Fighting Corruption
The founding of Transparency International (TI) in Berlin in 1993 was one of the most significant private sector initiatives in fighting universal corruption. I had the privilege of meeting Dr Peter Eigen, the first Chairman TI (who remains a good friend) very soon afterwards in 1994 during the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Annual Summit in Davos. A lawyer by training, Dr Eigen managed World Bank programs in Africa and Latin America for 25 years. Disgusted at seeing scarce funds being misappropriated by public officials and politicians in third world countries, aided and abetted by senior executives of multinationals of the first world, he alongwith his colleagues decided to do something tangible about it, thus was born the TI initiative. The Corruption Perception Index (CPI) was first launched in 1995. This survey of many countries by independent institutions was meant not to measure corruption itself, but to quantify what was perceived to be corruption by ascertaining the views of the general public, interested observers and independent institutions.
Virtuality
Despite PM Ms Benazir Bhutto’s wide-eyed poker-faced disclaimer about corruption (what corruption?) to the David Frost question in his Breakfast Show, “Virtual Reality” is that the corruption perception index for 1996 produced by Transparency International (TI), a multi-national organization dedicated to curb corruption in international business, places Pakistan second in corrupt countries behind Nigeria, adjudged to be the most corrupt (not by far) among the 54 countries surveyed. Among the least corrupt countries, New Zealand was first i.e. at No 54. In order of rascality among the Muslim nations (other than Nigeria that preceded us) Pakistan was followed in order of demerit by Bangladesh (at No. 4), Indonesia (at 10), Uganda (at 12), Egypt (at 14), Turkey (at 22), Jordan (at 25) and Malaysia (at 29). It is scant consolation that India is not far behind us (at No. 9 position) in the corruption stakes. Should we be happy that we are more corrupt than our perennial arch-rival or hang our heads in shame that even they are less corrupt than we are? To some of us it is a matter of embarrassment, to those who have worked overtime to put us on this shameful pedestal, does it really matter?
According to the article in Financial Times (Monday June 3, 1996), TI, with Headquarters in Berlin, defines corruption as “the misuse of public power for private benefits”. It tries to assess the degree to which public officials and politicians in various countries are involved in such practices as siphoning bribes, taking illicit payments in public procurement and the embezzling of public funds. TI’s summary of findings is based on 10 international business surveys, most conducted among foreign businessmen doing business with the survey-target countries. In the past three years we have deteriorated rapidly in the corruption stakes, sliding from a low of 2.25 points out of 10 in 1995 to even low 1.00 point in 1996, being bracketed by Nigeria’s 0.69/10 and Kenya’s 2.21/10 (at No.3 position). At the reverse end of the corruption scale, New Zealand retained its LEAST CORRUPT status but fell slightly from its high of 9.55 out of 10 (1995) to 9.43/10 (1996). Even the so-called “Banana Republics” that people in (and out of) uniform are usually scornful about are considerably less corrupt than Pakistan, the closest being Colombia at 15th position with 2.73 points out of 10.