Corruption gets a helping
On the Global Competitiveness Index, 2011, Bangladesh has ranked 108th among 142 countries surveyed by World Economic Forum. Whilst other countries have bettered their previous standings, Bangladesh has slid down the rung. That we are more competitive than 34 countries is little consolation because corruption remains endemic in the country. It dilutes our otherwise investment friendly policies.
Among the three major causes for the down-slide in competitiveness, corruption is identified next to inadequate infrastructure and is followed by bureaucratic inefficiency. In our view, handling corruption is most crucial because it strangles growth of infrastructure and fuels bureaucratic inefficiency.
After more than two and a half years of the AL rule, the original expectation that it would give a welcome break from corruption stands completely belied today. The ruling party does not present an image of giving a strong and relentless fight against corruption. This, it was expected to, in the light of its electoral pledge and the lessons thrown up during 2007-08 caretaker rule which raised public consciousness of corruption to a new height.
What we have seen is an AL government busying itself with dropping cases lodged by the BNP and the caretaker government preceding the AL rule. The blanket fashion it was done in contrast to zealous pursuit of cases in which BNP loyalists were involved could only give indulgence to abuse of power and corruption within the AL. When a partisan approach is taken to combating corruption there is a multiplier effect on corruption in general. This is because moral weight cannot be pulled behind the fight against corruption.
The overarching requirement of fighting corruption is the functioning of a strong, executive-neutral anti-graft institution. Here the shortcoming is pretty glaring. All we have is a weakened Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) thanks to a drastic amendment to the relevant act. The ACC's functional independence has been effectively negated by requiring it to take prior permission from the executive before proceeding with corruption charges against government functionaries and MPs. How does the ACC then differ from the infamous anti-corruption bureau that, as an appendage to the PMO, had been an abysmal failure as an anti-graft body?
Comments