COMBATING CORRUPTION: WHY POLITICAL REFORM IS ECONOMIC REFORM
Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
July 04, 2009
There is no single, comprehensive, universally accepted definition of corruption. Many specific forms of corruption are clearly defined and understood, and are the subject of numerous legal or academic definitions. Many are also criminal offences, although in some cases Governments consider that specific forms of corruption are better dealt with by regulatory or civil law controls. Some of the more commonly encountered forms of corruption are considered below:
"GRAND" AND "PETTY" CORRUPTION
Grand corruption is corruption that saturates the highest levels of a national Government, leading to a broad erosion of confidence in good governance, the rule of law and economic stability. Petty corruption can involve the exchange of very small amounts of money, the granting of minor favours by those seeking preferential treatment or the employment of friends and relatives in minor positions.
"ACTIVE" AND "PASSIVE" CORRUPTION
In discussions of transactional offences such as bribery, "active bribery" usually refers to the offering or paying of the bribe, while "passive bribery" refers to the receiving of the bribe. In criminal law terminology, the terms may be used to distinguish between a particular corrupt action and an attempted or incomplete offence.
BRIBERY
Bribery is the bestowing of a benefit in order to unduly influence an action or decision. It can be initiated by a person who seeks or solicits bribes or by a person who offers and then pays bribes. Bribery is probably the most common form of corruption known. Definitions or descriptions appear in several international instruments, in the domestic laws of most countries and in academic publications. The "benefit" in bribery can be virtually any inducement: money and valuables, company shares, inside information, sexual or other favours, entertainment, employment or, indeed, the mere promise of incentives. The benefit may be passed directly or indirectly to the person bribed, or to a third party, such as a friend, relative, associate, favourite charity, private business, political party or election campaign. Once bribery has occurred, it can lead to other forms of corruption. By accepting a bribe, an official becomes much more susceptible to blackmail. Most international and national legal definitions seek to criminalize bribery. Some definitions seek to limit criminalization to situations where the recipient is a public official or where the public interest is affected, leaving other cases of bribery to be resolved by non-criminal or non-judicial means.
EMBEZZLEMENT, THEFT AND FRAUD
In the context of corruption, embezzlement, theft and fraud all involve the taking or conversion of money, property or valuable items by an individual who is not entitled to them but, by virtue of his or her position or employment, has access to them. In the case of embezzlement and theft, the property is taken by someone to whom it was entrusted. Fraud, however, consists of the use of false or misleading information to induce the owner of the property to relinquish it voluntarily.
EXTORTION
Whereas bribery involves the use of payments or other positive incentives, extortion relies on coercion, such as the use or threat of violence or the exposure of damaging information, to induce cooperation. As with other forms of corruption, the "victim" can be the public interest or individuals adversely affected by a corrupt act or decision. In extortion cases, however, a further "victim" is created, namely the person who is coerced into cooperation. While extortion can be committed by Government officials or insiders, such officials can also be victims of it.
ABUSE OF DISCRETION
In some cases, corruption can involve the abuse of discretion, vested in an individual, for personal gain. For example, an official responsible for Government contracting may exercise the discretion to purchase goods or services from a company in which he or she holds a personal interest or propose real estate developments that will increase the value of personal property. Such abuse is often associated with bureaucracies where there is broad individual discretion and few oversight or accountability structures, or where decision making rules are so complex that they neutralize the effectiveness of any accountability structures that do exist.
FAVOURITISM, NEPOTISM AND CLIENTELISM
Generally, favouritism, nepotism and clientelism involve abuses of discretion. Such abuses, however, are governed not by the self-interest of an official but the interests of someone linked to him or her through membership of a family, political party, tribe, religious or other group. If an individual bribes an official to hire him or her, the official acts in self-interest. If a corrupt official hires a relative, he or she acts in exchange for the less tangible benefit of advancing the interests of family or the specific relative involved (nepotism). The favouring of, or discriminating against, individuals can be based on a wide range of group characteristics: race, religion, geographical factors, political or other affiliation, as well as personal or organizational relationships, such as friendship or membership of clubs or associations.
CAUSES OF CORRUPTION
Corruption flourishes where institutions of governance are weak, where government´s policy and regulatory regime provide scope for it, and where oversight institutions (e.g. parliament, judiciary, civil society) are marginalized or have become corrupted. It is particularly likely to occur in the interaction between the public and private spheres. However, it should be emphasized that few countries consciously set out to encourage corruption. The causes of corruption are highly contextual, rooted in a country´s political
development, legal development, social history, bureaucratic traditions, economic conditions and policies. Consequently, the efforts needed to combat corruption should also vary not only between countries, but also between institutions within the country. Listed below are some of the conditions and policies that facilitate the emergence of corruption.
CONSEQUENCES OF CORRUPTION
Experts agree that the effects of corruption are far reaching and impact all aspects of a states social, political and economic life.
1. Political Consequences
Corruption is insidious, attacking the quality of governance and stability of nations by undermining the legitimacy of the political process. Political consequences vary according to the type and level of corruption as well as the type of political system in which it occurs. However, corruption can have any number of potentially negative impacts such as:
Substitute´s personal gain for ideology and principle.
Prevents or makes it more difficult for governments to implement laws and policies.
Damages the reputation of politicians and encourages people to go into politics for the wrong reasons.
Undermines public trust in politicians and in political institutions and processes.
Erodes international confidence in the government.
Encourages cynicism and discourages political participation.
Perverts the conduct and results of elections.
Ensures that the poor remain politically powerless.
Consolidates political power and reduces political competition.
Delays and distorts political development and sustains political activity based on patronage, clientism and money.
Limits political access to the advantage of the rich.
Reduces the transparency of political decision-making.
2. Economic Consequences
The economic costs of corruption vary according to the scale and frequency of corrupt transactions and on which part of the economy and population are most affected by it. In principle, corruption acts as an unofficial tax on consumers and producers and those least able to pay suffer the most from its regressive impact. Corruption can compromise the achievement of sustainable development objectives. Bribing and rent-seeking result in additional business costs, a burden to small entrepreneurs, and the misallocation of a country´s human capital and talent. The continuous attention demanded of business by corrupt officials also threatens economic productivity. Competition becomes focused on the highest bribe thereby denying the public the advantages of a competitive marketplace.
In sum, there are significant correlations between high levels of corruption and a range of negative economic consequences including:
Creating inefficiencies in the operation of markets.
Distorting the composition of public expenditure by focusing spending on activities likely to yield large bribes, for example, major public construction works and defense contracts.
Reducing the level of direct foreign investment by adding costs and creating uncertainty.
Petty corruption imposes disproportionate costs on the poor but its wider economic costs are limited. Large scale or grand corruption can destroy the economy and impoverish entire populations.
3. Social Consequences
In social terms, corruption cultivates a range of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs. Corruption is divisive and makes a significant contribution to social inequality and conflict. This divisiveness can take two forms:
Laterally, it separates the poor from the rich, the observers from the players. It encourages the poor to see government as predatory and oppressive rather than enabling and their sense of powerlessness and exclusion is reinforced.
Vertically, corruption helps divide ethnic groups and communities from each other and promotes rivalries and jealousies. High levels of corruption can also help breed a culture of suspicion and distrust. In extreme cases, social cohesion breaks down, as it becomes more difficult to persuade people to work together for the common good as corruption encourages and rewards selfishness and denigrates collective action. In practical terms, corruption can divert resources away from social programs with a number of negative consequences, such as:
As education spending falls, so do levels of literacy.
As health spending falls, so the incidence of disease will increase.
The poor will be increasingly marginalized and their sense of social exclusion will be strengthened.
Within the ranks of the poorest people, women will be particularly disadvantaged and prevented from developing their capacities and taking a full part in society.
IMPROPER POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
One of the most difficult challenges in developing anti-corruption measures is to make the distinction between legitimate contributions to political organizations and payments made in an attempt to unduly influence present or future activities by a party or its members once they are in power. A donation made because the donor supports the party and wishes to increase its chances of being elected is not corrupt; it may be an important part of the political system and, in some countries, is a basic right of expression or political activity protected by the constitution. A donation made with the intention or expectation that the party will, once in office, favour the interests of the donor over the interests of the public is tantamount to the payment of a bribe.
Regulating political contributions has proved difficult in practice. Donations may take the form of direct cash payments, low-interest loans, the giving of goods or services or intangible contributions that favour the interests of the political party involved. One common approach to combating the problem is to introduce measures that seek to ensure transparency by requiring disclosure of contributions, thus ensuring that both the donor and recipient are politically accountable. Another is to limit the size of contributions to prevent any one donor from having too much influence.
CONDITIONS FAVORABLE FOR CORRUPTION
Concentration of power in decision makers not directly accountable to the people as often seen in non-democratic regimes.
Lack of government transparency in decision-making.
Costly political campaigns, with expenses exceeding normal sources of political funding.
Large amounts of public capital involved in a project.
Weak rule of law.
Weak legal profession.
Minimal freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
Poorly-paid government officials.
Apathetic, uninterested, or gullible populace that fails to give adequate attention to political processes.
Absence of adequate controls to prevent bribery or so-called "campaign donations."
CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO PREVENT CORRUPTION
Systems with operational transparency are less susceptible to corruption than those that operate in secrecy. Transparency is created by such elements as access to information policies and the activities of a healthy independent media. A free media is a powerful instrument, not only for exposing corruption and holding those responsible legally and politically accountable but also as for educating the public and instilling high expectations of integrity.
Public trust in Government, anti-corruption agencies and anti-corruption policies and measures is key when a country invites the public to take an active role in monitoring the performance of its Government. It takes political will, institutional ability and integrity to execute reforms to fight corruption. Political will is required to develop, implement and sustain the strong measures needed to identify and eliminate corrupt values and behaviour. Institutional ability is required to ensure that political commitments are actually carried out, often in the face of entrenched informal organizations within public institutions intent on blocking or limiting reforms. Curbing systemic corruption is a challenge that will require stronger measures, more resources and a longer time frame than most politicians and "corruption fighters" will acknowledge or can afford.
Fundamental to all reforms, however, is integrity and the perception of integrity, especially at the highest levels of Government and in entities responsible for anti-corruption measures. Without integrity, any steps taken to combat corruption will lack credibility, both as positive examples of how public officials and institutions should behave and as deterrents to corrupt behaviour.
Deterrence is a single but important element of anti-corruption strategies. By definition almost, corruption is a calculated and premeditated activity and can be deterred. Deterrence includes not only conventional prosecution and punishment but also administrative, regulatory, financial and economic deterrence. Where personal or corporate risks, uncertainties and punishments are minimal, corruption tends to increase. Conversely, reforms that increase uncertainties and the risk of criminal punishment or financial losses tend to reduce corruption. Generally, reforms must be broad-based and systemic, or corrupt conduct may simply be displaced into other areas or activities.
INVOLVING ALL KEY STAKEHOLDERS
The participation of civil society in assessing the problem of corruption and in formulating and implementing reforms is now seen as an important element of anti-corruption strategies. Anti-corruption measures and the commitment needed to make them work must be based on a full assessment of the extent of corruption and its harmful effects. The participation of civil society is vital to the assessment. Policies and practical measures are most likely to succeed if they enjoy the full support, participation and "ownership" of civil society. Finally, only a well-developed and aware civil society ultimately has the capacity to monitor anti-corruption efforts, expose and deter corrupt practices and, where measures have been successful, credibly establish that institutions are not corrupt.
Raising public awareness is an element of most anti-corruption strategies, but it must be accompanied by measures that visibly address the problem, otherwise the increased public awareness can lead to widespread cynicism and loss of hope that may, in some cases, contribute to further corruption.
CONSTRUCTING AN ANTI-CORRUPTION STRATEGY: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH
Developing a national anti-corruption strategy requires the successful merger of "universal" elements, namely those that have proved effective against corruption regardless of where it occurs, and elements that take into account country-specific circumstances. An integrated approach will be:
fact-based; transparent; simultaneously nonpartisan and multi-partisan; inclusive; comprehensive; impact-oriented; and flexible. Country-specific will include problems that may be unique to the country involved plus other national variables such as:
Legal or constitutional constraints,
The nature of political and legislative structures,
The extent to which the media, academic sources and other elements of civil society are willing and able to participate in the strategy, and
The availability and extent of domestic and other resources.
THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY
Transparency in Government is widely viewed as a necessary condition for effective corruption control and, more generally, for good governance. Open information and understanding are also essential to public participation in and ownership of anti-corruption strategies. Lack of transparency is likely to result in public ignorance when, in fact, broad enthusiasm and participation are needed. It can also lead to a loss of credibility and a perception that the programmes are corrupt or that some elements of Government may have avoided or opted out of them. In societies where corruption is endemic, such an assumption will usually be widespread and can be rebutted only by programmes being publicly demonstrated to be free of corruption. Where transparency does not exist, popular suspicions about the programmes may well be justified.
THE NEED FOR NON-PARTISAN OR MULTI-PARTISAN SUPPORT
The perception that the fight against corruption is a partisan political issue can impede anti-corruption strategies and more general efforts to establish good governance, the rule of law and regular, stable political structures. The fight against corruption will generally be a long-term effort and, in most countries, is likely to span successive political administrations. That makes it critical for anti-corruption efforts to remain politically neutral, both in the way they are administered and in their goals. Regardless of which political party or group is in power, reducing corruption and improving service delivery to the public should always be priorities. The partisan scrutiny of Governments and political factions for corruption or other malfeasance is a valuable factor in combating corruption. Vigilance is important, but excessive partisanship can lead to retaliatory cycles in which each faction, on gaining office, corruptly rewards its supporters and punishes its opponents. Such behaviour corrupts and politicizes key functions such as the appointment of public servants and the awarding of public contracts. It also degrades the professionalism of the public service by replacing merit with political criteria in staffing, promotion and critical advisory and decision-making functions.
THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVENESS
The need for a comprehensive approach to developing, implementing and evaluating an anti-corruption approach is vital, with all sectors of society from the central Government to the individual being involved at every stage. That includes elements from the public and private sector, as well as international organizations, national non-governmental institutions and donor Governments.
THE NEED FOR IMPACT-ORIENTED ELEMENTS AND STRATEGIES
Clear and realistic goals must be set; all participants in the national strategy must be aware of the goals and the status of progress achieved to date. Thus, measurable performance indicators must be established, as well as a baseline against which the indicators can be measured. While elements of the strategy and the means of achieving specific goals may be adjusted or adapted as the strategy evolves, the basic goals themselves should not be changed if that can be avoided, with the occasional exception of time lines.
THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY
While strategies should set out clear goals and the means of achieving them, the strategies and those charged with their implementation should be flexible enough to permit adaptations to be made based on information from the periodic progress assessments. Compliance should not be reduced by suggesting to those adversely affected by the strategy that, by opposing it, they might secure adaptations that would be more favorable to their interest.
Pakistan´s National Anti Corruption Strategy (NACS)
The purposes of the NACS were to:
Undertake a review and assessment of the causes, nature, extent and impact of corruption in Pakistan;
Develop an integrated framework for tackling it with focus on prevention along with enforcement; and
Create an implementation action plan for containment of corruption.
The NACS is structured around the pillars of the National Integrity System, a concept borrowed from the Transparency International and adapted to local needs. This concept entails that a country´s national integrity system comprises of pillars or sectors, which if operating with high standards of transparency, accountability and effectiveness, support each other and will in turn help maintain high standards of national integrity and low levels of corruption. Each pillar will act as a watchdog on at least one other and will support each other in keeping the desired level of integrity. These pillars are:
Legislature and the political system;
Executive;
Public accountability bodies: Auditor General; Public Accounts Committee; and the Ombudsman;
Anti corruption agencies;
Legal system and judiciary;
Media;
Civil society; and
Private sector.
The strategy is woven around three strands:
Through education and awareness, develop a society that is effective against corruption;
Through a preventive model, reduce need and opportunities; and
Through stronger accountability mechanisms, deter greed.
"GRAND" AND "PETTY" CORRUPTION
Grand corruption is corruption that saturates the highest levels of a national Government, leading to a broad erosion of confidence in good governance, the rule of law and economic stability. Petty corruption can involve the exchange of very small amounts of money, the granting of minor favours by those seeking preferential treatment or the employment of friends and relatives in minor positions.
"ACTIVE" AND "PASSIVE" CORRUPTION
In discussions of transactional offences such as bribery, "active bribery" usually refers to the offering or paying of the bribe, while "passive bribery" refers to the receiving of the bribe. In criminal law terminology, the terms may be used to distinguish between a particular corrupt action and an attempted or incomplete offence.
BRIBERY
Bribery is the bestowing of a benefit in order to unduly influence an action or decision. It can be initiated by a person who seeks or solicits bribes or by a person who offers and then pays bribes. Bribery is probably the most common form of corruption known. Definitions or descriptions appear in several international instruments, in the domestic laws of most countries and in academic publications. The "benefit" in bribery can be virtually any inducement: money and valuables, company shares, inside information, sexual or other favours, entertainment, employment or, indeed, the mere promise of incentives. The benefit may be passed directly or indirectly to the person bribed, or to a third party, such as a friend, relative, associate, favourite charity, private business, political party or election campaign. Once bribery has occurred, it can lead to other forms of corruption. By accepting a bribe, an official becomes much more susceptible to blackmail. Most international and national legal definitions seek to criminalize bribery. Some definitions seek to limit criminalization to situations where the recipient is a public official or where the public interest is affected, leaving other cases of bribery to be resolved by non-criminal or non-judicial means.
EMBEZZLEMENT, THEFT AND FRAUD
In the context of corruption, embezzlement, theft and fraud all involve the taking or conversion of money, property or valuable items by an individual who is not entitled to them but, by virtue of his or her position or employment, has access to them. In the case of embezzlement and theft, the property is taken by someone to whom it was entrusted. Fraud, however, consists of the use of false or misleading information to induce the owner of the property to relinquish it voluntarily.
EXTORTION
Whereas bribery involves the use of payments or other positive incentives, extortion relies on coercion, such as the use or threat of violence or the exposure of damaging information, to induce cooperation. As with other forms of corruption, the "victim" can be the public interest or individuals adversely affected by a corrupt act or decision. In extortion cases, however, a further "victim" is created, namely the person who is coerced into cooperation. While extortion can be committed by Government officials or insiders, such officials can also be victims of it.
ABUSE OF DISCRETION
In some cases, corruption can involve the abuse of discretion, vested in an individual, for personal gain. For example, an official responsible for Government contracting may exercise the discretion to purchase goods or services from a company in which he or she holds a personal interest or propose real estate developments that will increase the value of personal property. Such abuse is often associated with bureaucracies where there is broad individual discretion and few oversight or accountability structures, or where decision making rules are so complex that they neutralize the effectiveness of any accountability structures that do exist.
FAVOURITISM, NEPOTISM AND CLIENTELISM
Generally, favouritism, nepotism and clientelism involve abuses of discretion. Such abuses, however, are governed not by the self-interest of an official but the interests of someone linked to him or her through membership of a family, political party, tribe, religious or other group. If an individual bribes an official to hire him or her, the official acts in self-interest. If a corrupt official hires a relative, he or she acts in exchange for the less tangible benefit of advancing the interests of family or the specific relative involved (nepotism). The favouring of, or discriminating against, individuals can be based on a wide range of group characteristics: race, religion, geographical factors, political or other affiliation, as well as personal or organizational relationships, such as friendship or membership of clubs or associations.
CAUSES OF CORRUPTION
Corruption flourishes where institutions of governance are weak, where government´s policy and regulatory regime provide scope for it, and where oversight institutions (e.g. parliament, judiciary, civil society) are marginalized or have become corrupted. It is particularly likely to occur in the interaction between the public and private spheres. However, it should be emphasized that few countries consciously set out to encourage corruption. The causes of corruption are highly contextual, rooted in a country´s political
development, legal development, social history, bureaucratic traditions, economic conditions and policies. Consequently, the efforts needed to combat corruption should also vary not only between countries, but also between institutions within the country. Listed below are some of the conditions and policies that facilitate the emergence of corruption.
CONSEQUENCES OF CORRUPTION
Experts agree that the effects of corruption are far reaching and impact all aspects of a states social, political and economic life.
1. Political Consequences
Corruption is insidious, attacking the quality of governance and stability of nations by undermining the legitimacy of the political process. Political consequences vary according to the type and level of corruption as well as the type of political system in which it occurs. However, corruption can have any number of potentially negative impacts such as:
Substitute´s personal gain for ideology and principle.
Prevents or makes it more difficult for governments to implement laws and policies.
Damages the reputation of politicians and encourages people to go into politics for the wrong reasons.
Undermines public trust in politicians and in political institutions and processes.
Erodes international confidence in the government.
Encourages cynicism and discourages political participation.
Perverts the conduct and results of elections.
Ensures that the poor remain politically powerless.
Consolidates political power and reduces political competition.
Delays and distorts political development and sustains political activity based on patronage, clientism and money.
Limits political access to the advantage of the rich.
Reduces the transparency of political decision-making.
2. Economic Consequences
The economic costs of corruption vary according to the scale and frequency of corrupt transactions and on which part of the economy and population are most affected by it. In principle, corruption acts as an unofficial tax on consumers and producers and those least able to pay suffer the most from its regressive impact. Corruption can compromise the achievement of sustainable development objectives. Bribing and rent-seeking result in additional business costs, a burden to small entrepreneurs, and the misallocation of a country´s human capital and talent. The continuous attention demanded of business by corrupt officials also threatens economic productivity. Competition becomes focused on the highest bribe thereby denying the public the advantages of a competitive marketplace.
In sum, there are significant correlations between high levels of corruption and a range of negative economic consequences including:
Creating inefficiencies in the operation of markets.
Distorting the composition of public expenditure by focusing spending on activities likely to yield large bribes, for example, major public construction works and defense contracts.
Reducing the level of direct foreign investment by adding costs and creating uncertainty.
Petty corruption imposes disproportionate costs on the poor but its wider economic costs are limited. Large scale or grand corruption can destroy the economy and impoverish entire populations.
3. Social Consequences
In social terms, corruption cultivates a range of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs. Corruption is divisive and makes a significant contribution to social inequality and conflict. This divisiveness can take two forms:
Laterally, it separates the poor from the rich, the observers from the players. It encourages the poor to see government as predatory and oppressive rather than enabling and their sense of powerlessness and exclusion is reinforced.
Vertically, corruption helps divide ethnic groups and communities from each other and promotes rivalries and jealousies. High levels of corruption can also help breed a culture of suspicion and distrust. In extreme cases, social cohesion breaks down, as it becomes more difficult to persuade people to work together for the common good as corruption encourages and rewards selfishness and denigrates collective action. In practical terms, corruption can divert resources away from social programs with a number of negative consequences, such as:
As education spending falls, so do levels of literacy.
As health spending falls, so the incidence of disease will increase.
The poor will be increasingly marginalized and their sense of social exclusion will be strengthened.
Within the ranks of the poorest people, women will be particularly disadvantaged and prevented from developing their capacities and taking a full part in society.
IMPROPER POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
One of the most difficult challenges in developing anti-corruption measures is to make the distinction between legitimate contributions to political organizations and payments made in an attempt to unduly influence present or future activities by a party or its members once they are in power. A donation made because the donor supports the party and wishes to increase its chances of being elected is not corrupt; it may be an important part of the political system and, in some countries, is a basic right of expression or political activity protected by the constitution. A donation made with the intention or expectation that the party will, once in office, favour the interests of the donor over the interests of the public is tantamount to the payment of a bribe.
Regulating political contributions has proved difficult in practice. Donations may take the form of direct cash payments, low-interest loans, the giving of goods or services or intangible contributions that favour the interests of the political party involved. One common approach to combating the problem is to introduce measures that seek to ensure transparency by requiring disclosure of contributions, thus ensuring that both the donor and recipient are politically accountable. Another is to limit the size of contributions to prevent any one donor from having too much influence.
CONDITIONS FAVORABLE FOR CORRUPTION
Concentration of power in decision makers not directly accountable to the people as often seen in non-democratic regimes.
Lack of government transparency in decision-making.
Costly political campaigns, with expenses exceeding normal sources of political funding.
Large amounts of public capital involved in a project.
Weak rule of law.
Weak legal profession.
Minimal freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
Poorly-paid government officials.
Apathetic, uninterested, or gullible populace that fails to give adequate attention to political processes.
Absence of adequate controls to prevent bribery or so-called "campaign donations."
CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO PREVENT CORRUPTION
Systems with operational transparency are less susceptible to corruption than those that operate in secrecy. Transparency is created by such elements as access to information policies and the activities of a healthy independent media. A free media is a powerful instrument, not only for exposing corruption and holding those responsible legally and politically accountable but also as for educating the public and instilling high expectations of integrity.
Public trust in Government, anti-corruption agencies and anti-corruption policies and measures is key when a country invites the public to take an active role in monitoring the performance of its Government. It takes political will, institutional ability and integrity to execute reforms to fight corruption. Political will is required to develop, implement and sustain the strong measures needed to identify and eliminate corrupt values and behaviour. Institutional ability is required to ensure that political commitments are actually carried out, often in the face of entrenched informal organizations within public institutions intent on blocking or limiting reforms. Curbing systemic corruption is a challenge that will require stronger measures, more resources and a longer time frame than most politicians and "corruption fighters" will acknowledge or can afford.
Fundamental to all reforms, however, is integrity and the perception of integrity, especially at the highest levels of Government and in entities responsible for anti-corruption measures. Without integrity, any steps taken to combat corruption will lack credibility, both as positive examples of how public officials and institutions should behave and as deterrents to corrupt behaviour.
Deterrence is a single but important element of anti-corruption strategies. By definition almost, corruption is a calculated and premeditated activity and can be deterred. Deterrence includes not only conventional prosecution and punishment but also administrative, regulatory, financial and economic deterrence. Where personal or corporate risks, uncertainties and punishments are minimal, corruption tends to increase. Conversely, reforms that increase uncertainties and the risk of criminal punishment or financial losses tend to reduce corruption. Generally, reforms must be broad-based and systemic, or corrupt conduct may simply be displaced into other areas or activities.
INVOLVING ALL KEY STAKEHOLDERS
The participation of civil society in assessing the problem of corruption and in formulating and implementing reforms is now seen as an important element of anti-corruption strategies. Anti-corruption measures and the commitment needed to make them work must be based on a full assessment of the extent of corruption and its harmful effects. The participation of civil society is vital to the assessment. Policies and practical measures are most likely to succeed if they enjoy the full support, participation and "ownership" of civil society. Finally, only a well-developed and aware civil society ultimately has the capacity to monitor anti-corruption efforts, expose and deter corrupt practices and, where measures have been successful, credibly establish that institutions are not corrupt.
Raising public awareness is an element of most anti-corruption strategies, but it must be accompanied by measures that visibly address the problem, otherwise the increased public awareness can lead to widespread cynicism and loss of hope that may, in some cases, contribute to further corruption.
CONSTRUCTING AN ANTI-CORRUPTION STRATEGY: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH
Developing a national anti-corruption strategy requires the successful merger of "universal" elements, namely those that have proved effective against corruption regardless of where it occurs, and elements that take into account country-specific circumstances. An integrated approach will be:
fact-based; transparent; simultaneously nonpartisan and multi-partisan; inclusive; comprehensive; impact-oriented; and flexible. Country-specific will include problems that may be unique to the country involved plus other national variables such as:
Legal or constitutional constraints,
The nature of political and legislative structures,
The extent to which the media, academic sources and other elements of civil society are willing and able to participate in the strategy, and
The availability and extent of domestic and other resources.
THE NEED FOR TRANSPARENCY
Transparency in Government is widely viewed as a necessary condition for effective corruption control and, more generally, for good governance. Open information and understanding are also essential to public participation in and ownership of anti-corruption strategies. Lack of transparency is likely to result in public ignorance when, in fact, broad enthusiasm and participation are needed. It can also lead to a loss of credibility and a perception that the programmes are corrupt or that some elements of Government may have avoided or opted out of them. In societies where corruption is endemic, such an assumption will usually be widespread and can be rebutted only by programmes being publicly demonstrated to be free of corruption. Where transparency does not exist, popular suspicions about the programmes may well be justified.
THE NEED FOR NON-PARTISAN OR MULTI-PARTISAN SUPPORT
The perception that the fight against corruption is a partisan political issue can impede anti-corruption strategies and more general efforts to establish good governance, the rule of law and regular, stable political structures. The fight against corruption will generally be a long-term effort and, in most countries, is likely to span successive political administrations. That makes it critical for anti-corruption efforts to remain politically neutral, both in the way they are administered and in their goals. Regardless of which political party or group is in power, reducing corruption and improving service delivery to the public should always be priorities. The partisan scrutiny of Governments and political factions for corruption or other malfeasance is a valuable factor in combating corruption. Vigilance is important, but excessive partisanship can lead to retaliatory cycles in which each faction, on gaining office, corruptly rewards its supporters and punishes its opponents. Such behaviour corrupts and politicizes key functions such as the appointment of public servants and the awarding of public contracts. It also degrades the professionalism of the public service by replacing merit with political criteria in staffing, promotion and critical advisory and decision-making functions.
THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVENESS
The need for a comprehensive approach to developing, implementing and evaluating an anti-corruption approach is vital, with all sectors of society from the central Government to the individual being involved at every stage. That includes elements from the public and private sector, as well as international organizations, national non-governmental institutions and donor Governments.
THE NEED FOR IMPACT-ORIENTED ELEMENTS AND STRATEGIES
Clear and realistic goals must be set; all participants in the national strategy must be aware of the goals and the status of progress achieved to date. Thus, measurable performance indicators must be established, as well as a baseline against which the indicators can be measured. While elements of the strategy and the means of achieving specific goals may be adjusted or adapted as the strategy evolves, the basic goals themselves should not be changed if that can be avoided, with the occasional exception of time lines.
THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY
While strategies should set out clear goals and the means of achieving them, the strategies and those charged with their implementation should be flexible enough to permit adaptations to be made based on information from the periodic progress assessments. Compliance should not be reduced by suggesting to those adversely affected by the strategy that, by opposing it, they might secure adaptations that would be more favorable to their interest.
Pakistan´s National Anti Corruption Strategy (NACS)
The purposes of the NACS were to:
Undertake a review and assessment of the causes, nature, extent and impact of corruption in Pakistan;
Develop an integrated framework for tackling it with focus on prevention along with enforcement; and
Create an implementation action plan for containment of corruption.
The NACS is structured around the pillars of the National Integrity System, a concept borrowed from the Transparency International and adapted to local needs. This concept entails that a country´s national integrity system comprises of pillars or sectors, which if operating with high standards of transparency, accountability and effectiveness, support each other and will in turn help maintain high standards of national integrity and low levels of corruption. Each pillar will act as a watchdog on at least one other and will support each other in keeping the desired level of integrity. These pillars are:
Legislature and the political system;
Executive;
Public accountability bodies: Auditor General; Public Accounts Committee; and the Ombudsman;
Anti corruption agencies;
Legal system and judiciary;
Media;
Civil society; and
Private sector.
The strategy is woven around three strands:
Through education and awareness, develop a society that is effective against corruption;
Through a preventive model, reduce need and opportunities; and
Through stronger accountability mechanisms, deter greed.
Print
Email
