of the introductory remarks and the presentation of the Prem Bhatia Award for excellence in political reporting to Ms Pallavi Aiyar of the Hindu and award for the best reporting on environment to Max Martin, Editor indiadisaster.org and the two annual scholarships  by the Trust, the audience was treated to a learned discourse by Prof. Gowher Rizvi of Harvard University on the topic, ‘Government in the Twenty First Century: Some Challenges of Governance and Democracy in India’.

Prof. Rizvi elaborated on his thesis, ‘Government is, and will remain, central to our society and that an efficient, effective and inclusive government is the best guarantor of social justice and an orderly society’. He pointed out that in the last quarter of the Twentieth Century, there was a crisis of governance as democratic governments failed to live up to popular expectations. He quoted President Bill Clinton that ‘The era of big Government is over, but the era of big challenges is not’. He discussed at some length the concept of New Public Management which focuses largely on efficiency, transparency and cutting the cost of Government.

Prof. Rizvi dealt  with  the complex situation of the largest economic expansion in the history of the West during the last two decades and the disturbing fact that 90% of the increased wealth was concentrated in the top 10% of the population. He quoted Oakland Institute scholar Anuradha Mittal that 45 million people (or 17 percent) of the American population are living below the poetry line. Coming to India, Rizvi observed, ‘The reality is that India success is owed much more to its democratic institutions and processes and less to the external stimuli provided by the globalization.’ He cautioned that ‘The euphoria and adulation that India has evoked, both at home and abroad, is every bit well deserved, but there is an important reason to be cautious about such a narrow business-centric view of India... However, one does not need to be reminded that the country’s destiny cannot be realized so long as it is the home to half of the world’s destitute and illiterate, and when a third of its population lives below the poverty line.’ Rizvi further pointed out that ‘Globalization, as we have all learnt, is at best a mixed blessing. It creates winners and losers, it brings hope and despair, and it creates opportunities for some and takes away the livelihood of others…I suggest that to be successful globally, India must address the problem of governance at home’.

The veteran bureaucrat and former Ambassador to the U.S.A., Naresh Chandra who presided over the function observed that the cost of the agencies of the governance i.e., the elected representatives and other delivery organizations has been increasing  and one has also to be deeply worried about the levels of corruption in the Government. The Panchayat Raj Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, sitting happily among the audience, said that the eminent speaker has not referred to the panchayats and other grass-root agencies in India whose role has to be most crucial in the overall development of the country. Prof. Rizvi agreed ‘absolutely’ with his two eminent and a few other interrogators from the audience.

[The author is a former Indian diplomat]

BACK