Is corruption a necessary evil in democracy? Do the public encourage corruption by accepting it as a way of life? Because nothing gets done without bribing the government servants. Are all government officials in India corrupt? No. Some people like S. K. Dubey and Manjunathan even risk their lives for being different and trying to expose the network of corrupt practices. In India, top government job means power, status and easy life. But, there is also another factor- the wealth top bureaucrats can accumulate through bribes. If an official is not corrupt at the start of his/her career, he/she becomes one over the years. But not all. Here is a brave and committed IAS officer, M.N. Vijayakumar, from Bangalore, who has been fighting corruption all his career spanning 26 years. He's been very systematic. Unlike the two officials mentioned above, he's been lucky. The officer's pillar of support is his wife. She has turned to blogging last year in order to let the world know in detail about their activities. Wide reach of information will also discourage their enemies, she believes. (Link to her blog). Since he's a part of the system, he knows it inside out. One of the methods he's adopted in his fight against corruption, Right to Information Act (RTI), is a provision in the system itself. Now they are compiling the names of clean officials so that people can approach them straight away for getting their work done without bribing. His wife says they have been successful to a certain extent. She says, "There are plenty of honest people in government who support us secretly, but they are afraid to speak out; some tell us that they will help us when they retire...Several officers have now pledged in writing that they will no longer accept bribes." (Link)
Frequent transfers, threats of kidnapping and murder and numerous other kinds of harassment have only emboldened them.
 | We get the occasional corrupt official. They deal with them rather harshly, here, as it is a fairly uncommon occurrence. The last one was a government minister who obtained a $300,000.00 "loan" from a mining magnate. He's doing 5 years; the coal magnate is still to go to trial. |
 | It's not tolerated here in the UK - and if the press gets wind of a story that involves corruption, they are usually all over it. Or at least that's the impression I get (who can comment about the corruption stories we don't hear about?)
I think we're lucky here in the UK to have a large government sponsored, yet independent arm of the media in the BBC - who's charter explicitly contains clauses relating impartiality, journalistic credibility etc. This constitutional underwriting gives the BBC a power it might not otherwise have, and forces our politicians to be seen to be playing a straight bat.
What worries me is that in an increasing number of places, the likes of Murdoch and Berlusconi are getting closer and closer to partisan politics - something that I find uncomfortable.
So does the public accept corruption? Maybe, but the media is responsible for giving the public the information they need, without also falling victim to corruption themselves. |
 | drcurry wrote on Jan 28, '08, edited on Jan 28, '08 A free and independent press is essential to the proper functioning of democracy - "Sunshine is the most powerful of disinfectants."
One striking feature of the US Constitution is that it assumes that both elected and appointed officials will like as not be a) incompetent; and/or b) corrupt, so it inserts checks on their powers to counteract that. |
 | Those opening sentences is certainly how it works with Italy - And, let's face it, it's had more democracies than anyone else, since WWII! :)
My mother's view on who to vote for is partially based on the fact that; if you re-vote in the incumbent party, they don't have to "fill their pockets" (something they do first, before looking out for the likes of you and I!) |
 | Some years ago, concerned officials in the US noted that their experts in foreign commerce and trade negotiations weren't as effective at securing deals as were certain domestic and foreign corporations, and their expert governmental negotiators were virtually ineffective when compared with rogue dealmakers and the French. The 'why?' here was a classic example of what the world likes least about us, that is, our government was imposing its view of the right way to behave into negotiations. We held our own standards and ethics as a looking glass under which to view the motives and acts of trading partners, while in the background, third parties flush with cash were buying concessions left and right. So we put the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 into effect, to hamstring any US corporation or domestic corporate official who chooses to circumvent disclosure and make shady deals by way of bribes or promises in the 'local currency'. The history of our late 19th century is replete with examples of how our government implemented laws to force our corporate monopolies, feudal societies, and upstart local goverment officials to behave in line with a comprehensive ethical code. We're still out there, fighting the good fight against the rest of the world. |
| //We're still out there, fighting the good fight against the rest of the world//
Do you really believe that? Does "good fight" also mean bludgeoning potential trade partners into submission with implicit and explicit threats of exclusion from military technology sharing agreements in exchange for open slather access to trade markets for subsidised US merchandise and farm output? |
| Don't confuse judicial action with executive action! |
| India is like a great many other former British, Belgian and French colonies. A little baksheesh goes a long way, largely because their economc infrastructure was rooted up deliberately, in the first place.
Look at the shitfight those three colonial masters created in Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Congo, Burundi, Rwanda, etc.. Disparate currencies, disparate governmental and judicial systems, blatant favouritism of one tribal group over another. The upshot has been a century of the rest of the word trying to deal with the aftermath.
Bribery then becomes the only way to get things done, as the economic situation in most of those countries has left a heavily sratified populace and an economic model based largely on the ready availability of cheap labour, provided by an oppressed underclass. |
| Which of those would you suggest overt trade pressure typifies, [DC]? |
| drcurry wrote on Jan 28, '08, edited on Jan 28, '08 If you can't tell, you're not actually paying attention. Just be glad you're not kowtowing to the Chinese or Russians, who have no judicial restraint. |
| unabubba wrote on Jan 29, '08, edited on Jan 29, '08 //who have no judicial restraint//
Like the six years of sparkling jurisprudence exercised in the case of Guantanamo detainees? You do those countries an injustice. They both have a long history of prudent judicial management. That it doesn't jibe with the US system is more cultural than it is sinister.
No-one needs it, I'm sure. However, offering miltech to one country in exchange for trade concessions, then threatening to offer it to their neighbours when the first party refuses the deal on the grounds it's bullying, is just blackmail. US trade negotiators have a long history of riding roughshod over other sovereign nations. Read the story of Schwarzopf and Mossadegh sometime. The US is still paying for that one, 50 years later. |
| Back to the real question: Kenya (a former British colony) is sliding into feudal chaos following an election result that was not to the liking of the tribe who lost the election. Corruption at its worst. |
| I used to work for an American bank and was entertained to discover that they had an entire section of their balance sheet devoted to "Expediting Payments". These were described as expenses that bank employees had incurred in the field in the course of furthering company interests (or some equally furry language) - essentially, petty bribes and associated bank-handery. |
| ***Hands the unknown man a whistle*** |
| unabubba wrote on Jan 29, '08, edited on Jan 29, '08 Shah Pahlavi was an imposed solution, put in place by the US government. When that ended in a paroxysm of violence and religious fundamentalism it came as a surprise only to those with short memories, I would suggest.
The propensity for a country's government officials to resort to demanding bribes is linked directly to the attitudes of the leadership of the country and to how much those officials are paid. |
| ***Hands the unknown man a thick brown paper envelope*** |
| ***Removes contents of envelope, hands back envelope, arrests foreigner*** |
| |
It's not tolerated here in the UK - and if the press gets wind of a story that involves corruption, they are usually all over it. 