Weak anticorruption measures

CORRUPTION is defined by Webster as the act or fact of making, becoming, or being corrupt (morally unsound or debased); evil or wicked behavior; depravity; bribery or similar dishonest dealings; decay; putridity; rottenness.

On the other hand, The World Bank defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain. As dealt with by the Council of Europe’s Mul­tidis­ciplinary Group of Ministers, corruption is bribery and can be said to constitute the combined effect of monopoly of power plus discretion in decision-making in the absence of accountability.

Among the major causes of corruption are greed, circumstances, opportunities and other temptations that include party funds, money for patronage, apprehension of loss of office, need for extra money to maintain living standards, etc. Thus, it breeds a distrust of public institutions; it undermines ethical principles by rewarding those who are willing and able to pay bribes—hence, it perpetuates inequality, makes money laundering lucrative and establishes links between corruption and organized crime.

However, history reveals that the idea of corruption has not always been an open topic. Discussions on corruption are usually made in whispers and in secret to prevent possible persecution, ostracism and alienation.

Consequently, tyranny and corruption characterized most governments and corrupt government officials enjoyed the fruits of corruption without obstacle.

But the last three decades have seen a radical shift in the perception of corruption. The social malaise has come to be recognized and the general public has become aware, not only of its existence, but more importantly, its adverse effects on society. The fear and anxiety that came with discussion of corruption in the open slowly melted in the sunshine of public awareness. Significantly, people of the world grew to abhor corruption.

Ramon’s alma mater, the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI), has taken a gigantic step in the paradigm shift the world is experiencing by portraying the weaknesses in anticorruption measures initiated by different countries. These are:

A. Legislation. Many countries have corruption punishable by penal code provisions only. The problem, however, lies in the actual implementation of the laws and the corrupt officials in the government.

B. Investigation. Many countries do not appear to have specialized investigative authorities against corruption. The investigators and prosecutors in said countries do not deal with corruption properly.

Reason: Their anticorruption agencies are open to informal influence by high-ranking officials that constitute several levels of hierarchical bureaucracy.

Furthermore, many countries do not have measures for anonymous complaints. Not much protection is given to whistle-blowers.

C. Trials. Some countries have a judiciary that enjoys the trust of the general public. However, the judiciary in other countries is not sufficiently independent to make fair judgments in corruption cases. Sometimes even the judiciary itself is corrupt.

D. Lack of political will. Many countries have governments that lack the political will to do their utmost to stamp out corruption. Political will to eradicate corruption can be described as the readiness and willingness on the part of the government and the citizenry as a whole to do so.

E. Lack of a code of ethics. Many countries do not possess a code of ethics. A code of ethics serves as a general guideline for government officials and employees to observe in the course of their official duties and functions. It is usually embodied in legislation. It underlines moral uprightness, official honesty and transparency, an appropriate standard of living and such other matters related to clean and honest governance at the personal level.

This may be viewed as closely linked with lack of political will.

(Items F, G, H, I, J on this descriptive list will appear on Wednesday).

This corner will portray next Wednesday the solutions to the forgoing problems.

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2006/dec/02/yehey/opinion/20061202opi3.html