Democracy and Corruption
Because of the lack of accountability, totalitarian rule creates an ideal breeding ground for corruption even though the risks may be greater. Why is it then that democracy, whose touchstone is accountability, a prey to rampant corruption, particularly in the developing world? As the third world rid itself of colonialism, quite a number of the “free world’s” leaders were military dictators/absolute monarchs who not only looted their country blind but revelled in it. The west mostly looked the other way, it being convenient to support them in the name of “democracy” and “freedom” in the fight against communism. Money laundering, evasion of taxes, flight of capital, etc very much frowned upon in the west, were all conveniently ignored. The 60s and early 70s saw leaders like the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines, Suharto of Indonesia, Mobuto of Zaire, etc as the darlings of the west, the leading edge of the cold war. As this era wound down in the 80s, these leaders became embarrassments for their former mentors. Their riches were deposited in banks in places as diverse as Switzerland, Luxembourg, Cayman Islands, Isle of Man etc, their real estate holdings and other investments spread all across the world through a myriad network of dummy corporations, off-shore companies, front-men, etc. The developed world had accountability because of a free media, systemized documentation and public knowledge because of the high percentage of literacy, this accountability was denied to new found “democracies” where demagogues and so-called populists held sway, misusing their mandate to make financial bonanzas while making their future bright, in some cases attempting to also make their past bright.
Among the worst cases at the present time are the Suhartos of Indonesia, everyone of the siblings is a billionaire in his/her own right while the country is bankrupt. However the Suhartos do not make such a pretense of democracy as do the leaders of South Asia. The Bofors scandal in India is an open-and-shut case against the late Rajiv Gandhi. One of the major reasons why Italian-born Sonia has abandoned her recluse-like existence and stepped into politics is to have a nuisance value to keep the Bofors case-file from going public. The son of late Bangladesh President Gen Ziaur Rahman is a slur on the known honesty of his father while former President Lt Gen HM Ershad is still a democratic force despite the fact that it is widely believed, even by his supporters and friends, that he diverted millions in public money for his own private use. Pakistan’s great democratic hope, Ms Benazir Bhutto, has been discovered to be a looter-extraordinary, glib rhetoric and smart remarks notwithstanding, courtesy mostly of her incarcerated husband. Not only is the loot well-documented but thanks to an extraordinary effort by Senator Saifur Rahman and his lot, much in variance to his Mr Hyde personality, the foreign banks where some of the loot landed up have been detected and in many cases the accounts frozen. Brazen-faced the former PM had the gall to first deny their existence even, well knowing that she is not telling the truth. What is more extraordinary is that mature political leaders have fallen for her misleading spiel. If other leaders, even with little political standing, get in alliance with her it gives her credibility with the masses, such is the sham that goes for democracy in Pakistan.
The most potent symbol of that sham today, other than Ms Benazir and Madam Marcos, is Ms Jayalalitha who has become a lynchpin to the BJP Government’s survival in India. According to well-documented widely publicized articles in the print and electronic media, Jayalalitha spent the equivalent of almost US$ 25 million on the extravagant wedding of an adopted son. For years the BJP has been attacking her for her known corruption but even in the presence of wide-ranging public knowledge about her corrupt activities, she almost swept her State and holds the balance of power with her 18 national seats. The same BJP leaders, despite their rhetoric about honest government and righteousness about their principles, have prostrated themselves before this potent symbol of corruption, in their lust to acquire power in the Centre by fair means or foul. No less an example of such false standards in democracy, is the story of Imelda Marcos. A la Benazir Bhutto, quite a portion of her illegal wealth has been traced abroad, in Swiss banks and world-wide real estate holdings. This lady ingeniously claims that the reason for her wealth is the discovery of a Japanese gold hoard by her husband dating back to the Second World War, she convinced the Filipinos enough to win a seat for the Philippines Senate and is now a serious candidate for the Presidency of the Philippines, despite well documented proof of her corruption, including the very public recent return of US$ 500 million plus to the Philippines from Swiss Banks.
The public apathy, despite these well-known cases of known corruption, is a sad reflection on the process of democracy. In the west, such people could not have survived politically, though one daresays it would have made no difference to their acceptability and lifestyle on the cocktail circuit which is full of white collar thieves who are bank defaulters, tax evaders, money-launderers, etc. However, why are we in the Third World resigned to accept such corrupt leaders as players in the process of democracy, indeed why are we resigned to this “democracy”? In the western world, a free media and wide-ranging literacy contributes to a form of check and balance, having this drawback in the developing world why should we allow corrupt leaders to bankrupt our fledgling nation because of the western concept of (and for) democracy, particularly when they themselves do not tolerate similar behaviour in their environment?
Madam Marcos, Benazir Bhutto, Jayalalitha, etc are only the tip of the iceberg where charisma overcomes better sense in a one-person one-vote process of democracy. Hundreds and hundreds of legislators are corrupt, criminal, inefficient etc, should we treat democracy as a game where we can accept illegality on their part if such people are elected by the gullibility of the masses? There has to be a fail-safe mechanism at the grassroots level to ensure that such people do not find a place in the democratic process. However even the existing laws are never applied. Asif Zardari and Ms Benazir Bhutto had declared their illegal wealth before filing their candidacies, neglecting to mention in their declarations their illegal wealth abroad, and what about the missing information in their tax returns? Now that the proof about their bank accounts exist, why are they not being disqualified as parliamentarians for starters? When PML (N) stalwarts were incarcerated in 1995, the common gossip was that they would not be proceeded against so that when the Bhutto/Zardari combine was out of power they would be similarly privileged, mutual reciprocity in a privileged exclusive club whose members specialize in looting the nation! These may just be rumours but the coincidence of the “hands off each other” policy is disturbing and a denouement of the democratic process as applicable in the Third World. The question arises, should this farce be allowed to continue to the detriment of the nation? Corruption has not been confined to political leaders and bureaucrats, there was a massive diversion of CIA funds meant for the Afghan War, is anybody at the hierarchy level in the ISI answerable for the very visible wealth of people whose fathers could not afford new car batteries what to talk of new cars less than two decades ago? Did their fathers, very much like Marcos, also “find” a pot of “Japanese gold”, maybe? Do not the leaders of this country, whether in politics, bureaucracy, judiciary or in uniform, etc have a moral responsibility to recover the looted money as well as ensuring that the scions of such people do not take advantage of a sham democracy to further enrich themselves and then fly away to greener pastures?
Today, this country is in the grip of a severe economic crisis because of decades of loot by unscrupulous leaders, exacerbated by our political leaders in the past decade or so. Those in the corridors of power must face upto their moral responsibility as well as the courage to do their fundamental duty to the nation to use their authority judiciously, otherwise they are as much culpable as those involved in the crime itself. Benignly ignoring chicanery is a crime and our leaders through the broad public spectrum must have more determination to do their bounden duty or make way for those who will. This country will descend into anarchy if the guilty are allowed to use the present sham democracy as a camouflage for their crimes. Accountability, in the hands of shameless tears is a farce, we are fooling ourselves with such a democracy. The moral obligation to the downtrodden and poverty stricken masses as well as to the existence of the nation transcends any meaningless piece of paper. What is the use of a Constitution that does not prevent the unscrupulous from looting the till, what use is that paper to a man whose children remain hungry, sick and uneducated as a result?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment