Typically, each truck pays about Rs. 200 per day as bribes
at check posts, octroi centres, and other places. Thus,
petty corruption in truck transport alone accounts for over
Rs 20,000 crores per annum! Clearly, corruption amount of
Rs 200,000 crore every year is a realistic estimate by any
standard.
The
disclosure of assets of candidates which came into effect
in 2002 with Supreme Court intervention has created some
unusual situations. Many politicians known to be wealthy,
but corrupt disclose very little income or assets, whereas
honest politicians with legitimate income disclose much
more. The net result is, disclosure of assets has become
somewhat ludicrous, and often distorted. There are still
many honest politicians and public servants. It would be
extremely debilitating to our democracy to paint all public
servants - elected or appointed - by the same brush.
Huge,
unaccounted and illegitimate election expenditure, mostly
incurred by the candidates as an investment in politics
as business, demands multiple returns to sustain it. Even
a casual analysis shows the multiplier effect of illegitimate
election expenditure on corruption: risk premium is high
in politics; provisioning for the next election has to be
substantially higher than the previous one; a high return
on risky investment is the natural expectation; the many
party 'cadres', who in mass-based parties are actually mercenaries,
need to be rewarded with access to public money and opportunities
to make a 'living' at cost of state or society; and the
many intermediaries in the vast cycle of corruption demand
their own pound of flesh, thus multiplying the corruption
proceeds several fold. Direct theft of public money through
treasury malpractices is both rare and easy to detect and
punish. In a robust and open democracy, complex systems
need to be evolved to sustain such a web of corruption.
Transfers and postings of officials and even junior employees
often has a price. At times some form of auctioning actually
take place, and the positions go to the highest bidders.
The bids can be one-time payment for a tenure, or monthly
payment of a guaranteed amount.
The
expensive private political advertisements in language papers
and bill boards extolling the virtues of this municipal
chairman or that MLA, not to speak of state party basses
and chief ministers is an indication of the huge expenditure
which goes into politics as investment in anticipation of
multiple returns. Such large expenditure by political wannabes
for self-aggrandizement or pleasing political godfathers
significantly adds to the corruption load on the system.
This
tragic vicious cycle of corruption is undermining competition,
jeopardizing vital services, diminishing quality of lives,
distorting public life, and impeding economic growth. Bhanoji
Rao and Srinivas Kolluru estimate that our growth rate will
increase by about 1.65% at current investment levels if
our integrity reaches Singapore levels. Competition and
choice in the economy have successfully curbed corruption;
telephones is a good example. Transparency and technology
have been effective in reducing supply. But technology succeeds
only when processes are reengineered. Land records computerization
in AP did not reduce corruption in land registration; but
in Maharashtra there was greater success. Recently issuing
driving license and renewal has become largely corruption-free,
thanks to sensible process reengineering coupled with application
of IT.
But
there are core areas which cannot be taken out of state
control. Already justice system is 'privatized' by armed
gangs taking law into their hands, and providing rough and
ready 'justice' for a price through brutal means. In fact,
this state failure has vastly complicated our politics and
inducted murderers into legislatures. Therefore, the standard
libertarian mantra of 'privatization' does not address the
problem adequately. It only tends to shift corruption from
the economic areas of decision making to the core areas
of state functioning. Therefore, while efforts should continue
to curb the supply of bribes, we need to look hard at the
demand side.
One
simple solution is to make it much harder for corrupt public
servants to enjoy the fruits of their perfidy. For instance,
the Law Commission, in its 166th report (1999) recommended
confiscation of properties of corrupt public servants. Jammu
and Kashmir recently enacted such a legislation. Such a
law effectively enforced along with strict curbs on benami
transactions (as advocated by Law Commission in its 57th
report in 1973) will reduce the rewards of corruption drastically,
and increase the risks hugely. This is a relatively simple
and easy measure which should find broad acceptance across
the political spectrum.
A
lot more needs to be done to transform the political culture
and to change the electoral system in order to make it possible
for honest men and women assume public office without illegitimate
expenditure. But the first sensible step is to make the
corrupt pay.
***