|
Film: |
|
|
Dabangg (Dir: Abinav Kashyap)
 Read |
|
|
|
|
|
Global Warming: A Cause for Alarm? |
|
|
In this persuasive piece the author shows us why global warming is not the ogre it is made to seem.
Read |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Home
> Editorial |
|
Editorial |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democracy, the Economy and Corruption
The ongoing battle between the government and the group led by Anna Hazare has made corruption a national issue as never before. There have been so many demands, so many assurances that the actual issues have become clouded and the entry of Swami Ramdev has worsened the situation. Ramdev and some others also wants the demonetization of 500 rupee and 1000 rupee currency notes, the gradual eradication of English education and death sentences for all those found corrupt. Increasingly, it has begun to seem, many of those crusading against corruption are actually trying to build constituencies for themselves with the most bankable and uncontroversial issue on hand: corruption. The Jan Lokpal Bill is indeed welcome but its enforcement will always be difficult. Given the level of corruption prevailing in the country today, how can so much of it be eradicated through legislation? And is corruption only a matter of ‘bribes’? Is not a doctor who insists on a test through a laboratory with which he has an arrangement or a media enterprise which publishes ‘news’ which has been paid for also not ‘corrupt’? World Bank or IMF funding for projects also come with the precondition of a huge up-front fee to be paid to ‘consultants’ who have virtually no contribution to make to the project. One cannot be certain that all this is ‘corruption’ but the examples just go to show that judgment is not as easy as one imagines. Instead of suggesting remedial measures to eradicate corruption, therefore, the purpose of this editorial is to speculate about the various factors involved before we understand ‘corruption’.
The origin of corruption in independent India can perhaps be traced to the ‘mixed economy’ – state control along with wealth creation through private enterprise. The ‘mixed economy’ had its advantages and one of this was the creation of a large middle class but it is to be asked if the power to regulate and control would not eventually be used to amass private wealth. ‘Corruption’ as convention defines it, is the conversion and channeling of power and influence in the public space into material benefits for oneself and one’s associates. This relationship between the mixed economy and corruption is reasonable to assume because corruption is rampant in China which has now opted for free enterprise along with state control. It is significant that this is happening in China despite the death penalty. To those convinced that the mixed economy was a mistake, unregulated free enterprise from 1947 onwards might have led to greater disparities and a huge amount of disaffection – perhaps made India in Pakistan’s image instead of America’s.
The second phase in corruption was perhaps initiated by the ‘level playing field’ in electoral politics. During the Nehru era and even Indira Gandhi’s first period as prime-minister, India was virtually under one-party rule. A political party as strong as the Congress was up till 1975 does not need to fight elections the way they are fought today. It was perhaps only when one-party rule was over that political parties needed to mobilize the funds required to fight each other. When the political space was more equitably carved up because of democratic politics each political party needed to mobilize funds on their own to fight its adversary. A political party on assuming office needs to recoup the election expenditure and then build up a large enough fund for the next round. Since it is evident that politicians cannot raise funds for their parties from within the governance mechanism without assistance from state functionaries, the bureaucracy was increasingly enlisted for fund raising. The posting of bureaucrats to important positions could not but have been influenced by their fund-raising capacities and this would have provided Skinnerian reinforcement to those already ‘corrupt’. It would perhaps have been unreasonable to expect state officials to raise ‘dirty money’ for politics without believing that keeping some of it was justified and this sentiment would have percolated downward.
It is reasonable to suppose that all these socio-economic developments were a natural corollary to the political and economic system chosen by India but an opportunity for a correction came up when India decided on deregulation in 1991-92 with PV Narasimha Rao and Manmohan Singh at the helm. Regulation implies instituting governmental controls but is should not be confused with enforcement. In the United States there are fewer regulations for the conduct of businesses but whatever regulations are in place are rigorously enforced. During the early 1990s, it is apparent that while proceeding with deregulation, the government should have tightened enforcement in a determined way. Fewer regulations suggest a reduction in governmental work and state functionaries could perhaps have been redeployed to strengthen enforcement. From today’s distance it does not look as though either PV Narasimha Rao or Manmohan Singh had enough foresight to anticipate the consequences of inaction here. This sounds paradoxical but one of India’s cleanest politicians may have had a big hand in the massive increase in corruption beginning in the 1990s.
A much more serious consequence of the deregulation (and ‘de-enforcement’) measures of 1991 than ‘corruption’ has been the gradual weakening of the Indian state. Here, apart from rampant corruption, are a few symptoms of this growing weakness:
1. The failure of legal remedies in the case of crime and the growing incidence of extra-legal means by law enforcement.
2. Judicial activism - which implies that the judiciary is seeing it fit to make pronouncements on matters which should be dealt with by the executive.
3. The rise of Naxalism because of the inability of the state to penetrate parts of the nation except brutally. In many parts of India, the first encounter that people have with the Indian state is through the police or paramilitary forces.
4. The rise of vigilante justice and private armies such as the Salwa Judum, the newly found influence of khap panchayats.
5. The attention given by the state to self-styled reformers because of their ability to fast in the glare of the media.
6. The growing strength of the corporate sector and its control of the media. The media is not disinterested any longer because it is market-driven and is selective about the ‘news’ it wishes to highlight. The weakness of the state has led to its dependence on the media for guidance on where its thrust is required and the state’s actions are becoming increasingly lopsided.
If the last symptom listed above meets with the reader’s resistance, it is perhaps because of the insidious way in which the corporate sector is influencing every aspect of opinion. It is easy for someone to speak out against politics today but it is extremely difficult to hold the corporate sector accountable in any way because of its control of the media. The difficulty is compounded by India’s growth story since the early 1990s. Wealth among educated people – who wield opinion – has been created largely by the corporate sector, and this segment of the public which should have been vocal about social issues is now implicated in the corporate sector’s doings – as employees, service providers and investors and it is difficult for them to lose sight of the personal benefits they have drawn and be merely concerned citizens.
The only legislation that one can regard as a correct step has been the Right to Information Act. In fact the mounting public anger against corruption may have emerged because of the facts made known through RTI applications. People can now depend on recorded fact instead of dealing with conjecture, rumours and generally held sentiments. However, the tendency has been to regard private players as victims of corruption rather than as those initiating it.
Coming back to the issue of corruption and bribes, it is apparent that a bribe requires two participants but for some reason, every measure recommended – including those by anticorruption activists – involves only the receiver of the bribe. In every incidence of large-scale corruption to be highlighted in recent months there appears to be the involvement of a corporate – which would not have parted with the bribe if it had not benefited hugely. Yet, for some reason, there is little demand – except from a section of the left – that corporates should be included in the Jan Lokpal Bill, i.e. that the contract awarded to the bribing corporate be rendered null and void or that the CEO should be put behind bars. Among those arrested in the 2 G scam are employees of a corporate giant but it is uncertain why their chairman and CEO is at large – assuring them publicly of the best legal aid. After the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, India has been seeking extradition of Warren Anderson, who was then chairman of Union Carbide and the media has been loudly endorsing it. Why Indian companies and CEOs are exempt from the same demand for universal justice which included Warren Anderson is a question that needs immediate answering. But it is apparent that few opinion makers really want the corporate sector to be made accountable and one wonders if there could be a lowering of ‘corruption’ without this being mandated.
Editor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| If you want to send a message or convey your views to editor, please send an e-mail to join.phalanx07@gmail.com mentioning your name, location and phone number. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|