by Mridul Chowdhury
5th May 2008
Published in the Forum, A Monthly Publication of the Daily Star
http://www.thedailystar.net/forum/2008/may/corruption.htm
We need to focus on reforming institutions and not individuals, argues Mridul Chowdhury
During the past year, there has been significant rejoicing over the capture of some corrupt government officials who have amassed huge amounts of wealth through manipulating loopholes in government procedures. The rejoicing is understandable, but what is sad to see is that there is so little talk about the very loopholes that have allowed these individuals to suck out money illegally from helpless citizens. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) seems to have taken on a rather narrow-minded mission to strike at corrupt individuals, and has largely failed to bring to light the sources of these corruptions in the government.
I once had to go to the Revenue Department of a government telephone office in Dhaka, where they keep track of phone bills and payments, and came across a startling discovery. The entries in the huge register books that kept track of this information were in bold and clear figures -- however, they were written in pencil! If you know how to satisfy a clerk or an official who has access to these register books, all it takes is a simple "eraser-action" to put your records "straight." When the procedure is that simple, how do you blame the clerk or the top government executive in the office who is turning a blind eye to this or maybe even the person running the country?
We have to realise that corruption in the government is fundamentally a result of simple economics -- that of demand and supply. When there is demand for citizens in paying a little extra to "straighten records" or to receive a government service faster, and there is supply from government officials in providing "premium service" for an extra fee, corruption will always be there. Taking out the players while keeping the system intact will only serve to replace old players with new ones. The playing field will remain the same, and so will the rules of the game.
While the national anti-corruption drive, including the revamped ACC, can claim some major early successes in putting behind bars some of the top godfathers who have allegedly been perpetuating corruption at every sector of the government, the ACC should really be focusing on the following strategies if it really wants to meaningfully fight corruption in the government:
1. Identify sources of corruption in the system of infamously rotten government offices that allow corruption to perpetuate -- there are always ways of clamping down on "eraser-action" rather than the "eraser" itself.
2. Once the sources are identified, revise the government procedures so that "figures are written in non-erasable pen-ink."
3. Strengthen accountability structure in the office so that any case of corruption becomes the responsibility of not only those who are committing the crime but also of those who manage the process.
With such knowledgeable advisors in the current caretaker government, there is no reason why the government will not be able to take a broader view of fighting corruption and emphasise institutional building, rather than temporary witch-hunts that will not have lasting impact. This government has to realise that it can only leave a meaningful legacy if it can "straighten" the procedures of government institutions that deliver key services to citizens so that the scope for "eraser-action" is eliminated or minimised.
In view of the fact that corruption in the government has become so endemic that finding "erasers" one by one can be a never-ending process, and given that the caretaker government is in power for less than a year, the government should really re-strategise and focus on institutional re-building since only that can ensure a long-lasting impact of the current anti-corruption drive.
Law and order
The central pillars of a reliable system of governance that can fight corruption effectively are the judicial and the police systems. If these systems are strong enough, then there is really no need for a super-imposed entity such as the Anti-Corruption Commission. While there is clearly a need for the Commission in the current context because so much institutional re-building is still left undone, a sincere commission should really be trying to make the judicial and police systems strong enough so that the commission itself in the long-run becomes irrelevant.
However, so far, the anti-corruption drive itself has largely left the judicial and police systems to their own devices. There are indications that the police and the justice systems have internally become less averse to individual-level corruption since this caretaker government took over, but leaving these crucial institutions out of the anti-corruption drive equation in many ways leaves its most vital element out.
While the commission can leave much of the implementation of the anti-corruption drive inside these institutions to the respective executives of these institutions themselves, it is important that the commission perceive this as a fundamental pillar of the drive. Not too long ago, there was much attention paid to the case of Ali Hussain, who spent 15 years in jail without a trial-- a somewhat dismal reminder of an unjust judicial system. Also, there have been repeated uproars against controversial judges whose neutrality towards political interests have been brought into question.
According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer 2007 findings, "the general public believe political parties, parliament, the police and the judicial/legal system are the most corrupt institutions in their societies." In the current context of Bangladesh, when the political parties are like crownless princes and the parliament good only for housing high-profile political prisoners, what we have with respect to "corrupt institutions" are the police and judicial/legal system -- and without reform, no anti-corruption drive can gain full credibility.
IT systems in the government
Another point of consideration for the government is to utilise the power of information technologies to address endemic problems of corruption in the government. Going back to the example of "eraser-action," if the entire system of data entry and update had been in a computerised system with several levels of security access to minimise chances of manipulating data, then we could go from a "pencil world" directly to a "computer world" without the need for passing through the "pen world."
Several advisors in the current government come from professions which have equipped them to clearly see the power of IT systems to re-haul the efficiency and accountability of government institutions in many cases. Talking to them about what IT systems in the government can achieve in terms of fighting corruption would seem like preaching to the converted. However, it is again sad to see that this is an area that this government has put relatively little emphasis on.
For instance, the Support to ICT Task Force (SICT) Project at the Planning Commission which was started several years ago to initiate pilot electronic government (e-Government) projects is nearing the end of its project duration. There is little effort from the government to try to learn from the experience of this project so that government institutions can learn from its achievements and mistakes. Disowning efforts started by previous governments, whether good or bad, is a custom long practiced in Bangladesh -- this government can perhaps try to break the cycle. Also, UNDP's e-Development Cluster has been engaged in providing capacity building and technical assistance to high-level government officers, which have for the most part remained under-utilised by the government.
It is crucial that the national anti-corruption drive incorporates strategies to end corruption in governance systems and embrace e-Government as a possible tool. While it may not be possible for the caretaker government to make substantial progress in this respect in only a few months, the least it can do is to try to link the anti-corruption drive with possible solutions to fix the systems and explore how e-Government can support in this process. It may very well be argued that IT systems at the end of the day are under control of human beings and are subject to just as much manipulation, but it is also true that with sincere intentions, IT systems gives powerful options for creating adequate levels of check and balance so that any unwanted "eraser-action" will leave a digital trail -- something that is not possible in a manual system.
Conclusion
The approach that the anti-corruption drive has taken so far has been targeted more at the criminals rather than the sources of the crimes. This runs the risk of leaving the drive with inadequate legitimacy, lack of focus, and inclination towards short-term gains. It is time that we turn the anti-corruption drive towards a more positive path that can reduce corruption on the basis of strong institutions and well-defined accountability structures, rather than one that is dependent on witch-hunting, since we do not know how effectively an Anti-Corruption Commission will function under a democratically-elected government tied to many interest groups.
Also, another danger of an Anti-Corruption Commission is that given its lack of internal check-and-balance, this kind of an organisation may be misused if its control is taken over by biased groups or individuals. Considering all this, the government should look more seriously into reducing loopholes in government procedures in key institutions, including the justice and police systems, as the central element of the anti-corruption drive.
Mridul Chowdhury writes from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
The Condemned Cartoonist
by Mridul Chowdhury and Sikder Haseeb Khan
Now, let us go back some 1600 years ago, during the initial years of Islam when Prophet Muhammed (SM) lived. One of the core ideals of his life was tolerance towards those who humiliated him at many points in his life and mercy even towards those who murdered his immediate family members. It is well documented how he forgave the person who brutally murdered his uncle, Hamzah. He led his life in a way that epitomized the following verse from the Quran: “Keep to forgiveness (O Muhammad), and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant” (Quran 7:199). There are many who believe that he even offered prayers of forgiveness for those who scorned him with the reasoning that they were doing wrong only because they were ignorant.
More than three decades after the birth of Bangladesh and more than fourteen centuries after the emergence of Islam, how much of the core values that constituted their respective origins do we see practiced in one of the largest Muslim countries in the world?
The cartoon by Arifur Rahman is a source of grievance of scores of Islamist activists in Bangladesh who have risen up in arms to see Arif severely punished – some have even felt it their ‘sacred’ duty to declare death sentence on him. Isn’t it ironic that we are defying the very teachings of the Prophet in the name of trying to uphold his respect? Isn’t it a disgrace that we have ignored the peaceful and tolerant teachings of Islam and the Prophet (SM) to the point of making Islam look to the outside world like an intolerant and barbaric religion?
Defend tolerance
What the government decides to do about cartoonist Arif should be based on the common thread that created Bangladesh and initiated Islam – tolerance and justice. While Arif may be ‘ignorant’ and has no doubt hurt the sensitivities of many Muslims, he is not a criminal, and thus deserves to be forgiven, as our Prophet Muhammed (SM) would have done. If we are really striving for democracy and freedom, then these should be defended vigorously when they are most threatened.
If the government fails to free Arifur Rahman and give him adequate protection for his life, it will only fan the fire of religious bigotry and ignorance in the country. If unchecked, this fire runs the danger of extending to proportions that we see in some other Muslim countries, hampering our international relations and jeopardizing our image as a ‘moderate Muslim nation’ that can serve as an example for others. We hope that this government will be prudent in taking a decision on this matter since it is not just an issue of freedom of expression but one that goes to the very fabric of who we are as a nation.
30th October, 2007
Posted on "The Progressive Bangladesh" at:
http://www.progressivebangladesh.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=97&Itemid=26
Last month, the military-based government in Bangladesh jailed Arifur Rahman, a cartoonist for a Bengali daily newspaper, Prothom Alo. The cartoon, published in a supplement of the newspaper, and subsequently banned, was said to have offended religious sentiments. Extremists organized furious protests around the country. Fitting nicely into a caricature commonly made in the West, some began to demand the execution of the cartoonist.
The editor of Prothom Alo apologized profusely to sections of the Muslim clergy, saying that it was a “mistake” to publish the cartoon and that no offense was intended. Photos of him holding the hands of religious leaders and begging for forgiveness, in the company of government mediators, were published widely to placate the extremist reaction.
Three worries
How do we interpret this? To us, three issues about the incident are especially worrying. The first concerns the clergy. The photo of the editor of the most-circulated Bengali newspaper pleading for mercy provides a telling symbol of which direction the balance of power may be tilting in a historically moderate Muslim society. We waited for a moderate section of the clergy to emerge, but alarmingly, there was none.
Second, the role of the government—promptly banning the publication, arresting the cartoonist and jailing him without charges, sponsoring a formal apology by the editor—leaves open questions. Was it a pragmatic move that averted instability, or was it symptomatic of a wider problem, especially when one considers that the government’s anti-corruption and political reform drives have been lenient with members of Islamist parties while cracking down hard on the mainstream political leadership?
Third, and most worryingly, the defense of freedom of speech has been woefully weak. No major newspaper came out to defend basic rights. No editorial spoke of the integrity of the media. No commentary and op-ed was published that took a principled stand. No prominent lawyer took the risk to point out what the constitution allows a cartoonist to do. In the age of fear and self-censorship, the only voice in support of fundamental rights was in a handful of blogs.
The irony of lessons forgotten
Let us take you back about 35 years ago, when Bangladesh was just a newborn nation. There was a widespread feeling of optimism and hope for creating a nation based on social justice and equity – a nation that would value religion as every citizen’s personal choice, a nation built on tolerance even towards those who actively fought against the notion of an independent Bangladesh during the liberation war. Although controversial, a General Amnesty declared by Bangladesh’s leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, arguably helped to squelch a potentially bloody retribution against war criminals and collaborators. The seed of tolerance was sowed at the very initial period of this nation’s history.
Last month, the military-based government in Bangladesh jailed Arifur Rahman, a cartoonist for a Bengali daily newspaper, Prothom Alo. The cartoon, published in a supplement of the newspaper, and subsequently banned, was said to have offended religious sentiments. Extremists organized furious protests around the country. Fitting nicely into a caricature commonly made in the West, some began to demand the execution of the cartoonist.
The editor of Prothom Alo apologized profusely to sections of the Muslim clergy, saying that it was a “mistake” to publish the cartoon and that no offense was intended. Photos of him holding the hands of religious leaders and begging for forgiveness, in the company of government mediators, were published widely to placate the extremist reaction.
Three worries
How do we interpret this? To us, three issues about the incident are especially worrying. The first concerns the clergy. The photo of the editor of the most-circulated Bengali newspaper pleading for mercy provides a telling symbol of which direction the balance of power may be tilting in a historically moderate Muslim society. We waited for a moderate section of the clergy to emerge, but alarmingly, there was none.
Second, the role of the government—promptly banning the publication, arresting the cartoonist and jailing him without charges, sponsoring a formal apology by the editor—leaves open questions. Was it a pragmatic move that averted instability, or was it symptomatic of a wider problem, especially when one considers that the government’s anti-corruption and political reform drives have been lenient with members of Islamist parties while cracking down hard on the mainstream political leadership?
Third, and most worryingly, the defense of freedom of speech has been woefully weak. No major newspaper came out to defend basic rights. No editorial spoke of the integrity of the media. No commentary and op-ed was published that took a principled stand. No prominent lawyer took the risk to point out what the constitution allows a cartoonist to do. In the age of fear and self-censorship, the only voice in support of fundamental rights was in a handful of blogs.
The irony of lessons forgotten
Let us take you back about 35 years ago, when Bangladesh was just a newborn nation. There was a widespread feeling of optimism and hope for creating a nation based on social justice and equity – a nation that would value religion as every citizen’s personal choice, a nation built on tolerance even towards those who actively fought against the notion of an independent Bangladesh during the liberation war. Although controversial, a General Amnesty declared by Bangladesh’s leader, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, arguably helped to squelch a potentially bloody retribution against war criminals and collaborators. The seed of tolerance was sowed at the very initial period of this nation’s history.
Now, let us go back some 1600 years ago, during the initial years of Islam when Prophet Muhammed (SM) lived. One of the core ideals of his life was tolerance towards those who humiliated him at many points in his life and mercy even towards those who murdered his immediate family members. It is well documented how he forgave the person who brutally murdered his uncle, Hamzah. He led his life in a way that epitomized the following verse from the Quran: “Keep to forgiveness (O Muhammad), and enjoin kindness, and turn away from the ignorant” (Quran 7:199). There are many who believe that he even offered prayers of forgiveness for those who scorned him with the reasoning that they were doing wrong only because they were ignorant.
More than three decades after the birth of Bangladesh and more than fourteen centuries after the emergence of Islam, how much of the core values that constituted their respective origins do we see practiced in one of the largest Muslim countries in the world?
The cartoon by Arifur Rahman is a source of grievance of scores of Islamist activists in Bangladesh who have risen up in arms to see Arif severely punished – some have even felt it their ‘sacred’ duty to declare death sentence on him. Isn’t it ironic that we are defying the very teachings of the Prophet in the name of trying to uphold his respect? Isn’t it a disgrace that we have ignored the peaceful and tolerant teachings of Islam and the Prophet (SM) to the point of making Islam look to the outside world like an intolerant and barbaric religion?
Defend tolerance
What the government decides to do about cartoonist Arif should be based on the common thread that created Bangladesh and initiated Islam – tolerance and justice. While Arif may be ‘ignorant’ and has no doubt hurt the sensitivities of many Muslims, he is not a criminal, and thus deserves to be forgiven, as our Prophet Muhammed (SM) would have done. If we are really striving for democracy and freedom, then these should be defended vigorously when they are most threatened.
If the government fails to free Arifur Rahman and give him adequate protection for his life, it will only fan the fire of religious bigotry and ignorance in the country. If unchecked, this fire runs the danger of extending to proportions that we see in some other Muslim countries, hampering our international relations and jeopardizing our image as a ‘moderate Muslim nation’ that can serve as an example for others. We hope that this government will be prudent in taking a decision on this matter since it is not just an issue of freedom of expression but one that goes to the very fabric of who we are as a nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)