Action on corruption-Why Political Leaders go soft, once in power...
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 12th Oct. 2014
Corruption as an election issue is always a 'good cheque'. Action on corruption, by people in power is always a damp squib. So much so, that the very same leaders who won't mind romping through the town over issue of corruption have started to push the onus back on people to 'eliminate' the corrupt during elections. This is even as very little is available by the way of actual action on 'exposing the corrupt'. It is not because we have elections hullaboo as 'corruption', since it is encountered in our everyday life where the 'sipahi' from traffic department to the 'municipal cleaners' looking for tips/pocket money are enticed with the bug. However any politician still shudders taking 'action' on corruption. This is because corruption, especially the one at high places, is a result of nexus between the political decision maker, the bureaucrat and the businessmen. The corruption that we witness at the lower level is partly a result of this culture at the higher level with smaller fry looking to eke out a slice for him due to obvious 'lack of monitoring' and rest due to public's own casual approach mixed with difficult and manual procedures.
The bureaucrat and the political leader know that they need take decisions 'especially on matters' which are 'grey areas' in terms of policy or in terms of project planning. Whatever decision is made will always be open to criticism as there are pros & cons or trade-offs behind every decision. To make matter worse, these decisions have to be taken often in absence of 'data' basis 'judgments' & arguments/ presentations/petitions' to smooth sail and fulfill responsibilities. Culturally, our ministers and bureaucrats have a negative feeling for surrendering power by rushing to committees for decisions since perception is that it delays as well as complicates the matter. We also do not clearly identify areas for which we need 'policy guidance' partly because it would tantamount to casting aspersions on policy makers; and partly because it may be interpreted as officer's own lack of initiative or shedding responsibilities.
These reasons push people for venturing in decision making areas. It simultaneously exposes them to criticism from colleagues, media and people. To make matter worse, we have simply too many laws that people do not understand as well as we have many areas were regular manual decision making is required but have 'limited' or no policy guidance/laws available as well as lack proper decision making structure where 'all' stakeholders can be consulted in a structured manner. We also have very limited ongoing efforts being made towards this end, in part because leaders do not want to 'loose power', but would want to brandish the same to create an 'aura' around themselves in self perception that this will keep people engaged and in good humour.
As far as taking action on the corrupt is concerned, it is not possible in such a scenario. This is because any person especially a bureaucrat who perceives harm or is actually harmed has potential to open a Pandora-box of cases, some of which may have gone awry because of corruption while others may have been simply bad human decision but with significant repercussions' currently kept under the wraps. This has potential not only to slow down decision making but also upset many existing applecart as well, a scenario dreaded by politicians and businessmen much more that the bureaucrat. So an image of combating corruption is being carefully nurtured while no practical action is witnessed with the help of media, since identifying gaps in policy and procedure/their fulfillment, is lacking in the DNA of the system as well as leaders. So the corrupt not only continues to have smooth sail but is also ensured that they would flourish, a clear recipe that their ranks will continue to swell rather than recede.
Encouraging faster decision may ensure somewhat faster growth & may silence some of the concerns pertaining to decision making, however it encourages corruption rather than diminishing it since the very same officers have a leeway to g wrong & still feel protected especially if they buy in the particularly strongly hard-sold logic that new leaders come with a better longevity which is being cultivated by the party in power without any express sanction from public, who are clearly in wait & watch mode. Setting up policy, procedures & institutions who identify structural gaps or take sweeping action as well as individual cases like Lokpal is still idea for which public is waiting though the parties seem to be reluctant to raising it anymore and concentrate on development which is likely to set up a tilted floor again and a clear recipe of defeat for newbie parties.
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 12th Oct. 2014
Corruption as an election issue is always a 'good cheque'. Action on corruption, by people in power is always a damp squib. So much so, that the very same leaders who won't mind romping through the town over issue of corruption have started to push the onus back on people to 'eliminate' the corrupt during elections. This is even as very little is available by the way of actual action on 'exposing the corrupt'. It is not because we have elections hullaboo as 'corruption', since it is encountered in our everyday life where the 'sipahi' from traffic department to the 'municipal cleaners' looking for tips/pocket money are enticed with the bug. However any politician still shudders taking 'action' on corruption. This is because corruption, especially the one at high places, is a result of nexus between the political decision maker, the bureaucrat and the businessmen. The corruption that we witness at the lower level is partly a result of this culture at the higher level with smaller fry looking to eke out a slice for him due to obvious 'lack of monitoring' and rest due to public's own casual approach mixed with difficult and manual procedures.
The bureaucrat and the political leader know that they need take decisions 'especially on matters' which are 'grey areas' in terms of policy or in terms of project planning. Whatever decision is made will always be open to criticism as there are pros & cons or trade-offs behind every decision. To make matter worse, these decisions have to be taken often in absence of 'data' basis 'judgments' & arguments/ presentations/petitions' to smooth sail and fulfill responsibilities. Culturally, our ministers and bureaucrats have a negative feeling for surrendering power by rushing to committees for decisions since perception is that it delays as well as complicates the matter. We also do not clearly identify areas for which we need 'policy guidance' partly because it would tantamount to casting aspersions on policy makers; and partly because it may be interpreted as officer's own lack of initiative or shedding responsibilities.
These reasons push people for venturing in decision making areas. It simultaneously exposes them to criticism from colleagues, media and people. To make matter worse, we have simply too many laws that people do not understand as well as we have many areas were regular manual decision making is required but have 'limited' or no policy guidance/laws available as well as lack proper decision making structure where 'all' stakeholders can be consulted in a structured manner. We also have very limited ongoing efforts being made towards this end, in part because leaders do not want to 'loose power', but would want to brandish the same to create an 'aura' around themselves in self perception that this will keep people engaged and in good humour.
As far as taking action on the corrupt is concerned, it is not possible in such a scenario. This is because any person especially a bureaucrat who perceives harm or is actually harmed has potential to open a Pandora-box of cases, some of which may have gone awry because of corruption while others may have been simply bad human decision but with significant repercussions' currently kept under the wraps. This has potential not only to slow down decision making but also upset many existing applecart as well, a scenario dreaded by politicians and businessmen much more that the bureaucrat. So an image of combating corruption is being carefully nurtured while no practical action is witnessed with the help of media, since identifying gaps in policy and procedure/their fulfillment, is lacking in the DNA of the system as well as leaders. So the corrupt not only continues to have smooth sail but is also ensured that they would flourish, a clear recipe that their ranks will continue to swell rather than recede.
Encouraging faster decision may ensure somewhat faster growth & may silence some of the concerns pertaining to decision making, however it encourages corruption rather than diminishing it since the very same officers have a leeway to g wrong & still feel protected especially if they buy in the particularly strongly hard-sold logic that new leaders come with a better longevity which is being cultivated by the party in power without any express sanction from public, who are clearly in wait & watch mode. Setting up policy, procedures & institutions who identify structural gaps or take sweeping action as well as individual cases like Lokpal is still idea for which public is waiting though the parties seem to be reluctant to raising it anymore and concentrate on development which is likely to set up a tilted floor again and a clear recipe of defeat for newbie parties.