The Hindu Business Line : UN blows the whistle on corruption

Corruption kills and adds to global insecurity and the risks of war; it increases poverty, curbs freedom, undermines human rights and distorts trade.

— Dr Frank Vogl, co-Founder of the Transparency International

OCTOBER 31 is a day to remember for the United Nations. It was on that day in 2003 that the General Assembly of the 191-member body unanimously adopted the first-ever international treaty against corruption. There had been other conventions and compacts launched under its auspices before on themes extending from rights of women and children to development goals to food and energy security to substance abuse and organised crime, but this was the first time when it faced squarely the existence of an evil that struck at the root of the objectives of the UN charter itself, and realised the need to bind the member-governments to an enduring framework of preventive, investigative and retributive measures to attack and eliminate a pervasive scourge that was responsible for damage of colossal proportions to the social and economic fabric of nations, exceeding that caused by any other single crime.

Cost of corruption

According to a rough and conservative estimate made by the World Bank Institute, more than $1,000 billion is paid in bribes worldwide in both rich and developing countries each year. In the case of one unnamed Asian country, the World Bank puts the loss due to corruption over the past 20 years at $48 billion, surpassing its entire foreign debt of $40.6 billion. The studies conducted by the Asian Development Bank have revealed that corruption can cost a country up to 17 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product. The consequences for the people at the receiving end of these depredations are made all the more insufferable by the universally recognised links between corruption and organised crime, terrorism, internecine conflicts, environmental degradation and economic downslide, making nonsense of all talk of democracy, development, human rights, justice, equity and effective governance.

It is not surprising that it took more than half-a-century for the UN to muster the will to pass a resolution on December 4, 2000, to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to negotiate a Convention Against Corruption. Even then, the negotiations proper did not begin until nearly two years later. It ran a meandering course between January 21, 2002 and October 1, 2003, extended over as many as seven sessions with long intervals in between. The Convention in its final form was approved by the General Assembly on October 31, 2003 and opened for signature by member-countries on December 9, 2003. Till date only 120 countries (India included) have formally signed it, leaving nearly a third of the membership undecided; and of the signatories, only nine have ratified it. Since the Convention can come into force only in the third month after at least 30 member-governments have deposited the instruments of ratification, it has been successfully stalled by the last ditch resistance being put up by the stragglers.

The dragging of their feet by governments is entirely understandable. Long and firmly entrenched corrupt cliques and vested interests fattening themselves by plundering and stashing away public funds are not going to let go their grip on the respective governments that easily. To quote the blunt words of Dr Frank Vogl, the co-Founder of the Transparency International, which grades countries according to the perceived level of corruption: "The spoils of corruption have lined the pockets of so many government leaders for so long that building an international consensus to stop the rot and expose the villains was a Herculean task."

Powerful handle

No wonder, then, despite their prolonged wrangling, the contracting parties could not agree among themselves on the precise definition of corruption and they had to leave it to the judgment of individual governments to determine the nature of the beast the Convention was meant to kill.

However, thanks to the assiduous campaign waged against the pernicious phenomenon by the World Bank and the IMF over the years, and the formulations contained in the earlier conventions against bribery and unethical business behaviour adopted by the Council of Europe, the European Union, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the Inter-American Union, national governments have been left in no doubt about the thrust and target of the Convention.

It is buttressed by an uncompromising body of opinion tantamount to a ruling doctrine denoting corruption as abuse of public office for illegitimate private gain, either by oneself or in collusion with accomplices, in both public and private domains, in all its manifestations of fraud, embezzlement, conflict of interest and quid pro quo of any kind that runs counter to public interest.

For all the obstacles placed athwart its path, and despite the UN lacking the executive power of enforcement and imposing sanctions for non-compliance, the Convention gives a powerful handle to citizens and the civil society to pressure their governments to implement its provisions and bring the guilty to book. The Convention has commendably gone to great lengths to lay down legislative and procedural prescriptions requiring member-countries to include an array of corrupt practices as criminal offences, establish institutions, mechanisms and safeguards to prevent corrupt acts and prosecute offenders, strengthen judicial integrity and capacity, and promote integrity in the public and private sectors. But this is not its chief merit which is its being a watershed in the history of the UN in that it has scored over the other past efforts by achieving two major breakthroughs which hit the culprits where it hurts.

The first is the section impelling whistle-blowers to come unhesitatingly forward to expose any mala fide act, wilful negligence or knowingly committed irregularity that breeds corruption, on promise of absolute protection from any harm consequent thereon. The second, hailed as "the fundamental principle of the Convention", is the unambiguous stipulation that the movable and immovable assets and acquisitions of the corrupt and the venal, wherever located, whether within or outside the country concerned, should be confiscated and recovered and appropriated to the state.

To this end, a duty has been cast on member-countries to provide the maximum cooperation to each other in taking prompt action on such requests. In order to make the recovery easier, banks have been enjoined to waive their secrecy provisions and to verify the identity of customers and the real owners of high-value accounts by setting up a financial intelligence unit. These are salutary remedies to counteract the worst effects of corruption, sending a message that there will be no place for the corrupt to hide their ill-gotten assets.

Indian paradox

Where does India fit into all this litany of no doubt laudable endeavours? India had been ahead of most other nations in having a Prevention of Corruption Act and a Special Police Establishment (later morphing into the Central Bureau of Investigation) for fighting corruption. As early as in 1966, the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption had covered the ground extensively, in many respects going farther than the UN Convention. For instance, the setting up of vigilance departments presided over by a Chief Vigilance Officer in every Ministry and Public Sector Undertaking, and the constitution of the Chief Vigilance Commission as a pivotal authority to monitor the progress of vigilance cases, with a right to tender binding advice on the manner of their disposal in certain designated categories of public servants are the direct outcome of its recommendations.

The Santhanam Committee was the first to bring possession of unexplained disproportionate assets within the ambit of corruption and to enunciate the proposition that the abuse and misuse of power for self-aggrandisement by the political executive is most to be blamed for the prevalence of corruption at all other levels.

Accordingly, it wanted allegations of their misconduct to be investigated by Lok Ayuktas in the States and a Lok Pal at the Centre and the guilty visited with deterrent punishment after a quick trial. The Committee even demanded that politicians facing allegations of corruption should be kept out of public office and any position in the party, and socially ostracised and not invited to marriages or public or official functions.

The political establishment has expectedly been stonewalling all the way and all the time so as to nullify the effect of these path-breaking efforts. The Lok Pal Bill has been in the doldrums for the last 40 years, and deferred time after time for giving it "further consideration".

The result is there for all to see: Not one politician has been convicted and jailed for corruption or possession of disproportionate assets. Corrupt politicians in sizeable numbers are ruling the roost as elected representatives of the people and secured plum portfolios in Cabinets. For as long as the Transparency International has been publishing the Corruption Perception Index, India has been enjoying the unique distinction of occupying a consistently low grading both for integrity (currently 2.8 on a scale of 10) and human development (127th out of 154 countries). What a fall for a country with such exalted moral traditions enshrined in its scriptures and epics and exemplified by personages such as Mahatma Gandhi, Rajaji and Kamaraj.

More Stories on : Economic Offences | Politics

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Opportunity for independent BPO units

Opening the Burma road

Managing the economic affairs

You've to run faster just to stay in the same place

The order of rebate

UN blows the whistle on corruption

Knowledge does not fit well in the `comfortable world' of economists

Sticklish issues