Indeed, there is sobering confirmation everywhere for those who believe that our leading politickers are utterly without shame. People are no longer asking: "How could they be so shameless?" Instead, people are questioning their very upbringing, and wondering if their parents and teachers had failed to imbue them with moral values.

Nowadays, shame -- or the lack of it -- figures everywhere in most discourses of morality in Bangladesh. It's in the background, mostly because we've exhausted the language to discuss shame openly, even as we debate issues that center on it.

Dr. Kamal Hossain's apology to the nation for his long association with the debauched politickers was gracious, but it's "too little and too late." Too little, because no one else has followed his trail; too late because the damage cannot be repaired until all the accomplices in Ershad, Khaleda, and Hasina's misrule and depravities are driven out of politics.

With few exceptions, the politicians of the pre-1/11 emergency can be dubbed a clique of people whose penchant for opportunism, self-service and self-promotion cannot be rivaled. The entrenched mind-set of these people is one of entitlement, privilege, and winning election at all costs. Doing away with entitlements and scaling down the perks and perquisites may be a way of dissuading these wheelers and dealers from remaining in the realm of politics.

In the American Journal of Psychotherapy (July 1981), E. Messner wrote: "Observations by a psychoanalyst who has served as an elected public official reveal that exposure to conflicting demands from constituents may arouse a sense of depletion."

Add to this the ceaseless pressure from family members to live beyond their means. These propel an individual towards feelings of entitlement and self-indulgent behaviour -- a possible precursor to all forms of malfeasance. Messner prescribed preventive and therapeutic interventions for these deranged people.

Dov Cohen's article, "American national conversion about shame -- everything but (Journal of Social Research, winter 2003)" argues, "Symptomatic of our loss of vocabulary in dealing with shame is its murky definition. The Four Horsemen of Abasement are shame, guilt, embarrassment, and humiliation." Cohen elucidates:

• Shame is distinguished from the other three because it's a feeling that one's failings (especially one's moral failings) are, or would be, viewed by others with disdain.
• Shame is distinguished from guilt because guilt involves self-recrimination. With the burden of guilt, we're our own judge, jury, and executioner for our moral failings.
• Shame is distinguished from embarrassment because embarrassment is something that ensues from trivial offenses.
• Finally, shame is distinguished from humiliation in one very important way. Humiliation entails a collapse of pretenses; it illustrates that the self isn't what it was pretending to be. It is, therefore, less about moral failings or failings in basic human competencies, and more about being put down or cut down to size.

To comprehend shame fully, one needs to highlight two other attributes: Honour and self-esteem. Obviously, honour and shame are opposites. Honour implies status and reputation of a person in the eyes of his or her peers, and is accorded by a reputation for good moral character.

Shame and self-esteem are completely different traits, because the "self is both, the one that's being esteemed and the one doing the esteeming." Hypothetically, no one else needs to be involved in one's furthering of self-esteem.

The upshot of these distinctions is to establish the notion that when we say: "Politicians are shameless," we're referring to their lack of sense of guilt, embarrassment, humiliation, honour and self-esteem. To establish that corrupt politicians and public servants are shameless, all we have to do is draw some inferences from real life observations of their foul play and illicit activities.

They look "shameless" when they drive Lexuses, BMWs, and Hummers on roads that are narrowed on both sides by impoverished throngs of slum dwellers.

Their actions are shameless when they host lavish parties in the city's posh restaurants and hotels for diplomats and party cronies, while crippled beggars and starving children loiter outside.

They display shamelessness when they plead "not guilty" to the charges of corruption, extortion and money laundering, even when confronted with irrefutable evidence of their culpabilities. Their shamelessness is on parade when they smile and act for the cameras while being pulled by law enforcers into prison vans.

They add more to their shamelessness by claiming entitlement for "division" in prison, which is specially reserved for political prisoners. One wonders if they would also plead for "division" once they're convicted of their crimes. Will someone tell me if God has built "divisions" in the hell?

We must not forget that a pickpocket or a thief commits a crime against an individual or a family, but looting of the exchequer by public officials is a crime against the entire nation.

Give credit or not, the Four Horsemen of Abasement identified with our corrupt politicians and public servants wouldn't have surfaced without the patriotic army's intervention on 1/11, and the immediate crusade against corruption.

However, all the laudable reforms the government has consummated so far will fade from memory because of a few failings and indifferences. The government is increasingly finding itself under the international microscope for allegedly holding nearly a quarter of a million citizens without due legal process.

The governments claim of even-handedness is also being seriously questioned, when numerous corrupt millionaires are roaming around freely and maneuvering the political process system in the guise of reformist politicians.

These politicians-cum-looters are disposed to believe that "if you're a reformer you will be a free rider." This has generated some concern that the authorities may be duped into selective punishment of the guilty and the culpable.

The government must show that any such misperception of its actions is merely an appearance, and not a manifestation of a new -- and perhaps more insidious -- culture of power corruption. Otherwise, it won't be the herald of a new era in our politics; only a new player in our merry-go-round circles of shame.

Dr. Abdullah A. Dewan is Professor of Economics at Eastern Michigan University.