http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2012\05\16\story_16-5-2012_pg3_5
Wednesday, May 16, 2012 ROVER’S DIARY: Corruption: socio-economic dimensions — II — Babar Ayaz Let’s be careful that once again we do not beat the corruption drum so loud that the sound of marching long-boots is missed by the nation Public interest in corruption in developing countries like Pakistan has surged as the democratic institutions started functioning and the economic structure is being deregulated, giving more space to the private sector. This transition has led to the collision between the market players and a new social class of politicians who are seen by people acquiring wealth rapidly. The arrogance of this new class of politicians is irritating to the middle class of the country. When the government officials and corrupt politicians react to the voices raised against corruption, they miss the point. They fail to recognise that with the democratic evolution, ‘new social forces’ have also ‘risen which previously lacked social muscle to stand up’. These emerging social forces are led by middle class journalists and backed by the rejuvenated judiciary. What is happening in Pakistan on this issue is not peculiar. The media and judiciary of developed countries like Italy, Spain, UK and France in the late 1980s were equally vociferous, and this continues even today. We should analyse who are the major actors in this ‘corruption drama’ at the national level and what gives them a chance to gather this ‘rent’ from society. What is the level of the financial loss to the country because of corruption is difficult to say. The figures floating in the media at present are not backed by any in-depth economic study. I think a bigger loss to the economy is committed by the delayed decisions on important development and commercial issues. The present electricity crisis is a glaring example of shilly-shallying decisions. Leaving aside corruption at the lower level for the time being, let us discuss where each deal runs into million and billions. The major actors in Pakistan are the same culprits who scream from the pulpit that corruption is rampant — politicians, the civil and military bureaucracy and business tycoons. The last are the biggest beneficiaries of this system. As one businessman confessed the other day after giving me a lecture on rising corruption, if a business house pays Rs 10 million in bribes, the gain acquired is at least ten times this amount. Much of the corruption that irritates the common man is when he has to pay a bribe to get his legitimate work done at the lower level. This, American functionalists say, is for ‘lubricating the machinery that was jammed’ in the developing countries. They also appropriately named it as ‘wheels’ as opposed to ‘bribe’ because the person who lubricates these ‘wheels’ is just getting the file moved, cutting through bureaucratic red tape. In Pakistan at present however, the corruption of the politicians is in focus much more than the lower level corruption, which is irritating the common man. A seasoned professional manager told me once, “When we vote for one candidate who has spent Rs 20 million or more on his election campaign, we also stamp our approval that he can recover his investment with interest.” Those of us who have the opportunity as journalists to visit the elected representatives’ homes or offices in the morning have seen a number of people sitting in the waiting room with applications, and almost 80 percent ask for illegal favours. These people do not suffer from middle class morality issues that corruption and nepotism are immoral. The fact that a majority of the 37 million votes cast went to these two parties shows that voters did not care for all the corruption allegations that were drummed up during the eight-year Musharraf rule. The people’s court gave its verdict in the elections. Maybe they chose the lesser evil, the one that is approachable. But most of the people who complain about corruption in their drawing rooms or on TV have either not paid their taxes honestly or have bribed people to get extra favours. It is a part of all capitalist economies; the difference is that of degree. In all civilised countries, cases are registered against politicians under normal law. This is not the first time when the government has taken back cases against holders of public office. Ayub Khan disqualified politicians, who were later rehabilitated. Ghulam Ishaq Khan declared Asif Zardari as the most corrupt man in his speech announcing sacking of the PPP government and a few years later he was seen swearing in Zardari as a minister. Nawaz Sharif was ousted with charges of loan defaults and tax cases, and he returned to power and all cases against him were thrown into the dustbin. Though PML-N opposed the NRO, it signed the Charter of Democracy, which talks against political victimisation. So implicitly, there was an NRO hidden in the CoD. The fact that the PPP and PML-N accepted each other shows that they were not serious about corruption cases filed by them during their tenure. It was accepted by both parties that in future they would refrain from political victimisation of each other. Interestingly, no political party challenged for disqualification of Zardari when he was contesting the presidential elections, although his past record was known. A point to be remembered is that no government has been thrown out in Pakistan just because it was corrupt. Rather, they were all shunted out because they tried to claim their rightful place in the political structure of Pakistan, and because they have different national security prescriptions than the one followed by the establishment. In all quasi-feudal and nascent capitalist societies, the majority of politicians (to borrow Meny’s term) ‘live by politics’ looking for advantages; very few ‘live for politics’ that ‘is intrinsic or ideological satisfaction’. The system would take time to evolve; we have to be patient and keep playing the role of a watchdog, but not that of the wolf that devours the democratic system. As Churchill said, it is “the worst of political systems, except for all others”. Or as philosopher Noberto Bobbio once said, it is “a better system than those that have preceded and succeeded”. Let’s be careful that once again we do not beat the corruption drum so loud that the sound of marching long-boots is missed by the nation. Remember, the damage long-boots do is much larger. At the same time, the struggle against corruption should continue, because as we know, less corruption leads to better HDIs and is that not our ultimate goal as progressive citizens? ( Concluded) The writer can be reached at [email protected] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
