Combating Challenges of Corruption – I

"I can resist anything except temptation," said the inimitable, Oscar Wilde.

Good governance has, for several decades, figured high on the agenda of governments of countries around the world. One reason for that is the fact that bad governance is one of the major drivers of poverty, together with conflict, violence, unchecked population, growth, climate, change, and natural disasters, among others.

The Bhagawad Gita says that, "the foundation of good governance is righteousness in public affairs." Pompeia, wife of Julius Caesar, was arrested upon suspicion of illicit relationship with Clodius Pulcher and tried for that offence. Caesar, when questioned after divorcing Pompeia, famously said that his "wife ought not even to be under suspicion." Those holding public office should not only be above suspicion, but should clearly be seen by the public as being so.

"Quiscustodietipsoscustodes"? goes the Latin saying meaning who will guard the guardians? As one looks around into this situation, it is not uncommon to find black sheep, even in highly placed persons, in noble and respected professions such as medicine, and engineering, apart from politics, the civil service, the judiciary and the corporate sector. Persons guilty of unethical and corrupt practices from those professions have been tried, convicted and jailed for the same. Little wonder, then, that the phenomenon has caused an ever deepening trust deficit between the public, and those entrusted with authority and power to guard it against unfair or unjust treatment at the hands of those in authority. Time was when probity and integrity in public service were taken for granted. Unfortunately, we have transited to an era in which these qualities are perceived as rare attributes worthy of special appreciation.

Corruption reflects generic deficiencies, germane to a socio-economic structure and the regime of rewards and punishments established by it. It is one of the main reasons for the continued existence of scourges, such as those identified by Lord Beveridge, namely, want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. Corruption and graft are complex phenomena and are functions of the perceptions of morality and ethics. Such perceptions invariably vary over time and geography.

It is commonly accepted that corruption takes some well-known forms, such as bribery, embezzlement and fraud, apart from manifesting itself through phenomena such as nepotism, lack of transactional opaqueness and the absence of a reward and punishment regime in organisations.

Corruption is a vicious virus that can eat away the vitals of a community or organisation. A corrosive force that hits the poor the hardest, it can result in such tragic consequences as ineffective functioning of institutions such as schools and hospitals. In extreme cases, it can also lead to the victims of exploitation resorting to violence out of sheer desperation. When its rampage continues unbridled, it can also cause irreversible draining of the exchequer of governments on account of uncontrolled leakages. When one examines the extent of measures for combating and containing corruption, several significant features emerge. For one thing, organisations as well as governments continue to approach the issue with outdated, if not archaic attitudes. The general public, unfortunately, regards corruption as a practice that is confined to the public sector. Even the gravest of irregularities, including the acceptance of bribes, in the private sector, are not perceived as corruption or nepotism, as in the case of government organisations.

Combating the challenge of corruption has been an important item on the agenda of governments of all the countries in the world as well as organisations in the corporate sector. Significant among the most effective steps taken are, demystification by governments of statutory compliance regimes, dismantling needless, and outdated systems of regulation, encouraging employees to resist the force of temptation through improved perks and remuneration, apart from instituting regimes of preventive action that focus on proactive and preventive steps to minimisechances for corruption, rather than post-event action.

It is absolutely essential for anti-corruption agencies and vigilance mechanisms clearly to understand where the lines of demarcation lie between their remits. It is often seen that one duplicates the work of the other. Vigilance needs to be largely, if not entirely a preventive measure, aimed at reducing, if not eliminating, the opportunities for dishonest practices. Anti-corruption measures, on the other hand, post event, constitute a response meant for punishing those guilty of corrupt acts.

As in the case of all campaigns against undesirable practices, even an anti-corruption programme needs to be informed by a sense of proportion. An obsession with the trivial can cloud the broad picture and the important may escape attention. If the wood is not to be missed for the trees, it is important to overcome the temptation to be preoccupied with what can be ignored, so that larger issues can be addressed effectively.

The hypocrisy practised by some government officials, by way of demonstration of their integrity, not only to others, but also to themselves, can sometimes go to extreme lengths. One senior civil servant I know would, after office hours, travel in his government vehicle up to a government office very close to his home, and walk the rest of the distance on foot. The journey from his office to the office near his house was recorded in the log book of car as 'official.' Sheer hypocrisy, if you ask me! The state government subsequently took the sensible step of allowing officials, of seniority above a certain level, to use government vehicles for private purposes, on payment of fixed monthly amount, a much more practical arrangement.

As a Joint Secretary in the ministry of agriculture, the issue of corruption came up, in a meeting with the Secretary of the department. When the Secretary appeared to be unwilling to ignore trivial incidents, I casually asked him whether he had spoken to his wife on the phone during the day. Although irritated initially, he condescended to reply that he, in fact, had done so. Then I proceeded to ask him whether he spoke on the Restricted Automatic Exchange (RAX) phone – the use of which entailed no charges as it was an internal arrangement), or on the P&T phone which carried a charge. Although growing irritated, the Secretary decided to indulge me and said he had, as a matter of fact, used P&T phone. I then asked him, whether he had recorded it as a private call and made arrangements to pay for it. Even as he was formulating a reply, wisdom dawned on him, and he realised that a sense of proportion does, after all, need to inform one's approach to the issue of corruption.

(The writer is former

Chief Secretary, Government

of Andhra Pradesh) 

(The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer.

The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views

of The Hans India)