The Daily Star: Bangladesh: Monday,
February 27, 2017.
The
government of Bangladesh recognises combating corruption as critical to
progress towards realising the Perspective Plan - Vision 2021, the 7th Five
Year Plan (7FYP) and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Vision 2021
asserts that “the Government is determined to confront and root out the scourge
of corruption from the body politic of Bangladesh … (and) intends to strengthen
transparency and accountability of all government institutions as integral part
of a programme of social change to curb corruption.”
“Promoting
good governance and curbing corruption” is listed high among 12 development
goals identified by the 7FYP, which also commits to strengthen the democratic
governance process to ensure participation of all citizens and sound
functioning of all democratic institutions.
SDGs a
paradigm shift
As a party to
the SDGs 2030, Bangladesh has pledged to “promote a peaceful and inclusive
society … provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable
and inclusive institutions at all levels.” Under target 16.5 Bangladesh commits
to “substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms”; under 16.4
to significantly reduce illicit financial flows, strengthen the recovery and
return of stolen assets; and under 16.10 to “ensure public access to
information and protect fundamental freedoms.”
The
fundamental difference of SDGs with MDGs, on which Bangladesh has achieved
commendable progress, is a paradigm shift for quality compared to quantity
alone. The pledges of inclusive society, leaving no one behind, accountable and
inclusive institutions and fundamental freedoms can only be achieved through
higher levels of participatory governance and corruption control. These lofty
pledges on governance, accountability and anti-corruption, captured under goal
16, are not only stand-alone targets but are meant to be mainstreamed in each
of the 17 SDGs.
As a State
Party to the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) Bangladesh has also
promised to “promote active participation of individuals and groups outside the
public sector, such as civil society, non-governmental organizations and
community-based organizations, in the prevention of and the fight against
corruption.”
Corruption
the key challenge
The
government may have credible data to support the Finance Minister's assertion
at least twice recently that corruption costs Bangladesh 2-3 percent of GDP.
This is apparently exclusive of Bangladesh's contribution at a rate of over a
billion dollars of illicit financial outflow per year, nor does it include
other forms of money laundering like the Malaysian second home project, of
which we are one of the top clients.
The Chairman
of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) in a letter to the Cabinet Secretary
highlighted public procurement, government recruitment, project approval and
implementation as the key corruption-prone areas. He reminded that corruption
control is a catalyst to increased foreign direct investment, job
opportunities, poverty reduction and enhanced equity, and stressed the need for
effective oversight mechanism. The Cabinet Secretary reportedly followed up
with letters to Secretaries of all ministries calling for effective oversight
as a means to prevent corruption.
Many faces
of corruption
Bangladesh is
no longer at the very bottom of global ranking as per corruption perceptions
index (CPI) as it used to be during 2001-2005. But ranked 15th from below with
a score of 26 out of 100 in 2016 we still remain far below the global average
of 43, considered to indicate moderate success in corruption control.
Bangladesh remains the second worst performer in South Asia after Afghanistan.
People's sufferings
from bribery and other forms of corrupt practices in key sectors of service
delivery remains very high as 67.8 percent of the respondents were victims of
such harassment according to the national household survey 2015 conducted by
Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) based on people's experiences. It
further showed that more than 70 percent of those who paid bribes were forced
to do so because it was the only option, an unbearable burden of impunity in
daily life.
Corruption
stories dominated media headlines throughout 2016 as usual. Just to mention a
few, construction work of rail connection on both sides of the Padma bridge
project was given to a company allegedly without the due competitive process.
Recruitment business in food department and embezzlement of crores in the name
of training and workshop in health sector were widely reported.
Striking
irregularities were identified by Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation
Division (IMED) in the use of fund for the solar power project in Kaptai. An
unholy syndicate of officials managed to swindle tens of crores from the
Matarbari coal-based power project funds in the name of compensating the
affected.
Profiteering
by politically and otherwise influential people from safety net programmes
including low-cost rice for the poor has tarnished a well-meaning government
initiative. About 70 bank officials were detained, though hardly any high level
individual allegedly responsible for banking sector scandals has been brought
to justice leaving the sector in shambles.
Delayed
implementation of infrastructure projects has remained a convenient source of
unearned income. Corrupt practices coupled with low efficiency in
infrastructure projects continue to cost Bangladeshis more than most other Asian
countries. The majority of the Bangladeshi youth told a global survey that
corruption in public sector frustrates them most, so does lack of
accountability and honesty.
Zero-sum
game and corruption
A qualitative
transformation has taken place over the years in our political space. In the
first Parliament of Bangladesh the proportion of MPs who had business as their
primary occupation was below 18 percent. Rising steadily since then, the ratio
has reached 57 and 59 percent respectively in the 9th and 10th Parliament. This
does not include indirect beneficial ownerships. No one can object to the right
of individuals of any profession to enter politics, though questions do arise
if such entries, especially by investing millions, are prompted by aspirations
of profit-making.
Politics has
turned for many into a zero-sum game where the winner takes all with a tendency
to establish monopolistic control of the political space and the spoils that
come along. Business and profit-making relationships of public representatives
with the government is considered a matter of politically legitimised right.
Business, investment, recruitment, public contracting, profiteering, land
grabbing, embezzlement, extortion and influence peddling become the object of a
turf-war between various sections within the winners to an extent that it
becomes a way of life in politics. In a context of competitive abuse of power,
corruption becomes a killer.
For the loser
on the other hand, it is more than a lost opportunity of profit-making. Boycott
of the parliament and election, often taking recourse to violence, becomes a
standard practice of the political force outside power. As violence begets
violence, the cost of failing to be in power keeps on mounting with
frustrations joined by various insecurities. Political activism of those out of
power then loses strategic edge leading to further monopolisation of the
political space.
The process
of establishing partisan political control and weakening of the institutional
structure of accountability of the national integrity system (NIS) the
parliament, executive, law enforcement agencies, administration, judiciary,
media, private sector, civil society, and even various professional groups
tends to accelerate. ACC continues to struggle to gain the trust of the people.
Abuse of power, especially at the high level, is hardly brought to justice. On
the other hand, a denial syndrome prevails amongst a section of the powerful
who not only react sharply, but also find evil designs and conspiracy against
the state when civil society raises voice against corruption.
Is
corruption control possible?
As difficult
as it may seem, effective corruption control is certainly possible. Four
mutually reinforcing drivers are indispensable. First is the political will at
all levels, not only on paper but in practice without fear or favour. Second,
the corrupt must be brought to justice ensuring equality of all before law
irrespective of the identity and status of the person. Third, the institutions
of the NIS must be transparent, efficient, accountable and effective, both
individually and collectively. Fourth, conducive environment must be created
for people at large, particularly media, civil society, and NGOs to raise and
strengthen the demand for accountability and against corruption.
Managing
conflict of interest
A key driving
force is an endemic malaise of mixing up what is public with what is private,
much of it related to the enmeshing of politics with business. We were recently
told by a senior political leader that being in power means enrichment of the
power-holder. The idea of managing conflict of interest is almost absent among
many in important public functionaries, whether elected or appointed. We need a
legal and operational structure to manage conflict of interest so that a
power-holder's private interest cannot be improperly promoted by decisions
and/or actions from his/her official position.
The
objectives of a robust system of conflict of interest management founded on
legal and ethical basis would be to: a) ensure that public interest is
protected and served by obliging power-holders to make decisions on merit
without regard for personal or group interest; b) ensure openness and scrutiny
by facilitating disclosure of interests and potential conflicts; c) maintain
effective distance by recusing oneself from any decision that may benefit the
power-holder; d) prevent not only personal gains thanks to holding public
positions but also to protect them from suffering undue losses; and e) ensure
effective tracking and monitoring of compliance.
Business
integrity
Side by side
with such preventive measures in the public sector, a business integrity
programme consistent with the National Integrity Strategy is long overdue, with
the aim of creating ethical business practices. Collective action against
corruption, as in many countries, may demonstrate that corrupt practices,
coercive or collusive, are not indispensable for doing business. There are many
standards and practices of self-regulation that can motivate counterparts in
the public sector to stay away from corruption.
Adoption of
sectoral and sub-sectoral code of conduct to practice regularly updatable
disclosure of “what you earn, where and how you earn, what you pay, and whom
you pay” including information on indirect beneficial ownership could go a long
way in deterring corruption in the private sector's interaction with the
public.
Access to
information
Implementation
of RTI Act 2009 must be further invigorated to ensure the people's right to
know, especially in relation to what happens to public resources. Where such
resources come from, how they are spent and on what basis, etc., are the key
questions to which answers must be disclosed proactively and on demand. The
idea that some institutions in the public sector like law enforcement and
security agencies are exempted from such obligations is unfounded. Information
on corruption and human rights violation by institutions included in the
so-called exemption list is well within the jurisdiction of the Act.
Protecting
the whistleblower
Equally
important is the enforcement of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2011 which
remains much more under-implemented. Whistleblowing is a dilemma that needs to
be coped with – challenge of protecting job and even security against that of
acting in the public interest. Problems faced by the driver of the vehicle that
carried bag-loads of money collected through recruitment business in the
railways department and by the customs officer in Chittagong only reaffirm how
important it is to protect those who want to live honestly and are willing to
take risks for public interest. People must have the sense of empowerment to
“blow the whistle”.
Voice and
demand
To ease
public harassment in service delivery sectors digitisation and online
transactions system must be extensively introduced and robustly practiced.
People have many stories of corruption to tell each other. They may also have
ideas and experiences to share with each other about how they are standing up
successfully against the menace despite many odds. Such stories are under-reported
due to a deficit of trust in the system and institutions that are supposed to
protect the victims rather than perpetrators.
As the
corrupt continue to remain unpunished, it not only frustrates the victims and
makes them more vulnerable, many honest and heretofore uncorrupt people are
forced to take recourse to corrupt practices. Raising voice and demand against
corruption must be facilitated by the government if it is sincere about its
policy commitments. If it restricts the scope of dissent against corruption it
will only protect the corrupt, and the lofty SDG pledge to “leave no one
behind” will only be frustrated.
(The writer is Executive Director, Transparency
International Bangladesh)