|
|
|
|
Asian Center for Democratic Governance >> Strengthening Democratic Governance
A Report by the Asian Center for Democratic Governance 17 - 18 March 2002 Dhaka, Bangladesh |
Session III - Fighting Corruption Through Greater TransparencyModerator: Kamal HossainTERESITA C. SCHAFFER In the past 30 years, the challenge of governance has grown in priority throughout the region, while at the same time the problems of governance have become steadily worse. In recent years, Transparency International has regularly listed the region's countries as among the worst for corruption. I would like to present a concrete tool for creating a new climate, a tool one can operate with integrity even in a difficult environment: the creation of a model institution. Why create a new institution? Hard as it is to begin something new, it is far easier than changing the culture of an existing organization. However, we do not create something new for its own sake. New policies might need implementing, or a new resource may need managing. Throughout South Asia, as in the rest of the world, countries are reorganizing their energy sectors, redrawing the boundaries between the public and private sectors, and looking for new mechanisms to mobilize energy resources for the benefit of their people. What kind of organization or institution can be used as a model? Corruption is most tempting in organizations that either control resources or give permission for valuable activities: contracting, licensing, approvals, investing, purchasing, and collecting fees and taxes are all open to abuse. It follows therefore that these same activities can become examples of integrity and efficiency, provided the system for managing them is transparent. Independent regulatory bodies, as a significant part of such a system, can be good candidates for model institutions. What makes a good model? Establishing a new institution is not enough; it must function efficiently and honestly, and, crucially, the procedures by which it makes decisions and governs itself must be simple and accessible to the public. Creating an efficient and honest organization is a great accomplishment. But to turn it into a broader anti-corruption tool, there must be accountability and transparency, for example, in the form of a truly independent and highly visible board of directors that, crucially, is responsible to the public. In many countries of South Asia, the public is already cynical about seeing the same faces, on the same boards, on rotation, repeatedly, which is why further mechanisms for ensuring the integrity of any board must also be in place. Regulatory authorities and regular auditing can neutralize any political agenda or business interests. There can also be public members of the board. Each country has its own talent from which to choose. In Bangladesh, NGOs have achieved global prominence for their integrity and dedication to solving their country's problems. There is no magic solution. An institution is only as strong or weak as the people working in it. "There is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions." These words were written nearly 500 years ago by Niccolo Machiavelli, who had a profound understanding of power and human nature. People provide the strength from which change must come. Here, again, our Bangladeshi hosts have provided inspiring examples of model institutions: Grameen Bank and BRAC are examples of model institutions. There are similar examples in all of the countries of the region. May this conference inspire the creation of more such institutions. ANDI MALLARANGENG We had our first national survey of corruption last year in Indonesia. A similar survey was done earlier in Bangladesh, so you may compare our results with your own. Conducted from January-March 2001, using an independent market research company, it interviewed 1,250 households, 400 business enterprises, and 650 public officials in 14 out of 30 provinces of Indonesia. The survey showed that public-sector corruption was thought very common by 75 percent of all respondents. Corruption was thought to be the most serious social problem by household respondents, and 65 percent of households reported some experience of corruption. While public-sector services-police, political parties, prosecutors, judges, and tax authorities-scored very low for integrity and performance, the highest scores were for the mosque, church, and temple. Households spend an average 1 percent of monthly income on unofficial payments; businesses spend 5 percent of monthly revenue on unofficial payments. 56 percent of businesses were in fact willing to be taxed that same 5 percent for combating corruption. 35 percent of households have witnessed cases of corruption, but 98 percent of them did not report them, and 87 percent did not know how to report them. There is a joke in our country: If we report our chicken stolen, the police will take our goat. But people want corruption cases pursued and punished. In Indonesia, we say: corruption = power + discretion - accountability. So to fight corruption, the equation would be: power + limited discretion + accountability + transparency. In this light, we are lobbying for more freedom of information laws. Interestingly, civil society is acting in partnership with the State Department for information and communication, in trying to enact a freedom of information bill. But at the same time, the intelligence agencies and military are pushing for a state secrecy act. So two arms of the same government are pushing for these two opposing acts. The parliament is accepting them both as if they are two unrelated acts. This situation exists because we had a very recent transition to democracy from a "big brother" state, and so the old paradigms and the old actors that we have inherited are still battling the new. It is very difficult to predict which bill will go through. But even if the freedom of information act wins in the end, we are still in need of the institutional mechanisms, the knowledge, and the experience for implementing such an act, for example, dealing with the information, classifying it, making it available to the public, and so on. So we still have a long way to go in Indonesia, and civil society still has much to learn for institutionalizing transparent procedures of governance. MANZOOR HASSAN The South Asian governance picture is dismal. As our countries share a common heritage, they also suffer some collective hardships. However, lack of political will appears to be the main reason for the malaise of governance in Bangladesh and elsewhere in the region. We've been told that we have "transparent corruption" in Bangladesh, because we write all about it, know all about it, but do nothing about it. Over a three-month period in 1997, Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) found 578 items of corruption news in only 3 major papers (according to our own definition of corruption). In the first 6 months of 2000, in 9 papers we found 1,345 items. This gives some idea of the extent of misgovernance. It also gives an indication regarding the courage of journalists, who in some cases are risking and even giving their lives to expose the intolerable level of corruption. From these items we found the main culprits were the law-enforcing agencies and the local government departments of education and health; the main form of corruption was misuse of power or office, siphoning off of public funds, and extortion of money. In 1997, TIB carried out the national survey that was mentioned in the previous presentation, which is now being used as a model for other countries. It sampled 2,500 households, and found that the most corrupt public sectors were police and courts (of the lower judiciary). Evidence found included: 68 percent of those filing complaints to the police had to make payments; 49 percent of households had paid police to dispose of cases; 71 percent expressed the view that filing of court cases was deliberately delayed by police; 63 percent of those involved in court cases had to pay bribes to court officials; 53 percent paid court officials directly, while 25 percent reported paying bribes to lawyers. In the education sector: 74 percent paid bribes to get children into schools, and 49 percent claimed it was impossible for children to gain good results or promotion to higher classes without paying teachers for private tutoring. In the health sector: 40 percent reported paying extra to get admission into a hospital, while 41 percent did not get medication without extra payment. TIB is currently conducting a new nationwide survey, and we shall soon discover whether in the past 5 years things have improved or worsened. Another new initiative of TIB is coordination of a five-country survey, including India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal so we will have a regional picture in terms of governance and corruption. One important illustration of why corruption is such a severe problem in Bangladesh is the Bureau of Anti-Corruption itself. A TIB report (2001) revealed that the Bureau regularly takes 4-9 years to apply to the PM's office to get sanctioned for further investigations. Once it reaches the PM's office, it takes a further 5-6 years for the sanction to be given. So, in total, it can take 5-15 years before an official investigation of any organization can even begin. In fact, 59 percent of cases remain pending at the inquiry stage; files are closed on 32 percent; and only 9 percent are taken further. At the investigation stage: 77 percent of cases remain pending; 17 percent are charged; but only 6 percent go to court. At the trial stage, 91 percent of cases are pending, and only 4 percent are convicted. Between 1991 and 2000, out of 99 high-ranking cases, only a few (including the very high-profile case of a former president) were convicted. Any agenda for change must include: reform of the political process, including state funding of political parties, conditions for donations, and laws relating to election expenditure; administrative reform, including streamlining, partial privatization, new laws, and effective commissions; and citizens' participation, including appointment of independent ombudsmen from civil society, devolution, dissemination of information, and deregulation of media. The real test however will be the long-term determination and sincerity of the political leadership, which is presently rather scarce. DISCUSSION » We have not adequately addressed private-sector corruption. Privatization of the public sector is commonly thought to be a solution to corruption, but private-sector corruption is endemic, and often has political linkages. » Strengthening institutions appears to be one way for combating corruption, from what has been said. However there is a history in the region of inheriting institutions that were meant for a different kind of political system. For example, Bangladesh inherited all the machinery of a provincial capital. Effective reform and improvement of old institutions is a common problem we all share. » The independence of institutional structures is crucial, with regulatory authorities to ensure this independence. But often these regulatory bodies are no more independent of politics than our other institutions. Any attempt at combating corruption is diluted by the behavior of the politicians. » When we talk about devolution-the role of the local press is crucial for transparency at the local level. While the region often has national media that is effective, such local media is lacking. » In Pakistan, at least, the press is as corrupt as any other institution. Journalists depend on handouts in order to advance interests, etc. Part of the reason Pakistan has failed in checking corruption in parliament is due to the contamination of the press. We must be aware of how media manipulation is part of a more endemic corruption. » Corruption is a matter of morality rather than politics or administration. As soon as we have the courage to "bell the cat," or "name and shame" those who practice corruption in public life, we will start to make a difference. We also have to understand the psychology of corruption, rather than merely addressing institutional problems. We can only combat corruption by tackling it from both ends. » While some participants felt that more women in politics would reduce corruption, others saw this as a simplistic view, with women being equally tempted by corruption as men in public life. |
|
National Endowment for Democracy | 1101 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 700 | Washington DC, 20005 | 202/293-9072 | Fax 202/223-6042 | |
