Politics of corruption

By The Economist

Wasn't this erstwhile minister rewarded with an additional post of Deputy Minister of Finance after the last election? Surely the allegations of corruption precedes this appointment? Does one become corrupt and subject to investigation and Inland Revenue queries only when one leaves the government? Election time becomes one of widespread accusations of corruption. The public perception is one of most politicians being corrupt. In fact civil society has turned cynical expecting all politicians to be corrupt. So much so that it seems that corruption is not an important determinant of electoral results. This attitude is indeed tragic as the best protection against corruption is the vigilance of civil society and a clear verdict that corrupt individuals and governments would not be returned to power. 

There was a time when corruption was deemed necessary. A little bit of corruption, it was said, is necessary to grease the wheels of the economy. There was a belief that corruption enables faster economic growth. These ideas have been rejected. Corruption retards economic growth. The concept of "good corruption" is unacceptable. Many recent studies have pointed out that corruption has been the single most significant factor for economic decline. One of the underlying causes of the Asian economic crisis of 1997-98 was corruption in many areas of economic activity. Corruption destabilizes economies, retards long-term economic growth, distorts economic decision-making and increases public expenditure. Ultimately the costs of corruption have to be borne by the people. 

Philip Segal, a Hong Kong based journalist has argued that "once corruption takes hold, these economies (Hong Kong and Singapore) have found, it can rage out of control and threaten the entire fabric of a society, weakening development prospects in a disturbing, dangerous way." 

These two countries, which were once corrupt, have reformed themselves and thereby been the beneficiaries of the change. Singapore and Hong Kong have been transformed to such an extent, that in 1998 Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index placed Singapore above the United States. Singapore's exemplary anti-corrupt character, particularly the very high integrity among civil servants, is well known. Singapore boasts of a high code of ethics, regulations and high salaries for public servants. 

Corruption can be particularly disadvantageous to economies that rely on foreign investment and trade. Foreign investors look to countries that have transparent systems and officials with whom they could deal openly and honestly. Where corruption is known to exist investors are hesitant to come in as it is often difficult to cope with the nuances of corruption in a country and their efforts could be costly in terms of effort, time and money. The importance of being honest is being increasingly recognised. Corruption has an economic cost. Vital decisions could be distorted to the detriment of the economy. Corruption could lead to a whole range of economic decisions being taken at huge costs to the economy. The economic distortions that such corruption may entail are incalculable. 

Allegations of corruption have not been confined to the former ministers of the government. Officials in high positions, such as the former Chairman of the Board of Investment, have also been accused of corruption. If corruption is in agencies that are directly involved in foreign investment and critical areas of infrastructure development, the damage is likely to be even more serious. Foreign investments and the development of new energy sources have been seriously affected by political and official corruption. 

There are a number of ways in which corruption could be monitored. One method, which has been hardly used in Sri Lanka, is to track down the assets and expenditures of officials. The declarations of assets of politicians and officials remain in sealed envelopes. It should be mandatory for politicians and officials to make known any substantial changes in assets when they occur. Inland Revenue should bring within the tax net all those who are legally within the tax range. The highly corrupt have means by which they can hide their ill-gotten wealth, but a more vigilant Inland Revenue Department could reduce such possibilities. The current practice of harassing those who fall out with the government is disgusting. It is a kind of political corruption. 

If the levels of corruption in our society are to be brought down, there must be a far greater sense of urgency and recognition that it affects the economic performance of the country. Government must lead by example. Civil society must recognise the need to eradicate this evil and bring pressures to bear on the government to take effective measures to check corruption, particularly in high places. The press and other media must be relentless in their search and exposure of corruption. Corruption is costly. 

Returning to some electoral sanity

This column focuses on these identified concerns which remain equally relevant for the forthcoming December elections where an unprecedented clash of political power and egos may yet lead us to witness our bloodiest elections ever.

Activists and election monitors petitioned the Commission on the basis that the right to know of voters compelled the Commissioner of Elections and the Inspector General of Police to make public all directives and circulars issued by them with regard to the polls. Two principal worries were isolated as far as law and order was concerned. These were firstly, the absence of directives to ensure freedom of movement to electors from their residences to the polling station on the day of the poll, security to the polling agents who accompany Senior Presiding Officers to the counting centre and the security of election staff. The second concern related to the norms governing the deployment of police officers during the election period. Particularly, the refusal or failure of police officers to entertain and record all election-related complaints and the failure to categorise these complaints correctly, the delays and omissions in investigating the offences revealed in the complaints and taking legal action against the offenders and the effective discharge of duties and responsibilities of police officers posted to protect the polling station, specially the responsibility of preventing unauthorised persons from entering the polling stations, including persons accompanying candidates.

These proceedings, including the explanations of the Police Department, are matters of public record at the Commission. They are interesting for the manner in which they reveal the helplessness of the Department, the total inadequacy of circulars and directions and the uselessness in setting up Special Elections Units within a hopelessly politicised police force and extreme political intimidation. Undoubtedly, these are concerns that a partially operative 17th Amendment could be made to address at this moment in time. While it is only prudent that the Commissioner has requested clarification from the Attorney General as to his powers under the 17th Amendment, the latter itself is very clear cut in its empowerment of specific powers with regard to the authority of the Commissioner. 

With regard to the deployment of police during election times, for example, the Commissioner (in lieu of the Elections Commission) is mandatorily required to notify the IGP of the facilities and the number of police officers required for the holding or conduct of such election, which then shall be made available accordingly. 

These police officers and facilities may be deployed by the Commissioner in such a manner as is calculated to promote the conduct of a free and fair election. Crucially, every police officer thus made available, shall be responsible to and act under the direction and control of the Commissioner during the period of an election. Certain immunities from suit have also been specified for acts done in good faith by police officers in pursuance of directions issued by the Elections Commissioner. The powers granted to him are therefore considerable and the public now looks at him to exercise his authority swiftly and strongly. Similarly, the public has a right to know what specific measures have been taken by him in this respect and in what specific manner he has called upon the IGP under the 17th Amendment as he is compulsorily required to do.

In this exceedingly criminalised political culture meanwhile, it could be provocatively argued that the Commissioner of Elections in Sri Lanka is vested with another responsibility, even though not specifically laid down in the 17th Amendment. This argument may borrow its force from parallel debates in India initiated by a recent judgement of the Delhi High Court in the Association for Democratic Reforms case (November 2, 2000), proceeding from similar constitutional authority given to the Indian Elections Commission. The judgement by Justice Anil Dev Singh (for himself and Dr Justice M.K. Sharma) recognised not only that the right to know of voters is a constitutional entitlement but asserted that the right to vote has meaning only if people know and have the right to know the full antecedents, criminal record and suitability of the candidates that they vote for. Accordingly, the court went on to impose a duty on the Elections Commission and the prospective candidate to reveal firstly, criminal records, including where the candidate is accused of an offence, secondly, assets possessed by the candidate, spouse and dependent relatives and thirdly, facts giving insight to the candidate's competence, capacity and suitability for political office. 

The Indian Elections Commission was given a roving power to make this information available to the public in a country where, as in Sri Lanka, regional and national thugs have become political leaders. 

The Commission had, even prior to the judgement in question, been singular in its attempts to address these issues, laying down a Model Code of Conduct for candidates for example. The Elections Commissioner who heads the Commission in India, has at times, been accused of being extreme in his actions, as for instance when he stopped the counting of votes in one election on the ground that liquor had been freely distributed to the voters the day before and in another instance when elections were postponed due to blatant violation of the Model Code of Conduct by the Chief Minister of that province. We may not need to go that far this soon perhaps but some action beyond circulars and directions is compulsively needed before much time lapses between now and December.