Anti-corruption Commission: How Effective Will it Actually be?

Aknowledgeable reporter of a leading daily brought out an article recently, the core part of which was that the existing Anti-corruption Department was going to have a sea-change; a complete metamorphosis, hopefully, would be able to combat corruption more effectively than ever before and this would bring a substantial improvement in the economic development of the country, among many other socio-economic malaise, that is devouring the nation. One very important bottle-neck or threatening stance has been the prevailing state of corruption in the country because of which genuine investors from within the country or from without, have been hesitating to stick out their neck by investing their scarce or hard earned resources. Knowledgeable persons or regular newspaper readers must have observed the virtual absence of a real cleansing activity or drive in the affected body politic of the Anti-Corruption Department on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the ear-marking of only those belonging to the opposite political camp or brandishing its biting teeth almost exclusively against senior high-ups in the bureaucracy who have fallen from grace of the top brass or of the ruling party.

Who would not want a thorough overhauling in the way the Anti-Corruption Department has been functioning for most of the period after our hard earned Independence? Many would think that while a few may have the misfortune of being run down by the hounds of the Anti-Corruption Department deservingly or undeservingly, in general the victims or the affected persons have been almost invariably the political opponents. Whether the Anti-Corruption Department was indeed conceived as an instrument against the political high-ups or not, the way it has conducted itself or has been forced to conduct itself by the top brass, to most thinking people it has indeed been a machinery of not a great significance in the realisation of our national goals. Perhaps it was, for all intents and purposes a political instrument in the hands of whosoever happened to wield the political power. With this backdrop, in our mind, would it be too much to treat with scepticism the proposed Administrative Reforms Commission's reported recommendation to the Government for converting the Department into an Anti-Corruption Commission, to be headed by a serving or recently retired Justice of the High Court/Supreme Court? This high or highest powered Commission will be kept on track by inclusion of very eminent persons from within the civil society, top academicians or representatives of the ministries concerned and some others of high eminence in an institution called the Anti-Corruption Council.

Is the proposed change fundamental or really profound or revolutionary or just cosmetic? This is the question. Otherwise who would not want some significant changes, which is the prime need of the hour?

A very recently published book entitled "Combating Corruption" by the World Bank, while voicing the above sentiments, recommended fundamental changes, has categorically stated performance of Anti-Corruption Department in most of the developing countries has been nothing but an ignominious failure. In the last analysis, the Department was nothing but an instrument of oppression in the hands of the political power or an instrument of running down their political opponents. This has been voiced in no uncertain terms. The autocratic environment prevailing in the body politic or in the culture in spite of many elements of democratic facade in the fundamental law or in the constitution of the country, the top brass wielding political power has had no difficulty in running after only those whose removal or harassment helped its political goals.

The book has focused on the significant way the administrative machinery in the island states of Singapore or Hong Kong were able to achieve their goals. This was mainly because the chief political powers were able to maintain their track enabling the administrative machinery to function independently. There was also their political commitment to prevent corruption or bring it down to the minimum barest bone. Because of their political commitment, not merely tall talks, these two small island city states have been able to establish themselves at par with other most developed countries of the world. The book also brought out the fact that many countries in Africa and Latin America copied the Hong Kong or Singapore experiments without being able to replicate political, cultural and civil democratic environment of Hong Kong or Singapore with little beneficial results. Such was the case in the Nigerian experiment because of the fact that the above real democratic postulates could not be replicated in these countries, especially in Nigeria.

Under the circumstances whether we call it a Department or a grand eloquent National Commission, how is it going to be any different if the final sanction to go ahead in the anti-corruption case of a person is to be obtained from the Prime Minister or the President in a given situation? With the final selection of the Head of the Commission or members of the Commission eventually resting on the likes and dislikes of the head of the government or of the state, will they also not bear within their heart a predilection, real or not, conscious or sub-conscious, to please their selectors? Will the head of the Commission indeed be able to work not merely autonomously, but independently and go, if situation demands, against the possible likes or dislikes of the authority in power? Will this Commission be given a blank cheque in this respect?

Assuming that such a Commission is going to be established, sooner or later, it goes without saying that there will have to be subsidiary bodies to be functioning at the division and district level, or at least at the district level. Will they also not be just a photo-type of the national Commission? This part of the world inherited a bureaucratic setup which delivered goods after all at least for a century in the past. They were of course tailor-made to the requirements of the colonial imperial power. One may suspect that the bureaucrats, under changed circumstances, could not have fully transformed themselves to the need of the civil democratic society. If they did fail to do so, are the bureaucrats alone to be blamed for that? Would not the political power, for at least in the past two decades, share the blame for the failure to convert them according to the need of the hour? Perhaps the different political powers may have fully converted them into their sub-servient tools. Whether that was as per national requirement or not, that is beside the point.

The writer is a former Secretary.