Since 1/11, in general, and the last few weeks in particular, the evolving process of governance has become that much more complex. Sordid details have surfaced of graft and greed. It has been a soap opera.

There is a very simple denotation of the term governance that has been endorsed by the World Bank and most major development partners. It has been described as 'the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country's economic and social resources for development.'

The same multilateral financial institution has also highlighted some significant signposts of mis-governance. A few common denominators in this regard relate to -- (a) inability to clearly distinguish between what is public and what is private; (b) failure to establish a predictable institutional framework pertaining to upholding of law and dispensation of justice; (c) creation of regulatory frameworks in different sectors that impede rather than facilitate growth and expansion; (d) non-transparent and non-accountable decision making and (e) selection of decision makers through an arbitrary nomination process.

It is generally agreed that the above factors eventually lead to a scenario that affects country's growth. It creates a matrix where scarce public resources are directed towards private gain. It also facilitates corruption.

Normally, failures of governance and accountability are mostly a result of unscrupulous local actors, associated with business interests, eager to make a fast buck (with the connivance of crooked politicians and bureaucrats) at public expense. This process is also sometimes pursued by local agents of foreign companies who deal under the table to win contracts as suppliers of commodities or other industrial products.

We have witnessed the insidious aspects of this form of abusive alleged corruption in the case of Bofors in India. We are also currently reading of the disappointing manner in which the British defence firm BAE Systems carefully paid an enormous amount of money to finance the honeymoon of two members of the Saudi royal family. Such a gesture might have enabled this company to profit from sale of defence equipment to that country. The strangest aspect of this sordid subversion of governance was the way it was explained by some associated with the deal. They commented that sponsoring such a lavish honeymoon showed that 'big business also has a heart'.

This leads me to a discussion of the word 'extortion,' I read with interest an article the other day in 'The Daily Star' by Dr. Mozammel H. Khan, an expatriate in Canada. He has referred to extortion as defined in the Random House dictionary and highlighted some of the factors associated with this process. He has pointed out that it is an act of 'wringing money' from a person by 'violence, intimidation or abuse of authority'. He has also correctly suggested that those who willingly associate themselves with such a relationship use such payment to acquire socio-metric overlay and then try to extract favours pertaining to lucrative deals. In the process, if so required, they flout or side step established legal regulatory mechanisms (associated with the tendering process) and basic ethical standards.

We have seen in the last few months the filing of many extortion cases by controversial individuals who has greatly profited from certain political parties in the past. Some senior representatives and officials of these political parties have responded in their own way to these criminal charges of misdemeanor. They have suggested that such payments, if made at all, were donations to the respective political parties. They have even pointed out that political parties all over the world regularly receive donations. They have also disagreed and remonstrated that such alleged controversial 'donations' were not bribery.

They have however failed to clarify their positions with regard to 'donations' reportedly made in kind, e.g. apartments, landed property and shops in ultra modern shopping complexes (which were subsequently supposedly registered in the names of different family members of politicians). They have also not explained why in most cases such acquisitions were not reported in their respective wealth statements submitted with their yearly income tax returns.

On the other hand, there is also the question regarding the motive of those who are now eagerly registering such 'extortion' cases. I personally believe that these bad apples were equally guilty. It is their illegal actions that furthered corruption, gave them an added edge and caused loss to the State.

Obviously, the authorities are pursuing the requisite judicial investigative process related to the framing of charges. That is good. However, at the same time, steps need to be taken to ascertain how these crooked plaintiffs obtained the money, paid for within the definition of 'extortion' or 'donation.' Was it clean and post-tax paid? If not, they should also be charged under the existing laws of the land. After all, a man committing a misdeed and another tolerating it are both equally guilty.

In any case it is good that such allegations have surfaced. They have underlined abuse of power, authority and politicisation of administration. This was a malaise that was affecting the body politic of the country and needed to be addressed with full vigour. Difficult situations demand extreme action.

The interim caretaker government has taken several steps. Many have been rounded up on charges of corruption. One hopes that after a transparent judicial process (with defendants given full access to judicial rights) most of these criminals will end up not only debarred from future politics for some time to come but also behind bars for the requisite period stipulated in law.

I now return to the element of optimism as opposed to pessimism. Before 1/11, we were facing a form of political paralysis. We were all concerned with the 'election engineering' that had been put in place to ensure BNP's continuance in power, overriding all democratic principles. There was disaster waiting to happen. Fortunately for all of us, the efforts and the sustained opposition of certain political parties to the holding of a one-sided election, under a partial caretaker government, were recognised and an emergency promulgated. The tacit help of the armed forces in this regard also reiterated their commitment to good governance.

Since then we have moved forward. A lot of dirty linen has been washed in public. Such a purge was required. I am optimistic that this will lead to a more responsible political leadership. Hopefully, it will also help to clarify the process that will have to be followed before political parties can accept donations in the future. There is, at present, a lot of ambiguity that will have to be removed. We also require specific laws on this issue and the drafting of principles of auditing that need to be followed. The scenario has to change.

These steps are vital for ensuring proper preparation for the subsequent general elections. This will be the only way towards the strengthening of transparent, accountable, efficient and effective governance both at the national and the local government levels.

Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador who can be reached at mzamir@dhaka.net