Since the birth of the nation-state, corruption has manifested in one form or another. The intrinsic nature of corruption has created a tremendous burden on the state and society. It has caused strain and stress on maintaining the national integrity system and eroding global integrity goals, missions, and visions. Governmental, non-governmental, and civil society at national, regional, and international levels are relentlessly endeavoring to extirpate this phenomenon and install a state and society based on transparency, integrity, and accountability. State sector reforms, coalitions toward that end, and anti-corruption movements and sentiments from the grassroots to the upper echelons are common. Policy advocacy, civic awareness, good governance outreach programs, networks, and initiatives are widely discussed. But a pertinent question hovers regarding its effectiveness in translating anti-corruption into action, law implementation, and enforcement.
Corruption is defined as an abuse of power, position, and resources – human, material, economic, and financial – or distortion for personal, public, or private benefit. Corruption abets malefic consequences by discrediting democracy, curbing or violating its rich dividends (ethos, norms, and values) to the people, and undermining trust in government and governance. Corruption obstructs the achievement of genuine economic growth and ultimately hinders the achievement of sustainable development goals, an edict in global public policy of the United Nations. Corruption has become an international vice.
In public affairs comprising the political and administrative domain, economic, financial, and social sector corruption in varying degrees persists. Bribes, kickbacks, illicit dealings, illegal payments, procurement irregularities, logistics mismanagement, arrears, overdrafts, nepotism, favoritism, irresponsible handling of duties, rights, and freedom, abuse of state and government gifts, smuggling, trafficking, irregularities in contracts, political interventions, and bureaucratic misconduct while performing duties are salient features of corruption witnessed today. Public and private sectors are prone to these monetary and non-monetary enticements, endangering ethics, morals, and codes of conduct and compromising quality and quantity in public goods, services, and market products.
We need to ascertain the causes of corruption. Democracy is in decline, erosion, and decay due to poor quality of institutions, agencies, and organs of the government, legal impunity, lack of vigilance, social demonstrative effects perpetuated by the lure of wealth and capital greed, income inequality, poor competence, fraudulent activities, state monopoly on resources, political patronage, and a weak rule of law. These are some of the traits that foster corruption in any country across the world. Anti-corruption agencies and parliamentary oversight exist, but their impact and effect are feeble. Poor governance and corruption are implicit issues that have ousted governments, particularly in Nepal. Ineffective and inefficient public service delivery, coupled with a toxic work culture, adds to the burden of corruption.
The anti-corruption mission must underline a drastic reduction of corruption in everyday public affairs and envision a country and a world free from it. There are core values to uphold while conducting an anti-corruption drive: democracy, integrity, accountability, justice, coalition, and courage. The main objective is to combat corruption, promote a stance against it, and curb its extent. It also aims to enhance knowledge management, promote integrity, and enrich local, national, regional, and global experiences in promoting anti-corruption principles. Meanwhile, we can execute communication strategies, monitor global trends, forge strategic partnerships, and reach out to plural and diverse stakeholders, primarily citizens and people. A strategy against corruption prevents, cures, and deters it through a multidimensional approach with interconnected stakeholders.
Additionally, effective ombudsman management, autonomy, assessment and rating, networks, coalitions, anti-corruption tools, media advocacy (civic sense and sensitization), adequate resource allocation, and changing governmentality are necessary to uncover operational competence, epistemic skills, internalization, and realization of its imperatives, consolidating legitimacy and constant engagement in its noble pursuit. A zero-tolerance policy against corruption is not a rhetorical stance but a concrete reality that is possible in our dealings. Our journey in state and society in this matter is continuous because laxity and flexibility would always demand a clarion call to check and control corruption and misconduct in public affairs and the public sphere at every level.
Mainstreaming and streamlining five strategic directions among many strategies enacted so far can be proposed in anti-corruption issues, concerns, and stakes: national integrity, constitutional supremacy, public perception and misperception, international coalitions, knowledge base, and sustainable learning. We can, at least, hope that the tentacles of corruption can be controlled with robust political and administrative will and constant oversight and critique by civil society and vigilant public intellectuals. While the anti-corruption drive commences, it depends on the scope and intensity of commitment, pledge, and principles accompanied by praxis. Now, finally, regarding the parliamentary system, the maxim ought to be “no taxation or representation without anti-corruption in action.” And a bona fide glocal citizen should say “no to corruption.”
