The US, in spite of the enormous resources that the European settlers were able to grab from the indigenous people, passed through a dark period that was known as the "wild, wild west." Corruption was widely rampant, and elections to public offices were frequently rigged.

Even after the Second World War, the Mafia and the Tamanny Hall ruled much of New York and Chicago. The scenario of New York city was vividly depicted in Mario Puzo's famous novel, "Godfather," which also became a Hollywood movie and an instant box-office hit. The civil war in the US -- where the southern whites went to war to defend their rights to profit from slavery -- also delayed the growth of democracy, because it created very deep-rooted rifts between the northern and the southern states.

As a consequence, the blacks were effectively disenfranchised until 1956, when the government forced integration of public schools. Ultimately, it was the quality of the political leadership, and its strategic vision, that strengthened existing institutions like the judiciary, the electoral process and local government.

We cannot wait for charismatic leadership to emerge
If we look at the experience of newly independent countries in Asia, once again we see how important was the quality of the founding political leadership in building institutions. The names of Jawaharlal Nehru in India, Soekarno in Indonesia and Tunku Abdul Rahman in Malaysia, Lee Kwan Yiew in Singapore, come straight to one's mind. Amongst these instances, India's experience would stand apart, because the Indian political institutions have evolved since the British colonial times.

Secular democratic aspirations in India have been quite strong, and these were manifested even during the independence movement. Nehru, who like many Indians of his generation believed in social democracy, was a great builder of institutions. The Indian Institutes of Technology and numerous scientific and research institutions, like the Atomic Research Centre, were set up at his initiative.

Soekarno and Lee, however, were authoritarian leaders from the very outset. But both were charismatic leaders of great vision, and Soekarno's ideal of Panchashila laid the foundation of a secular, modern Indonesia that aimed to unify the vast population in 15,000 scattered islands. His authoritarianism could not ultimately win the approval of the majority. As a consequence, there was chaos, violence and instability following the fall of Soekarno and, subsequently, the collapse of Suharto's regime.

Singapore, which is more of a city-state, forged ahead economically under the able leadrship of Lee Kwan Yiew, who remains a legend even now. But I would consider Tunku's premiership as a critical intervention in the building of a prosperous, multi-racial Malaysia today. It is probably the only example of a multi-racial, multi-religious, but predominantly Muslim, country in modern times.

His leadership was directly in contrast to that of Jinnnah in Pakistan, where the Bengalis, in spite of their majority, failed to win any recognition from the distant central government. Tunku was able to persuade the ethnic Chinese to accept Bahasa Malaysia, the language of the majority Malays, as the national language of the new country. He made a crucial compromise as well, by giving up the traditional Jawi script, similar to Arabic, in which Bahasa was written in the past, and adopting Roman alphabets instead.

More importantly, Tunku ensured that political power would remain with the Barisan Nasional, the coalition party that solidly represented the interests of the majority Malays. One can only speculate on what would have been the consequence in Pakistan if Jinnah had the far- sightedness in 1948 to make Dhaka the capital of Pakistan, and Bangla the national language of Pakistan, whose formation had received solid support from the Bengali population!

It is apparent that the failure of Bangladesh in public governance has been primarily a failure of its leadership. The big question is, why have we failed to produce a credible leadership in a nation of 150 million? Unlike in the West, or even in neighbouring countries, Bangladesh cannot afford to wait for a charismatic leadership to emerge.

At the turn of the century, Bangladesh and its people have succeeded in coping with numerous crises, both natural and man made. An educated middle class has emerged, which was absent in 1947. There are instances where individual Bengalis have excelled in many fields. There will not be very many nationalities that could claim three Nobel laureates. We have done well with some of the social indicators, and seem to be on track for reaching the Millennium Development Goals.

Our farmers have succeeded in raising agricultural productivity against many odds -- rice production has increased at a faster rate than the population. It is not a question any more of producing charismatic, larger-than-life political leaders like Nehru, Soekarno or Tunku Abdul Rahman.

The task, rather, is to develop institutional mechanisms and democratic processes through which local leaders can emerge in large numbers. They can be selected through a transparent electoral process; they would have a stake in the local communities, identifying their problems and providing the leadership to mobilize local resources in order to solve them.

Elections to local bodies is our priority
In fact, our nation building problems are far simpler than those of India, Pakistan, Malaysia and other multi-racial, multi-lingual states in this region. We don't often realise that Bangladesh probably is one of the most homogenous nations in Asia today. We need not have any ethnic problems, or any conflict with the minority communities, if the majority community is large hearted enough to recognize the rights of smaller communities to coexist.

The challenge is, then, to produce national leaders as well as local leaders who can envision the development goals, set realistic targets, recruit the professional staff required, and sufficiently motivate them in attaining the goals. The first priority would be the elections to the local government institutions, and making those institutions quite strong.

Every government had agreed to do this, but none had the political will to implement it in the past. Within the civic community, there have been ardent advocates of strong local government, which has been traditionally the school for training of political leaders. Numerous commissions from time to time have made detailed recommendations about needed reforms in local government. So we know what specifically has to be one to strengthen the local government institutions.

With early elections, new leadership can definitely emerge and take charge of our metropolitan cities, the municipalities, the district councils, upazila parishads and the union parishads. Electoral rules would have to be revised so that all candidates, including women, can participate freely in the elections.

The local government bodies need to have their own budgets and resources allocated directly to them, based on mobilization of local resources, matching grants and project loans. Before long, the local councils will begin a healthy competition amongst themselves, launching development activities within their respective constituencies. With local leadership, they will try to outdo one another in achieving their development targets. In the process, we will have a new leadership that will be directly accountable to its local constituency.

Need for checks and balances
But we would also need institutions like the Anti-Corruption Commission to act as a check on the abuse of political power and public offices, at both local and national levels. A strong local bodies regulatory authority would have to be set up to ensure regular audit of local funds. We would need a realistic agenda to set the priorities right.

We cannot possibly undertake too many tasks at the same time. General Hassan Mashhud Chowdhury, the chief of the Anti-corruption Commission was absolutely correct when he said: "We should not bite more than what we can chew." It makes a lot of sense to people when the Commission goes after the big fish and catches those who had believed that, because of their political power and position, they could get away with all the wrongs that they have done.

I hope that the Commission will become an effective institution in fighting corruption, and would be able to set examples by speedily punishing those who are found guilty. But I am worried when the Anti-corruption Commission says that it will also go after "small fries," because that will mean dispersion of efforts, dissipation of energy, and inefficient use of resources.

I also worry when I hear that the Chairman has decided to fly to all the district head-quarters in a helicopter. That would also mean a lot of additional expenditure, not only for flying the helicopters, but also for the precious time that would be spent in the pep-talks that would be delivered to awe-struck local officials.

It would be particularly important for the newly empowered Commission to put its head together and prepare a practical, achievable work plan to prevent future corruption. The work plan should spell out the priorities in the anti-corruption strategy, including what would be the best means to deter corruption at various levels.

It may not be possible to remove all the corruption straight away; but we should be able, in the first instance, to identify the work processes, public services, government facilities like hospitals, electric supply etc, which must be hassle free so that ordinary people will be able to access the services without paying a bribe or "speed money."

Khalid Shams is a former Civil Servant and Deputy Managing Director, Grameen Bank.