CURBING CORRUPTION THROUGH LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT
by Pritam Singh*
Corruption is eating into the very vitals of Indian society. There is a plethora of laws, but there is no respect for the law. Corrupt politicians get their own trusted henchmen posted to or appointed to key positions of power and authority. They in turn make similar postings and appointments until there is an almost complete hidden network, with considerable power, which is used to prosecute their ends. These may be: to repay obligations incurred while obtaining funds for their elections; fighting the next elections for themselves, or their party, or their cronies; and / or making hay while the sun shines.
New laws are enacted and orders passed, often with loopholes, intentionally or otherwise, which are used by dishonest elements to make money. Similar is the case with schemes taken up, ostensibly to help the poor and downtrodden, but subverted by the "powerful" to grab the benefits. It is often heard, (and widely believed to be true,) that appointments and postings to so-called "wet" jobs are "sold". Naturally, the persons who pay to get these posts first try to recover what they have spent, while at the same time, funneling money to the appointing authorities through the hidden network. Thus corruption has become institutionalized into a structured vested interest.
What are the reasons for the CANCER OF CORRUPTION? They may be
many. The basic cause is, of course, the desire to acquire more wealth and
power, which is ever present in the human psyche, and can be kept in control only
by the spiritually enlightened, or by the fear of God or man. In democracies,
the root may be, rather is, in the democratic process itself, in that nobody is,
(or feels), rich enough to contest elections with his own money. The candidate
or his party must raise money, through means fair or foul, even though they may
be personally well meaning and honest. But in the prevailing atmosphere of
corruption, an honest person may find himself in a powerless isolated minority.
Other causes mentioned are illiteracy, poverty, and a general lack of
accountability. Corrupt and scheming officials and their political patrons
cannot be brought to book, firstly because of lack of transparency, and
secondly, because of delays in the judicial process, which is sometimes
subverted by the investigating officials, or by lack of political will.
In the author's opinion,, illiteracy of the masses is not an important
cause, as the people know enough, in most cases, which party should be
given a chance. Their voting may, however, be influenced by considerations
of caste or creed or language, or by the rich and powerful, or by the
mafia, through money or muscle power. The author believes that most
people, even among the educated feel that they are powerless to do any
thing, though they do feel concerned about the continuous decline in political
standards and the rise of criminality.
Poverty is an important cause, not because the poor are more
corrupt, but because, due to centuries of enslavement and exploitation by
foreigners, and accompanying carpetbaggers, and also mis-governance at various
levels in the past few decades, people have come to accept corruption as
inevitable in "Kaliyuga".
Some level of corruption is present, and will continue to be present in all
societies. It has been and surely is present even in affluent democracies, such
as Japan, Italy, Germany, U.S.A., , Great Britain etc. The level of corruption
is, however. higher in so-called socialist societies professing democracy. Under
dictatorships, it may be higher or lower. It can be minimized for some time
only, until the ruler himself, and the ruling elite, are corrupted by their
absolute power. In India, however, corruption is not confined to the top
decision makers, but has permeated to the rank and file.
What then is the remedy? In the very long term, alleviation of poverty,
removal of illiteracy, and more civic and moral or spiritual
education, will help, provided we have some decades of a good, honest and
committed Government. A short spell of dictatorship seems very attractive. But
will it be short? We are very lucky that the Emergency Rule of 1975
was got rid of in a short two years. Next time round we may not be so fortunate.
The danger is that the situation may get out of control, unless corruption is
brought under control.
After a lot of thought and reflection over more than a year, the author has come
to the conclusion that the answer lies, not in dictatorship, but in MORE
DEMOCRACY. We have a fairly free press, (except for Government patronage to
newspapers and journalists) We also have an active judiciary.
Our electorate, though poor and illiterate, know what they want, and
that is, an honest and efficient Government. The only thing is that, under the
existing system, Governments at the Centre and the States are too remote
for the people to exercise control. Meanwhile, corrupt and criminal elements in
all governments in power, have a free run.
What we need is more LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, more self-government by the people
in village Panchayats and in neighbourhoods or Mohallas in towns and cities. The
Panchayats should have power to collect taxes, and should be able to manage
their own affairs such as running schools, dispensaries, libraries, etc. with
their own money. They should also have power to take up projects lying entirely
within their area. Preferably, they should be self-supporting and economically
independent. But in many cases, their income would have to be supplemented by
the District Panchayats and State Governments.
Panchayats should also have legal powers to monitor the spending of public money by Government or public sector agencies, within their geographical jurisdiction. They should have a legal right to examine files relating to contract specifications, spot check the quality and quantities of works executed or materials supplied by contractors, in comparison with those in their agreements. Such transparency will eliminate corruption at the working level. Lapses will also be more visible, and the erring officials punished more easily.
It may be argued that the Panchayat system already exists. But
the Panchayats are often dominated by the rich and powerful because of their
clout. They may be feudal landlords (Thakurs), or large factory owners, with
their henchmen stifling all opposition. Under the present system, however,
Panchayats have hardly any income of their own. They or their
Sarpanch may receive lump-sum grants from the District or State authorities,
over which the village electorates have no control. This is because the income
is not directly derived from within the village, but comes as a grant from
a remote source. Because of this, and because of centuries of
exploitation, there is hardly any public awareness, leave alone public
participation.
If the income of the Panchayat were to be collected by the Panchayat itself from
within the village, either as Sales tax, or Octroi, or Property tax or as
a share of land revenue, there would be more public participation, because
the people would not like to lose control over, what is visibly, their own
money. There would be regular general meetings of the Panchayats, at which the
elected Panchas would be held accountable for their working. and
programmes and progress monitored.
Large villages, or towns, or cities, should be subdivided into Mohallas, small enough that "everybody knows everybody else" at least by their reputation for integrity, or lack of it, so that electors can vote with their eyes open. The minimum election expenses on printing and distribution should be borne entirely by the Mohalla Panchayat. The Panchayat, or Residents Welfare Association / Council, would also fix election expenses to be incurred by a candidate or on his behalf, at a reasonable level. As the constituency would be small, expenditure above this level, would by itself expose the candidate to a reasonable suspicion, that his motives are black, going beyond professed aims to serve the electorate, and the normal ambitions of name, fame and leadership. Again, in a small village / Mohalla, the actions of the successful candidates and their behaviour during their term in office, would be more visible, and would lead to more transparency.
In the beginning, some persons of the wrong type would
manage to get elected, but after one or two terms, corrupt and self-seeking
politicians will be weeded out. In this way, a new breed of politicians will
develop, initially at the local level, evolving gradually to higher levels.
At the village and Mohalla level, elections should be held for the Sarpanch of
the Panchayat (or President of the Residents Welfare Society) with a fixed term
of two or three years. For other Panchas or Executive Committee members, the
term should be the same, but one-third should retire every year and give place
to new people to be elected in their place. But these are matters of detail,
which can be decided in due course.
As at present, elections at all levels, whether to the Block or District level
local government, or to the State Assembly, or the Lok Sabha, should be direct;
not indirect through any electoral college (whose members could be bought over
more easily, being fewer in number).
All candidates, to any public office, should be required to
declare their assets, in the same way as Government servants are required to do.
They should also be under the jurisdiction of Vigilance Commissions, or
Lok Ayuktas, or Lok Pals. Nobody should be exempt from scrutiny. Of course,
there should be safeguards against politically motivated and frivolous
accusations, with some system of punishment for those making them.
Transparency in the working of Governments at all levels, Central, State,
or Panchayat / Nagarpalika / Mohalla, is an absolute must. For this the Right to
Information Act and rules etc. should be passed and brought into effect as
quickly as possible.
If direct collection of taxes by a village Panchayat, is not possible, or
cumbersome, or too expensive, this can be entrusted to the District Panchayat,
or to the State Government, strictly as a collecting agency, with a proper legal
agreement. In the case of Mohallas of a large village or town or a city, there
would have to be agreed formulae for sharing of the taxes collected between
various levels, including the Central and State Governments, and, for some time
at least, subsidies to the poorer among them, in a way similar to the present.
The author has tried to put down the result of his
thinking over the past several months. He confesses that he is a
layman, with almost no experience. However, he has not been able to think of
any other practicable, peaceful, or democratic solution to the quagmire of
corruption into which Indian society has been sinking over the last few decades.
He would welcome a wide public discussion on the subject. Some Governments, like
that of the National Capital Region of Delhi, have initiated steps to involve
Resident Welfare Association to a larger extent. Although corrupt persons,
accustomed to making money under the table at present, will try to resist such
changes, nobody will dare to do so openly, as the political parties will stand
self-condemned if they do so."