http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/ayesha-siddiqa-search-for-democracy
Search for democracy By Ayesha Siddiqa Friday, 04 Dec, 2009 Corruption in politics is a global problem. One realised the intensity of it on a trip to Latin America. I recently attended a conference in Mexico City on illicit finance and its impact on democracy. Speaker after speaker narrated tales of the corrupt practices of politicians and political parties. As people complained about the absence of a legal framework and the implementation of laws to make political parties more accountable, I was reminded of the similarity between these countries and Pakistan where political parties do not reveal their sources of funding. The similarity between different cases from all over the world, including Eastern Europe, was telling in terms of the painful journey that societies have to undertake to perfect democratic processes. Some of the theoretical explanations based on empirical data from Romania were most interesting as they explained the link between corruption and democracies in transition. According to Alina Pippidi, who has done great work on the subject, politicians and political parties engage in corruption to expand their client base during periods of political transition in the hope of maintaining their supremacy in politics. In Romania's case, the speaker talked about introducing legislation and mobilising the media and civil society to increase the social and political cost of corruption for politicians. One expert on political corruption expressed surprise that Pakistan had not really managed to move forward despite the fact that its accountability and anti-corruption laws appeared perfect on paper. This lack of movement in itself represents corruption. Historically, all governments, be they civilian or military, make claims of curbing the financial mismanagement of public funds and the abuse of private funds through political power but later capitulate and cut deals. So, the grand show of corruption and anti-corruption moves on, each benefiting the other. In the Latin American case, the fear of illicit finance is severe since it is linked to organised crime and drug cartels. Money is pumped into politics for the beneficiaries. However, the fact is that the issue of corruption and the use of illicit finance to influence politics cannot be resolved without properly conceptualising the matter. For instance, how does one define illicit finance? Is it the source of money, the process through which it is moved among different stakeholders or is it the impact created by the provision of resources? There are instances when black money is whitened through legal or other means. People are tempted to bring black money into the formal economy to seek certain benefits as happened during the end of the 1990s and later. The government had declared amnesty for those who brought their money into the tax net. Not to mention the NRO which technically 'cleaned' financial resources acquired through questionable means thanks to a legal provision. In fact, why just look at organised crime as a source of illicit finance? The state, which is technically a legal entity, is one of the biggest sources of corruption and hence has a negative influence on politics. While the NRO and other cases cited above are one example, the other facet relates to resources that are pumped into other countries to influence political results. Countries in South and Central America have a long history of political subversion by the US. Closer to home, one can take the case of Washington destabilising the government of Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh by bribing people and organising mass protests. Does the fact that such actions were planned to serve the national security interests of the US and protect the capitalist world make the above-cited example of political subversion more acceptable than by others? Available evidence suggests the need to bring the state into the ambit of inquiry into the subject under discussion. Furthermore, the investigation must be expanded to include countries other than those considered politically underdeveloped. It is interesting to look at the recently flagged case of kickbacks in the French submarines deal. The interesting part is not just that the Pakistani military and politicians were apparently involved but that part of the money was to be pumped back into the French election campaign. An equally important case relates to the British government providing kickbacks to the Saudis and the earlier case of Margaret Thatcher's son's links to the provision of weapons to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. One is also reminded of the American president Ronald Reagan putting 'more fuel' into the Cold War fire and upping the ante with the objective of winning votes in America's Bible Belt that is the heart of the country's defence industry as well. Some may argue that this could hardly be counted as an act of political subversion. However, how innocent is the act of subverting public minds and fuelling conflict for personal political gains? Does the close relationship between members of the Bush administration and the top management of private contractors or the big oil companies not count as political corruption? The massive corporate scams in the US in the recent past speak volumes for how policymakers and top government officials subvert the democratic process to their advantage. Hence, mapping corruption and its impact on democracy is important. What seems to have been lost in the debate of expanding the frontiers of democracy is that those proposing the scheme are totally, and probably deliberately, oblivious to the issue of the depletion of the quality of democracy all over the world. The reason why people seem resistant to accept the norm wholeheartedly is due to obvious disparities in implementation. The case of how the US government looked the other way as President Karzai was sworn in as a result of unfair elections speaks volumes for the imperfect barometer used to evaluate the growth of democracy. This is not to say that democracy is not a valuable concept. But the fact remains that it is under tremendous threat not just because of those who don't accept it but also because of powerful states that selectively subvert the system in their own countries and world over for short-term gains. Today, the need for re-evaluating democracy and its basic principles cannot be understated. The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst. [email protected] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
