Conquering corruption
Sustainable economic growth and the character of future India depend upon eliminating corruption. The government must take up, in mission mode, corruption elimination through systemic change and enforcement, says Kiran Karnik.
ASCOURGE affects India; one that is as endemic — and destructive — as malaria or TB. This is the malady of corruption. Like a cancer, it is virulent, spreading rapidly and affecting not just the body politic, or all organs of the state, but also all parts of our society. Like cancer, we are yet to find a cure.
The latest survey by Transparency International places India at rank 74. That we are neck-to-neck with China (ranked 73), and far better than our neighbours Pakistan (at 140), Nepal (135) and Sri Lanka (96), is hardly a matter of satisfaction. Another study indicates that one out of three below-poverty-line people paid bribes for basic services like water, health-care and education. This extortion from the starving highlights, in a shocking manner, the pervasiveness of corruption and the depths to which bribe-takers have sunk. It is, indeed, a bizarre validation of Prof Prahalad’s thesis of the fortune to be made from people at the bottom of the pyramid: after all, one study estimates that the poor in India paid Rs 9,000 crore as bribes!
A serious concern is the growing social acceptability of bribe-taking: a phenomenon that is synergistic with increasing corruption, being both its effect and cause. In earlier times, bribe-giving had a certain degree of social acceptability. For example, those who bought movie tickets “in black”, or paid a tout for a railway reservation, did not feel it necessary to hide such bribe-giving from their family or friends. However, it was rare for bribe-takers to flaunt their corrupt ways; for, the social norms of the time frowned on such means of money making. Little wonder that bribe-taking was done surreptitiously — metaphorically, if not literally, “under the table.”
Today, bribes are being taken quite openly — often packaged as “donations” to an institution, or more directly as “gifts” to the individual. It is not uncommon to hear boasts about how much money was received, and flaunting the resultant wealth. Media often report on the huge amounts of unaccounted assets seized from officials. Surely, friends and neighbours must have witnessed the accretion of the physical assets, hugely beyond the income of the official? Without doubt, fellow officials must know who is on the take? Is their silence an indication that they are scared to speak up, or do they think that to do so is useless, or is it because they are all in league? Sadly, as far as government and police are concerned, most people feel that the whole system is corrupt, that bribes are shared, “all the way to the top”. Bribe-takers, of course, have a vested interest in perpetuating this, as it enables them to extort more from the hapless victim, since “a part has to go to the boss”. Senior officials need to worry about this because, true or not, perception is reality.
Bribe-givers too need to be condemned, particularly those who pay to subvert the system or escape the law. Almost always, these are the educated and rich, those who have wealth but no values. Companies too are amongst the bribe-givers, though many of them keep their hands (and account books) clean by paying a “consultant” to dispense not advice, but money. Corporate corruption is often the result of a maze of laws, intentional bureaucratic delays, and the requirement of dozens of approvals from multiple agencies for a simple task. It is not always, though, that corporates are in the unfortunate victim category; they some times use bribes to score over competition and unfairly win contracts.
ON THE other hand, there are those who give bribes because they have no choice: the poor and powerless, for example, have little choice when a corrupt official demands a bribe for a service he controls — issuing driving licences, ration cards, or land-ownership deeds. Corruption thus further exacerbates social and economic inequities, with the poor having to pay bribes for services that are meant to be free, while the rich get what is not rightfully theirs. In effect, the well-off get a high rate of return on their bribes, while the poor get a negative one.
Corruption is not only a social, moral and economic evil, it also has potentially serious security implications. As everyone — except, of course, the powers that be — knows, driving licences can be bought. This poses enormous safety hazards (and is arguably the root cause of Delhi’s infamous killer buses), and is also a security risk since a driving licence is often used as a proof of identity and address. Similarly, the “know your customer” requirement for a mobile phone — presumably introduced due to security concerns — has no meaning if it can be by-passed through a petty bribe. Worse, corruption is also known to exist in the police verification process.
Reform enthusiasts see this as one more reason to privatise more government functions. However, while bribery is undoubtedly rampant in government, it is by no means their monopoly. Private entities, as noted earlier, are adept at giving bribes; they are also in the business of taking bribes. An example of this — again known to all — is the extent of corruption in private educational institutions. In fact, for most, the raison d’etre, their business model itself, is based on corruption.
Systemic changes — particularly the use of information technology and the RTI Act — are a possible solution for this seemingly intractable problem. IT brings transparency, eliminates service-provider monopoly by providing multiple access or delivery points, and allows multi-level monitoring. It thereby reduces the possibility of rentseeking. Railway passenger reservation system is a good example of the near-elimination of corruption through the induction of IT. However, other systemic changes are required, beyond the mere application of IT or use of the RTI Act.
Given Indian ingenuity in by-passing any system, a radical reduction in corruption can come about only through social pressures and internalised values. Enforcement and serious efforts on the part of key stakeholders are essential eco-system factors that will create and sustain such a socio-cultural approach. The corporate sector needs to create a no-corruption certification, along the lines of quality and other standards, and subject itself to an independent audit on this. In parallel, the government could take up, in mission mode, corruption elimination through systemic change and enforcement. Sustainable economic growth, inclusive and equitable development and the character of future India depend upon eliminating corruption.