There is a lot to be said about how and why arguments are stifled or at the very least, not encouraged in social groups cutting across time, space and political boundaries. However, before the discourse on the dynamics of change is taken any further, I would like to say something about an issue that has been hogging the headlines in India lately - Corruption.
The New Oxford American Dictionary defines corruption as:
dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery
I would venture to suggest that this definition is reasonably concise and accurate and conveys what most people would understand by the term. However, it is also suitably vague. It is difficult to fathom how it can be used to isolate individual cases of corruption without having to rely on our fair judgement.
Would landing a job or a contract through your 'network' be construed a corrupt practice? The bribe in the this case being non-monetary bonds of social contracts that friends or family members are bound by..
Even more difficult is conjecturing on the factors that foster corruption. Although here in India, with most people having had multiple encounters with corrupt officials, there is simple explanation that is oft repeated, that of poor wage rates leading to corruption.
Yesterday, while talking about the state of the law enforcement agencies in India, inevitably the question of corruption came up. A lawyer friend of mine, like countless many have done before him, suggested that corruption is rampant in lower levels of the police as the constables and inspectors are not paid as well as they should be.
Extending this logic would imply that the private security guards stationed outside so many office blocks and residential apartments, who are paid even lesser, should be more corrupt. And should be expected to demand for extra money (over and above his wages) from individual house owners/employees to ensure that their cars arent stolen. Police constables dont have better qualifications than most private security guards and cant therefore claim to be underpaid with respect to their skill sets. Infact they are very well taken care of by the government, never having to fear loosing their jobs or paying medical bills etc..
I think that they are corrupt because they can be. If there was a way for me to get an FIR registered without meeting with a constable and therefore be required to pay a bribe, the incidence of demand for bribes would reduce. The same would hold, if government jobs were not granted forever, or if the lower levels of the judiciary were in not as derelict a state as it is in..
As to the question of money (wealth as opposed to income), i think it is probably the only commodity to which law of diminishing marginal utility doesnt not apply.
What do you think?
As veritably pointed out by you, the definition of corruption is nebulous and has an element of subjectivity involved in it. So, something such as using social contacts for getting a job might be innocuous for one person but for the other, it might be a corrupt practice. For me personally, corruption transcends monetary transactions or bribery.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the comparision between the private security guard and lower level police officials is concerned,I somewhat agree with you. A police constable or an Inspector can afford to be corrupt because of the nature of their job and the manner in which the system functions. The very purpose for which most of the people enter the police force at lower levels is to earn money through bribery, many a times, to pay off the debt which they themselves might have taken to enter the force at first place. The predicament is coterminous to corruption in politics where politicians who splurge money during campaigning and to buy votes are left with no other option but to make best use of their tenure once they come to power.
Ofcourse, this is just one dimension of this complex phenomenon. Police or for that matter, any government officer recognizes the fact that being a part of the state gives them the legitimacy/power to act with impunity.
Having said this, I think things are improving. With the implementation of RTI and generation of more awareness among the plebeians, people seem to be demanding more accountability from elected representatives as well as administration.
I am quite sanguine about the future and hope that things will change for the better.....
Agreed Sir.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add though that any system that revolves around individuals instead of processes is bound to suffer as all men are not created equal. Our systems, probably because most of it was designed by a colonial power based on the assumption of supremacy of the rulers over the natives, is too person driven. Unless this, essential feudal character of the state is not addressed no number of pro-information legislations are going to have a major impact. (The process of diluting RTI has begun in right earnest. Moreover, in a nation with endemic illiteracy, we would do well to reduce paperwork, rather than increase it).
A related issue is that of a normative assessment of corruption. Is it necessarily bad? If it is, is it bad from the point of the economy as a whole, the state treasury, the tax payer, or is it bad simply based on the immorality of the act?
Well, I think the processes ultimately have to be executed by individuals only and there would always be that element of power asymmetry in favour of those in charge of the processes.I do not think it is possible to eliminate this power dynamics irrespective of the country or domain we are talking about.
ReplyDeleteOn paper, I believe there is not much wrong in our processes. NREGA is a case in point. A wonderfully envisioned scheme with the right intentions, involving ideal processes such as people participation and planning, social audit etc, has not delivered the coveted results.
I know it has become a cliche to argue that the devil lies in the implementation but cliches are cliches because they are true and the devil is indeed in the implementation of processes rather than formulation. And demanding accountability from those who look after the processes is the sole instrument to ensure proper implemntation.
Regarding the efficacy of RTI, I think it has done quite well in the short span of time it has been in force. Of course there would be attempts to dilute it by those who would be adversely affected by it but CIC I believe has done a good job and has endeavoured to maintain its autonomy. Recent chastisement of the government's decision to remove CBI from the purview of RTI by the CIC exemplifies this.
Regarding reducing paperwork, there is no other alternative but to develop infrastructure and use technology. While some government departments have already adopted this, others should follow soon.
Finally, the normative assessment of corruption. Keeping aside the ethical dimensions, soleley from the economic vantage point, the assessment of corruption has to be context specific. Say, for instance, things like money laundering or stashing away funds in banks abroad is a huge loss for the exchequer purely from the view of tax collections. On the other hand things such as hawala transactions of legal money or bribing a government official to get the work done more swiftly might be corrupt/wrong but might make sense economically.
Generalizing corruption as black and white from the point of the economy as a whole would not be prudent. There are shades of grey and in this case, undoubtedly, shades of black overshadow the whites....
In this context,a recent work by Kaushik Basu encouraging legalisation of certain kinds of bribery and censure of the same by Sainath in The Hindu might interest you....
ReplyDeleteKaushik basu's paper - http://www.finmin.nic.in/WorkingPaper/Act_Giving_Bribe_Legal.pdf. An excellent read.
ReplyDelete