Political corruption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

World map of the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International, which measures "the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians". High numbers (blue) indicate less perception of corruption, whereas lower numbers (red) an indicate higher perception of corruption.

Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Misuse ofgovernment power for other purposes, such as repressionof political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political corruption. Neither are illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly involved with the government. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties. Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion,cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. While corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such asdrug trafficking, money laundering, and human trafficking, it is not restricted to these activities. The activities that constitute illegal corruption differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. For instance, certain political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some cases, government officials have broad or poorly defined powers, which make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions. Worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1 trillion US dollars annually.[1] A state of unrestrained political corruption is known as a kleptocracy, literally meaning "rule by thieves".

Political corruption

Corruption Perceptions Index, 2010

Concepts

Electoral fraud Economics of corruption Nepotism Bribery Cronyism Slush fund

Corruption by country
Angola Armenia Canada Chile China (PRC) Colombia Cuba Ghana India Iran Kenya Ireland Nigeria Pakistan Paraguay Philippines Russia South Africa Venezuela United States
This box: view talk edit

Contents
[hide]

1 Effects

o o o o o

1.1 Effects on politics, administration, and institutions 1.2 Economic effects 1.3 Environmental and social effects 1.4 Effects on Humanitarian Aid 1.5 Other areas: health, public safety, education, trade unions, etc.

2 Types

o o o o o o o

2.1 Bribery 2.2 Trading in influence 2.3 Patronage 2.4 Nepotism and cronyism 2.5 Electoral fraud 2.6 Embezzlement 2.7 Kickbacks

o o

2.8 Unholy alliance 2.9 Involvement in organized crime

3 Conditions favorable for corruption

3.1 Size of public sector

4 Governmental corruption 5 Fighting corruption 6 Whistleblowers 7 Campaign contributions 8 Measuring corruption 9 Institutions dealing with political corruption 10 See also 11 References 12 Further reading 13 External links

[edit]Effects [edit]Effects

on politics, administration, and institutions

Detail from Corrupt Legislation (1896) by Elihu Vedder. Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.

Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by flouting or even subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and distorts representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the inefficient provision of services. It violates a basic principle of republicanism regarding the centrality of civic virtue. More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and public

offices are bought and sold. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance.

[edit]Economic

effects

See also: Corporate crime Corruption undermines economic development by generating considerable distortions and inefficiency. In the private sector, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although some claim corruption reduces costs by cutting bureaucracy, the availability of bribes can also induce officials to contrive new rules and delays. Openly removing costly and lengthy regulations are better than covertly allowing them to be bypassed by using bribes. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the playing field, shielding firms with connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.[2] Corruption also generates economic distortions in the public sector by diverting public investment into capital projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical complexity of public sector projects to conceal or pave the way for such dealings, thus further distorting investment. Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations, reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure, and increases budgetary pressures on government. Economists argue that one of the factors behind the differing economic development in Africa and Asia is that in the former, corruption has primarily taken the form of rent extraction with the resulting financial capital moved overseas rather than invested at home (hence the stereotypical, but often accurate, image of African dictators having Swiss bank accounts). In Nigeria, for example, more than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury by Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.[3] University of Massachusetts researchers estimated that from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 sub-Saharan countries totaled $187bn, exceeding those nations' external debts.[4] (The results, expressed in retarded or suppressed development, have been modeled in theory by economist Mancur Olson.) In the case of Africa, one of the factors for this behavior was political instability, and the fact that new governments often confiscated previous government's corruptly-obtained assets. This encouraged officials to stash their wealth abroad, out of reach of any future expropriation. In contrast, Asian administrations such asSuharto's New Order often took a cut on business transactions or provided conditions for development, through infrastructure investment, law and order, etc.

[edit]Environmental

and social effects

Corruption facilitates environmental destruction. Corrupt countries may formally have legislation to protect the environment, it cannot be enforced if officials can easily be bribed. The same applies to social rights worker protection, unionization prevention, and child labor. Violation of these laws rights enables corrupt countries to gain illegitimate economic advantage in the international market.

The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has observed that "there is no such thing as an apolitical food problem." While drought and other naturally occurring events may trigger famine conditions, it is government action or inaction that determines its severity, and often even whether or not a famine will occur. Governments with strong tendencies towards kleptocracy can undermine food security even when harvests are good. Officials often steal state property. In Bihar, India, more than 80% of the subsidized food aid to poor is stolen by corrupt officials.[5]Similarly, food aid is often robbed at gunpoint by governments, criminals, and warlords alike, and sold for a profit. The 20th century is full of many examples of governments undermining the food security of their own nations sometimes intentionally.[6]

[edit]Effects

on Humanitarian Aid

The scale of humanitarian aid to the poor and unstable regions of the world grows, but it is highly vulnerable to corruption, with food aid, construction and other highly valued assistance as the most at risk.[7] Food aid can be directly and physically diverted from its intended destination, or indirectly through the manipulation of assessments, targeting, registration and distributions to favour certain groups or individuals.[7] Elsewhere, in construction and shelter, there are numerous opportunities for diversion and profit through substandard workmanship, kickbacks for contracts and favouritism in the provision of valuable shelter material. [7] Thus while humanitarian aid agencies are usually most concerned about aid being diverted by including too many, recipients themselves are most concerned about exclusion.[7]Access to aid may be limited to those with connections, to those who pay bribes or are forced to give sexual favours.[7] Equally, those able to do so may manipulate statistics to inflate the number beneficiaries and syphon of the additional assistance.[7]

[edit]Other

areas: health, public safety, education, trade unions, etc.

See also: Police corruption Corruption is not specific to poor, developing, or transition countries. In western countries, there have been cases of bribery and other forms of corruption in all possible fields: under-the-table payments made to reputed surgeons by patients willing to be on top of the list of forthcoming surgeries,[8] bribes paid by suppliers to the automotive industry in order to sell poor quality connectors used for instance in safety equipment such as airbags, bribes paid by suppliers to manufacturers of defibrillators (to sell poor quality capacitors), contributions paid by wealthy parents to the "social and culture fund" of a prestigious university in exchange for it to accept their children, bribes paid to obtain diplomas, financial and other advantages granted to unionists by members of the executive board of a car manufacturer in exchange for employer-friendly positions and votes, etc. Examples are endless. These various manifestations of corruption can ultimately present a danger for the public health; they can discredit certain essential institutions or social relationships. Corruption can also affect the various components of sports activities (referees, players, medical and laboratory staff involved in anti-doping controls, members of national sport federation and international committees deciding about the allocation of contracts and competition places).

There have also been cases against (members of) various types of non-profit and non-government organisations, as well as religious organisations. Ultimately, the distinction between public and private sector corruption sometimes appears rather artificial and national anti-corruption initiatives may need to avoid legal and other loopholes in the coverage of the instruments.

[edit]Types [edit]Bribery
Main article: Bribery A bribe is a payment given personally to a government official in exchange of his use of official powers. Bribery requires two participants: one to give the bribe, and one to take it. Either may initiate the corrupt offering; for example, a customs official may demand bribes to let through allowed (or disallowed) goods, or a smuggler might offer bribes to gain passage. In some countries the culture of corruption extends to every aspect of public life, making it extremely difficult for individuals to stay in business without resorting to bribes. Bribes may be demanded in order for an official to do something he is already paid to do. They may also be demanded in order to bypass laws and regulations. In addition to using bribery for private financial gain, they are also used to intentionally and maliciously cause harm to another (i.e. no financial incentive). In some developing nations, up to half of the population has paid bribes during the past 12 months. [9] In recent years, efforts have been made by the international community to encourage countries to dissociate and incriminate as separate offences, active and passive bribery. Active bribery can be defined for instance as the promising, offering or giving by any person, directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage [to any public official], for himself or herself or for anyone else, for him or her to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions. (article 2 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173) of the Council of Europe). Passive bribery can be defined as the request or receipt [by any public official], directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage, for himself or herself or for anyone else, or the acceptance of an offer or a promise of such an advantage, to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her functions (article 3 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173)). The reason for this dissociation is to make the early steps (offering, promising, requesting an advantage) of a corrupt deal already an offence and, thus, to give a clear signal (from a criminal policy point of view) that bribery is not acceptable. Besides, such a dissociation makes the prosecution of bribery offences easier since it can be very difficult to prove that two parties (the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker) have formally agreed upon a corrupt deal. Besides, there is often no such formal deal but only a mutual understanding, for instance when it is common knowledge in a municipality that to obtain a building permit one has to pay a "fee" to the decision maker to obtain a favourable decision. A working definition of corruption is also provided as follows in article 3 of the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174): For the

purpose of this Convention, "corruption" means requesting, offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any other undue advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper performance of any duty or behavior required of the recipient of the bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof.

[edit]Trading

in influence

Trading in influence, or influence peddling in certain countries, refers to the situation where a person is selling his/her influence over the decision process involving a third party (person or institution). The difference with bribery is that this is a tri-lateral relation. From a legal point of view, the role of the third party (who is the target of the influence) does not really matter although he/she can be an accessory in some instances. It can be difficult to make a distinction between this form of corruption and certain forms of extreme and poorly regulated lobbyingwhere for instance law- or decision-makers can freely "sell" their vote, decision power or influence to those lobbyists who offer the highest retribution, including where for instance the latter act on behalf of powerful clients such as industrial groups who want to avoid the passing of certain environmental, social, or other regulations perceived as too stringent, etc. Where lobbying is (sufficiently) regulated, it becomes possible to provide for a distinctive criteria and to consider that trading in influence involves the use of "improper influence", as in article 12 ofthe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173) of the Council of Europe.

[edit]Patronage
Main article: Patronage Patronage refers to favoring supporters, for example with government employment. This may be legitimate, as when a newly elected government changes the top officials in the administration in order to effectively implement its policy. It can be seen as corruption if this means that incompetent persons, as a payment for supporting the regime, are selected before more able ones. In nondemocracies many government officials are often selected for loyalty rather than ability. They may be almost exclusively selected from a particular group (for example, Sunni Arabs in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union, or the Junkers in Imperial Germany) that support the regime in return for such favors. A similar problem can also be seen in Eastern Europe, for example in Romania, where the government is often accused of patronage (when a new government comes to power it rapidly changes most of the officials in the public sector).

[edit]Nepotism

and cronyism

Main articles: Nepotism and Cronyism Favoring relatives (nepotism) or personal friends (cronyism) of an official is a form of illegitimate private gain. This may be combined withbribery, for example demanding that a business should employ a relative of an official controlling regulations affecting the business. The most extreme example is when the entire state is inherited, as in North Korea or Syria. A milder form of cronyism is a "Good ol' boy network", in which

appointees to official positions are selected only from a closed and exclusive social network such as the alumni of particular universities instead of appointing the most competent candidate. Seeking to harm enemies becomes corruption when official powers are illegitimately used as means to this end. For example, trumped-up charges are often brought up against journalists or writers who bring up politically sensitive issues, such as a politician's acceptance of bribes. In the Indian political system, leadership of national and regional parties are passed from generation to generation creating a system in which a family holds the center of power, some examples are most of the Dravidian parties of south India and also the largest party in India Congress.

[edit]Electoral

fraud

Main article: Electoral fraud Electoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud affect vote counts to bring about an election result, whether by increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote share of the rival candidates, or both. Also called voter fraud, the mechanisms involved include illegal voter registration, intimidation at polls, and improper vote counting.

[edit]Embezzlement
Main article: Embezzlement Embezzlement is outright theft of entrusted funds. It is a misappropriation of property. Another common type of embezzlement is that of entrusted government resources; for example, when a director of a public enterprise employs company workers to build or renovate his own house.

[edit]Kickbacks
See also: Anti-competitive practices and Bid rigging A kickback is an official's share of misappropriated funds allocated from his or her organization to an organization involved in corrupt bidding. For example, suppose that a politician is in charge of choosing how to spend some public funds. He can give a contract to a company that is not the best bidder, or allocate more than they deserve. In this case, the company benefits, and in exchange for betraying the public, the official receives a kickback payment, which is a portion of the sum the company received. This sum itself may be all or a portion of the difference between the actual (inflated) payment to the company and the (lower) market-based price that would have been paid had the bidding been competitive. Kickbacks are not limited to government officials; any situation in which people are entrusted to spend funds that do not belong to them are susceptible to this kind of corruption. Kickbacks are also common in the pharmaceutical industry, as many doctors and physicians receive pay in return for added promotion and prescription of the drug these pharmaceutical companies are marketing.

[edit]Unholy

alliance

An unholy alliance is a coalition among seemingly antagonistic groups, especially if one is religious,[10] for ad hoc or hidden gain. Like patronage, unholy alliances are not necessarily illegal, but unlike patronage, by its deceptive nature and often great financial resources, an unholy alliance can be much more dangerous to the public interest. An early, well-known use of the term was by Theodore Roosevelt (TR): "To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." 1912 Progressive Party Platform, attributed to TR[11] and quoted again in his autobiography[12] where he connects trusts and monopolies (sugar interests, Standard Oil, etc.) to Woodrow Wilson, Howard Taft, and consequently both majorpolitical parties.

[edit]Involvement

in organized crime

An illustrative example of official involvement in organized crime can be found from 1920s and 1930s Shanghai, where Huang Jinrong was a police chief in the French concession, while simultaneously being a gang boss and co-operating with Du Yuesheng, the local gang ringleader. The relationship kept the flow of profits from the gang's gambling dens, prostitution, and protection rackets undisturbed. The United States accused Manuel Noriega's government in Panama of being a "narcokleptocracy", a corrupt government profiting on illegal drug trade. Later the U.S. invaded Panama and captured Noriega.

[edit]Conditions

favorable for corruption

This section is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this section to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (December 2009)
It is argued that the following conditions are favorable for corruption:

Information deficits

Lacking freedom of information legislation. The Indian Right to Information Act 2005 has "already engendered mass movements in the country that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power equations completely."[13]

Lack of investigative reporting in the local media. Contempt for or negligence of exercising freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Weak accounting practices, including lack of timely financial management. Lack of measurement of corruption. For example, using regular surveys of households and businesses in order to quantify the degree of perception of corruption in different parts of a nation or in different government institutions may increase awareness of corruption and create pressure

to combat it. This will also enable an evaluation of the officials who are fighting corruption and the methods used.

Tax havens which tax their own citizens and companies but not those from other nations and refuse to disclose information necessary for foreign taxation. This enables large scale political corruption in the foreign nations.[14][citation needed]

Lacking control of the government.

Lacking civic society and non-governmental organizations which monitor the government. An individual voter may have a rational ignorance regarding politics, especially in nationwide elections, since each vote has little weight.

Weak civil service, and slow pace of reform. Weak rule of law. Weak legal profession. Weak judicial independence. Lacking protection of whistleblowers. Lack of benchmarking, that is continual detailed evaluation of procedures and comparison to others who do similar things, in the same government or others, in particular comparison to those who do the best work. The Peruvian organization Ciudadanos al Dia has started to measure and compare transparency, costs, and efficiency in different government departments in Peru. It annually awards the best practices which has received widespread media attention. This has created competition among government agencies in order to improve.[15]

Opportunities and incentives

Individual officials routinely handle cash, instead of handling payments by giro or on a separate cash deskillegitimate withdrawals from supervised bank accounts are much more difficult to conceal.

Public funds are centralized rather than distributed. For example, if $1,000 is embezzled from a local agency that has $2,000 funds, it is easier to notice than from a national agency with $2,000,000 funds. See the principle of subsidiarity.

Large, unsupervised public investments. Sale of state-owned property and privatization.[citation needed] Poorly-paid government officials. Government licenses needed to conduct business, e.g., import licenses, encourage bribing and kickbacks.

Long-time work in the same position may create relationships inside and outside the government which encourage and help conceal corruption and favoritism. Rotating government officials to different positions and geographic areas may help prevent this; for instance certain high rank officials in French government services (e.g. treasurer-paymasters general) must rotate every few years.

Costly political campaigns, with expenses exceeding normal sources of political funding, especially when funded with taxpayer money.

Less interaction with officials reduces the opportunities for corruption. For example, using the Internet for sending in required information, like applications and tax forms, and then processing this with automated computer systems. This may also speed up the processing and reduce unintentional human errors. See e-Government.

A windfall from exporting abundant natural resources may encourage corruption.[16] (See Resource curse)

War and other forms of conflict correlate with a breakdown of public security.

Social conditions

Self-interested closed cliques and "old boy networks". Family-, and clan-centered social structure, with a tradition of nepotism/favouritism being acceptable.

A gift economy, such as the Soviet blat system, emerges in a Communist centrally planned economy.

Lacking literacy and education among the population. Frequent discrimination and bullying among the population. Tribal solidarity, giving benefits to certain ethnic groups

According to a study of the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, lack of economic freedom explains 71% of corruption[17]

[edit]Size

of public sector

It is a controversial issue whether the size of the public sector per se results in corruption. As mentioned above, low degree of economic freedom explains 71% of corruption. The actual share may be even greater, as also past regulation affects the current level of corruption due to the slowing of cultural changes (e.g., it takes time for corrupted officials to adjust to changes in economic freedom). [18] The size of the public sector in terms of taxation is only one component of economic un-freedom, so the empirical studies on economic freedom do not directly answer this question. Extensive and diverse public spending is, in itself, inherently at risk of cronyism, kickbacks, and embezzlement. Complicated regulations and arbitrary, unsupervised official conduct exacerbate the

problem. This is one argument for privatization and deregulation. Opponents of privatization see the argument as ideological. The argument that corruption necessarily follows from the opportunity is weakened by the existence of countries with low to non-existent corruption but large public sectors, like the Nordic countries.[19] However, these countries score high on the Ease of Doing Business Index, due to good and often simple regulations, and have rule of law firmly established. Therefore, due to their lack of corruption in the first place, they can run large public sectors without inducing political corruption. Like other governmental economic activities, also privatization, such as in the sale of government-owned property, is particularly at the risk of cronyism. Privatizations in Russia, Latin America, and East Germany were accompanied by large scale corruption during the sale of the state owned companies. Those with political connections unfairly gained large wealth, which has discredited privatization in these regions. While media have reported widely the grand corruption that accompanied the sales, studies have argued that in addition to increased operating efficiency, daily petty corruption is, or would be, larger without privatization, and that corruption is more prevalent in non-privatized sectors. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that extralegal and unofficial activities are more prevalent in countries that privatized less.[20] There is the counter point, however, that oligarchy industries can be quite corrupt ( "competition" like collusive price-fixing, pressuring dependent businesses, etc. ), and only by having a portion of the market owned by someone other than that oligarchy, i.e. public sector, can keep them in line ( if the public sector gas company is making money & selling gas for 1/2 of the price of the private sector companies... the private sector companies won't be able to simultaneously gouge to that degree & keep their customers: the competition keeps them in line ). Private sector corruption can increase the poverty/helplessness of the population, so it can affect government corruption, in the long-term. In the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity is applied: a government service should be provided by the lowest, most local authority that can competently provide it. An effect is that distribution of funds into multiple instances discourages embezzlement, because even small sums missing will be noticed. In contrast, in a centralized authority, even minute proportions of public funds can be large sums of money.

[edit]Governmental

corruption

If the highest echelons of the governments also take advantage from corruption or embezzlement from the state's treasury, it is sometimes referred with the neologism kleptocracy. Members of the government can take advantage of the natural resources (e.g., diamonds and oil in a few prominent cases) or state-owned productive industries. A number of corrupt governments have enriched themselves via foreign aid, which is often spent on showy buildings and armaments.

A corrupt dictatorship typically results in many years of general hardship and suffering for the vast majority of citizens as civil society and therule of law disintegrate. In addition, corrupt dictators routinely ignore economic and social problems in their quest to amass ever more wealth and power. The classic case of a corrupt, exploitive dictator often given is the regime of Marshal Mobutu Sese Seko, who ruled the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which he renamed Zaire) from 1965 to 1997. It is said that usage of the term kleptocracy gained popularity largely in response to a need to accurately describe Mobutu's regime. Another classic case is Nigeria, especially under the rule of General Sani Abacha who was de facto president of Nigeria from 1993 until his death in 1998. He is reputed to have stolen some US$34 billion. He and his relatives are often mentioned in Nigerian 419 letter scams claiming to offer vast fortunes for "help" in laundering his stolen "fortunes", which in reality turn out not to exist. [21] More than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury by Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.[22] More recently, articles in various financial periodicals, most notably Forbes magazine, have pointed to Fidel Castro, General Secretary of the Republic of Cuba since 1959, of likely being the beneficiary of up to $900 million, based on "his control" of state-owned companies.[23]Opponents of his regime claim that he has used money amassed through weapons sales, narcotics, international loans, and confiscation of private property to enrich himself and his political cronies who hold his dictatorship together, and that the $900 million published by Forbes is merely a portion of his assets, although that needs to be proven.[24]

[edit]Fighting

corruption

Mobile telecommunications and radio broadcasting help to fight corruption, especially in developing regions like Africa,[25] where other forms of communications are limited. In the 1990s, initiatives were taken at an international level (in particular by the European Community, the Council of Europe, the OECD) to put a ban on corruption: in 1996, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, for instance, adopted a comprehensive Programme of Action against Corruption and, subsequently, issued a series of anti-corruption standard-setting instruments:

the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173); the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174); the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 191); the Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption (Resolution (97) 24); the Recommendation on Codes of Conduct for Public Officials (Recommendation No. R (2000) 10); and

the Recommendation on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4)

The purpose of these instruments was to address the various forms of corruption (involving the public sector, the private sector, the financing of political activities, etc.) whether they had a strictly domestic or also a transnational dimension. To monitor the implementation at national level of the requirements and principles provided in those texts, a monitoring mechanism the Group of States Against Corruption (also known as GRECO) was created. Further conventions were adopted at the regional level under the aegis of the Organization of American States (OAS or OEA), the African Union, and in 2003, at the universal level under that of the United Nations.

[edit]Whistleblowers
Main article: Whistleblower

[edit]Campaign

contributions

In the political arena, it is difficult to prove corruption. For this reason, there are often unproven rumors about many politicians, sometimes part of a smear campaign. Politicians are placed in apparently compromising positions because of their need to solicit financial contributions for their campaign finance. If they then appear to be acting in the interests of those parties that funded them, it could be considered corruption. Though donations may be coincidental, the question asked is, why are they funding politicians at all, if they get nothing for their money. Laws regulating campaign finance in the United States require that all contributions and their use should be publicly disclosed. Many companies, especially larger ones, fund both the Democratic and Republican parties. Certain countries, such as France, ban altogether the corporate funding of political parties. Because of the possible circumvention of this ban with respect to the funding of political campaigns, France also imposes maximum spending caps on campaigning; candidates that have exceeded those limits, or that have handed in misleading accounting reports, risk having their candidacy ruled invalid, or even being prevented from running in future elections. In addition, the government funds political parties according to their successes in elections. In some countries, political parties are run solely off subscriptions (membership fees). Even legal measures such as these have been argued to be legalized corruption, in that they often favor the political status quo. Minor parties and independents often argue that efforts to rein in the influence of contributions do little more than protect the major parties with guaranteed public funding while constraining the possibility of private funding by outsiders. In these instances, officials are legally taking money from the public coffers for their election campaigns to guarantee that they will continue to hold their influential and often well-paid positions.

As indicated above, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recognised in 1996 the importance of links between corruption and political financing. It adopted in 1837 the Recommendation on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4). This text is quite unique at international levels as it aims i.a. at increasing transparency in the funding of political parties and election campaigns (these two areas are difficult to dissociate since parties are also involved in campaigning and in many countries, parties do not have the monopoly over the presentation of candidates for elections), ensuring a certain level of control over the funding and spending connected with political activities, and making sure infringements are subject to effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions. In the context of its monitoring activities, the Group of States Against Corruption has identified a great variety of possible improvements in those areas (see the country reports adopted under the Third Evaluation Round).

[edit]Measuring

corruption

Measuring corruption statistically is difficult if not impossible due to the illicit nature of the transaction and imprecise definitions of corruption.[26] While "corruption" indices first appeared in 1995 with the Corruption Perceptions Index, all of these metrics address different proxies for corruption, such as public perceptions of the extent of the problem.[27] Transparency International, an anti-corruption NGO, pioneered this field with the Corruption Perceptions Index, first released in 1995. This work is often credited with breaking a taboo and forcing the issue of corruption into high level development policy discourse. Transparency International currently publishes three measures, updated annually: a Corruption Perceptions Index(CPI) (based on aggregating third-party polling of public perceptions of how corrupt different countries are); a Global Corruption Barometer (based on a survey of general public attitudes toward and experience of corruption); and a Bribe Payers Index, looking at the willingness of foreign firms to pay bribes. The Corruption Perceptions Index is the best known of these metrics, though it has drawn much criticism[27][28][29] and may be declining in influence.[30] The World Bank collects a range of data on corruption, including survey responses from over 100,000 firms worldwide and a set ofindicators of governance and institutional quality. Moreover, one of the six dimensions of governance measured by the Worldwide Governance Indicators is Control of Corruption, which is defined as "the extent to which power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as 'capture' of the state by elites and private interests."[31] While the definition itself is fairly precise, the data aggregated into the Worldwide Governance Indicators is based on any available polling: questions range from "is corruption a serious problem?" to measures of public access to information, and not consistent across countries. Despite these weaknesses, the global coverage of these datasets has led to their widespread adoption, most notably by the Millennium Challenge Corporation.[26]

In part in response to these criticisms, a second wave of corruption metrics has been created by Global Integrity, the International Budget Partnership, and many lesser known local groups, starting with the Global Integrity Index, first published in 2004. These second wave projects aim not to create awareness, but to create policy change via targeting resources more effectively and creating checklists toward incremental reform. Global Integrity and the International Budget Partnership each dispense with public surveys and instead uses in-country experts to evaluate "the opposite of corruption" which Global Integrity defines as the public policies that prevent, discourage, or expose corruption. [32] These approaches compliment the first wave, awareness-raising tools by giving governments facing public outcry a checklist which measures concrete steps toward improved governance.[26] Typical second wave corruption metrics do not offer the worldwide coverage found in first wave projects, and instead focus on localizing information gathered to specific problems and creating deep, "unpackable" content that matches quantitative and qualitative data. Meanwhile, alternative approaches such as the British aid agency's Drivers of Change research skips numbers entirely and favors understanding corruption via political economy analysis of who controls power in a given society.[26]

[edit]Institutions

dealing with political corruption

Transparency International, a non-governmental organization that monitors and publicizes corporate and political corruption in international development

Corruption Perceptions Index, published yearly by Transparency International

Global Witness, an international NGO established in 1993 that works to break the links between natural resource exploitation, conflict, poverty, corruption, and human rights abuses worldwide

Group of States Against Corruption, a body established under the Council of Europe to monitor the implementation of instruments adopted by member states to combat political corruption

Independent Commission Against Corruption (disambiguation) TrustLaw, a service of the Thomson Reuters Foundation is a global hub for free legal assistance and news and information on anti-corruption

[edit]See

also
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:Corruption

List of politicians in India charged with corruption Corruption by country Corruption in local government

Police corruption Political class Political machine Power elite Independence of the judiciary John Hoyle

Forms or aspects of corruption

Baksheesh Crony capitalism Electoral fraud Honest services fraud Political scandal Professional courtesy Systemic corruption

Good governance

Constitutional economics Civil society Comitology Due diligence

Theoretical aspects

Conflict of interest Principal-agent problem Rent seeking

Anti-corruption authorities and measures

GEMAP The Council of Europe's Group of States Against Corruption (French: Groupe d'Etats contre la corruption) or GRECO, the body and mechanism established to monitor the implementation of:

the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173); the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174); the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 191); the Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption (Resolution (97) 24);

the Recommendation on Codes of Conduct for Public Officials (Recommendation No. R (2000) 10); and

the Recommendation on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/corruption

Independent Commission Against Corruption Inter-American Convention Against Corruption United Nations Convention against Corruption India Against Corruption Report Public Corruption

Corruption in fiction

The Financier (1912), The Titan (1914), and The Stoic (1947), Theodore Dreiser's Trilogy of Desire, based on the life of the notorious transit mogul Charles Tyson Yerkes

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (Hollywood film 1939) Atlas Shrugged (1957 novel) Henry Adams' novel Democracy (1880) Carl Hiaasen's novel Sick Puppy (1999) Much of the Batman comic book series V for Vendetta comic book series The Ghost in the Shell Anime films and series Animal Farm a novel by George Orwell Training Day (2001 film) Exit Wounds (2001 film) American Gangster (2007 film) Robert Penn Warren's novel All the King's Men (1946)

CORRUPTION IN IDIA

and bureaucratic corruption in India are major concerns. A 2005 study conducted by Transparency International in India found that more than 45% of Indians had first-hand experience of payingbribes or influence peddling to get jobs done in public offices successfully.[1][2] Transparenc International estimates that truckers pay US$5 billion in bribes annually.[3] In 2010 India was ranked 87th out of 178 countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index.
Contents
[hide]

1 Overview 2 History 3 Politics 4 Bureaucracy

o o o o o

4.1 Land and property 4.2 Tendering processes and awarding contracts 4.3 Medicine 4.4 Income tax Department 4.5 Preferential award of public resources

5 Judiciary 6 Armed forces 7 Media 8 Religious institutions 9 Right to information act 10 Ombudsmen 11 Whistleblowers 12 Anti-corruption police and courts 13 Anti-corruption organizations 14 Anti corruption websites 15 Effects of corruption 16 See also 17 References

18 Further reading 19 External Links

[edit]Overview

Although former Prime Minister and Congress party leader Indira Gandhi is quoted as saying that corruption is a misuse of power, she also publicly stated "nonchalantly" that "corruption was a global phenomenon" and her government was no different.[4][5][6] Successive central governments and members of India's famous Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty have often been accused most of corruption and amassing illegal wealth among India's political class.[4][7][8] The year 2011 has proved to be a watershed in the public tolerance of political corruption in India, with widespread public protests and movements led by social activists against corruption and for the return of illegal wealth stashed by politicians and businessmen in foreign banks over the six decades since independence. Criminalization is also a serious problem in contemporary Indian politics.[9] In July 2008 The Washington Post reported that nearly a fourth of the 540 Indian Parliament members faced criminal charges, "including human trafficking, immigration rackets, embezzlement, rape and even murder".[10] India tops the list for black money in the entire world with almost US$1456 billion in Swiss banks (approximately USD 1.4 trillion) in the form of black money.[11] According to the data provided by the Swiss Banking Association Report (2006), India has more black money than the rest of the world combined.[12][13] To put things in perspective, Indianowned Swiss bank account assets are worth 13 times the countrys national debt.[14] Independent reports published through 1991 to 2011 calculated the financial net worth of India's most powerful and traditionally ruling family (the Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty) to be anywhere between $9.41 billion (Rs 42,345 crore) to $18.66 billion (Rs 83,900 crore), most of it in the form of illegal monies.[4] Harvard scholar Yevgenia Albats cited KGB correspondence about payments to Rajiv Gandhi and

his family, which had been arranged by Viktor Chebrikov,[15][16][17] which shows that KGB chief Viktor Chebrikov sought in writing an "authorization to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi" from the CPSU in December 1985.[15][16][17] The recent scams involving unimaginably big amounts of money, such as the 2G spectrum scam, are well known. It is estimated that more than trillion dollars are stashed away in foreign havens, while 80% of Indians earn less than 2$ per day and every second child is malnourished. It seems as if only the honest people are poor in India and want to get rid of their poverty by education, emigration to cities, and immigration, whereas all the corrupt ones, like Hasan Ali Khan are getting rich through scams and crime. It seems as if India is a rich country filled with poor people",[18] the organisers of Dandi March II in the United States said.[19] The Comptroller and Auditor General of India said, As on March 31, 2010, unutilised committed external assistance was of the order of Rs.1,05,339 crore.[20]
[edit]History

The economy of India was under socialist-inspired policies for an entire generation from the 1950s until the late 1980s. The economy was subject to extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership, leading to pervasive corruption and slow growth.[21][22][23][24] License Raj was often at the core of corruption. The Vohra Report, submitted by the former Indian Union Home Secretary, N.N. Vohra, in October 1993, studied the problem of the criminalisation of politics and of the nexus among criminals, politicians and bureaucrats in India. The report contained several observations made by official agencies on the criminal network which was virtually running a parallel government. It also discussed criminal gangs who enjoyed the patronage of politicians of all political parties and the protection of government functionaries. It revealed that political leaders had become the leaders of

gangs. They were connected to the military. Over the years criminals had been elected to local bodies, State Assemblies, and even the Parliament. The unpublished annexures to the Vohra Report are believed to contain highly explosive material. According to Jitendra Singh, "in the bad old days, particularly pre-1991, when the License Raj held sway, and by design, all kinds of free market mechanisms were hobbled or stymied, and corruption emerged almost as an illegitimate price mechanism, a shadowy quasi-market, such that scarce resources could still be allocated within the economy, and decisions could get made. ... These were largely distortions created by the politico-economic regime. While a sea change has occurred in the years following 1991, some of the distorted cultural norms that took hold during the earlier period are slowly being repaired by the sheer forces of competition. The process will be long and slow, however. It will not change overnight."[25] One of the major problems and obstacles to development that many developing countries face is corruption by greedy, power-hungry politicians, which is endemic in certain parts of the world.
[edit]Politics

As of December 2008, 120 of India's 522 parliament members were facing criminal charges.[9] Many of the biggest scandals since 2010 have involved very high levels of government, including Cabinet Ministers and Chief Ministers, such as in the 2G spectrum scam and the Adarsh Housing Society Scam.
[edit]Bureaucracy

A 2005 study done by Transparency International (TI) in India found that more than 50% of the people had firsthand experience of paying bribe or peddling influence to get a job done in a public office.[2] Taxes and bribes are common between state borders; Transparency International estimates that truckers pay annually US$5 billion in bribes.[3] A 2009 survey of the leading economies of Asia, revealed Indian bureaucracy to be not just least efficient out of Singapore, Hong Kong, Thailand, South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, Taiwan, Vietnam, China, Philippines and

Indonesia; further it was also found that working with India's civil servants was a "slow and painful" process.[26]
[edit]Land

and property

Officials often steal state property. In cities and villages throughout India, Mafia Raj consisting of municipal and other government officials, elected politicians, judicial officers, real estate developers and law enforcement officials, acquire, develop and sell land in illegal ways.[27]
[edit]Tendering

processes and awarding contracts

Government officials having discretionary powers in awarding contracts engage in preferential treatment for selected bidders and display negligence in quality control processes[citation needed]. Many state-funded construction activities in India, such as road building, are dominated by construction mafias, which are groupings of corrupt public works officials, materials suppliers, politicians and construction contractors.[28] Shoddy construction and material substitution (e.g. mixing sand in cement while submitting expenses for cement) result in roads and highways being dangerous, and sometimes simply washed away when India's heavy monsoon season arrives.[29]
[edit]Medicine

In Government Hospitals, corruption is associated with non availability of medicines (or duplicate/fake medicines), getting admission, consultations with doctors and availing diagnostic services.[2] There have been cases of diversion of medical supplies from government hospitals and clinics[citation needed] as well as supply and distribution of medicines of inferior quality[citation needed]
[edit]Income

tax Department

There have been several cases of collusion of officials of the income tax department of India for a favorable tax treatment in return for bribes[30][31]
[edit]Preferential

award of public resources

See also: Illegal mining in India As detailed earlier, land in areas with short supply is relatively common with government entities awarding public land to private concerns at negligible rates. Other examples include the award of mining leases to

private companies without a levy of taxes that is proportionate to the market value of the ore[citation needed].
[edit]Judiciary

According to Transparency International, judicial corruption in India is attributable to factors such as "delays in the disposal of cases, shortage of judges and complex procedures, all of which are exacerbated by a preponderance of new laws".[32]
[edit]Armed

forces

The Indian Armed Forces have frequently witnessed corruption involving senior armed forces officers from the Indian Army, Indian Navy andIndian Air Force. Many officers have been caught for allegedly selling defence stores in the black market in the border districts of Indian states and territories. Recent sukhna land scandal involving four Indian Lieutenant Generals has shaken public faith in the country's growing military at a time when large sums are being spent on modernising the armed forces. A string of eye-popping fraud cases has damaged the institution in recent years.[33][34][35] The latest Adarsh land scam is another example of the nexus between the armed forces , bureaucracy and the politicians in the embezzlement of government property.
[edit]Media

See also: Indian media bias in politics The role of media in systemic corruption can not be undermined at it shows it involvement through paid news and sometimes unethical support to corrupt.
[edit]Religious

institutions

In India, the corruption has also crept into religious institutions. Some of the Church of North India are making money by selling Baptism certificates.[36] A group of church leaders and activists has launched a campaign to combat the corruption within churches. The chief economic consequences of corruption are the loss to the economy an unhealthy climate for investment and an increase in the cost of government-

subsidised services. The TI India study estimates the monetary value of petty corruption in 11 basic services provided by the government, like education, healthcare, judiciary, police, etc., to be around 21,068 crore (US$4.7 billion). India still ranks in the bottom quartile of developing nations in terms of the ease of doing business, and compared to China and other lower developed Asian nations, the average time taken to secure the clearances for a startup or to invoke bankruptcy is much greater.
[edit]Right

to information act

Main article: Right to Information Act The Right to Information Act (2005) and equivalent acts in the states, that require government officials to furnish information requested by citizens or face punitive action, computerization of services and various central and state government acts that established vigilance commissions have considerably reduced corruption or at least have opened up avenues to redress grievances.[2][37] The 2006 report by Transparency International puts India at the 70th place and states that significant improvements were made by India in reducing corruption.[38][39]
[edit]Ombudsmen

The Lokayukta is an anti-government corruption organization in the Indian states.[40][41] These institutions are based on the Ombudsman in Scandinavian countries. An amendment to the Constitution has been proposed to implement the Lokayukta uniformly across Indian States as a three-member body, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or high court chief justice, and comprise of the state vigilance commissioner and a jurist or an eminent administrator as other members.[42] Social welfare worker Anna Hazare has led a movement to compel the Indian Government to notify the Committee for the implementation of the Lokayukta against corruption as an independent body and also giving enough powers to the Lokayukta to also receive corruption complaints against politicians, bureaucrats and even sitting judges. Anna Hazare has achieved this big success through his non-violence measures like

fasting till death at the Jantar Mantar place in Delhi Capital City of India . The public also gave nation-wide support to Anna Hazare in his demand for strong and tough anti-corruption law.[43]
[edit]Whistleblowers

See also: Whistleblower protection in India and Whistleblower protection act (India) Whistleblowers play a major role in the fight against corruption. India currently does not have a law to protect whistleblowers, which was highlighted by the assassination of Satyendra Dubey. Indian courts are regularly ordering probe in cases of murders or so-called suicide of several whistle blowers. One of the latest case of such murder is of V Sasindran Company Secretary of Palakkad based Malabar Cement Limited, a Government company in Kerala and his two minor children, Kerala High Court ordered CBI probe on 18 February 2011. Initially, CBI showed its unwillingness for probing into such cases citing over-burden as a reason.
[edit]Anti-corruption

police and courts

The income tax department of India, Central Vigilance Commission and Central Bureau of Investigation all deal with anticorruption initiatives. There have been calls for the Indian government to create an anti-theft law enforcement agency that investigates and prosecutes corruption in government at national, state and local levels.[citation needed] Special courts that are more efficient than the traditional Indian courts with traveling judges and law enforcement agents are being proposed.[citation needed] The proposal has not yet been acted upon by the Indian government.[citation needed] Certain states such as Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Pradesh Anticorruption Bureau) and Karnataka (Lokayukta) have similar agencies and courts.[44][40]
[edit]Anti-corruption

organizations

A variety of organizations have been created in India to actively fight against corrupt government and business practices. Notable organizations include:

5th Pillar is most known for the creation of the zero rupee note, a valueless note designed to be given to corrupt officials when they request bribes. India Against Corruption is a movement created by a citizens from a variety of professions and statuses to work against corruption in India. It is currently headed by Anna Hazare.[45] Jaago Re! One Billion Votes is an organization originally founded by Tata Tea and Janaagraha to increase youth voter registration.[46]They have since expanded their work to include other social issues, including corruption.[47] Association for Social Transparency, Rights And Action (ASTRA) is an NGO focused on grass-roots work to fight corruption in Karnataka.

One organization, the Lok Satta Movement, has transformed itself from a civil organization to a full-fledged political party, the Lok Satta Party. The party has fielded candidates in Andrha Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Bangalore. In 2008, it obtained its first elected post, when Jayaprakash Narayan won the election for the Kukatpally Assembly Constituency in Andrha Pradesh.
[edit]Anti

corruption websites

Ipaidabribe is a website that is very popular among people who wants to report a bribe they were forced to give. It also gives various reports on corruption basis the information presented to them by the people. Another website is EkakiZunj which is a resource centre for various scams in India and user submitted details of various fraud. It is inspired by Khairnar, the erstwhile Deputy Municipal Commissioner of Mumbai Ejanmat is a site which carries out a voting between the government and Anna Hazare's version of Janlokpal bill
[edit]Effects

of corruption

According to a report by KPMG, "high-level corruption and scams are now threatening to derail the country's credibility and [its] economic boom".[48]
[edit]See

also

[edit]

List of politicians in India charged with corruption 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement Jan Lokpal Bill Indian black money list of scandals in India by year Corruption Perceptions Index License Raj Mafia Raj Corruption in Mumbai Rent seeking Lok Ayukta Socio-economic issues in India United Nations Convention against Corruption

ACTION AGAINST CORRUPTION IN INDIA The 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement refers to a series of protests against the Government of India intended to seek strong legislation against graft, otherwise known as corruption. The protests have centred on a proposed bill, called the Jan Lokpal Bill, which the protestors believe could address the issue if it was suitably worded and enforced. The movement has gained momentum in particular since 5 April 2011, when Anna Hazare, a prominent activist, first went on a hunger strikewhich he called a "fast unto death". The protesters are of the opinion that the government desires to dilute proposals contained in the original draft of the Jan Lokpal bill. They believe that the changes would make the body intended to oversee the issue, the Lokayukta, no more than a powerless advisory body in the Indian bureaucracy. Hazare, who is a Gandhian, went on his initial hunger strike when talks designed to consider the issues broke down. He had demanded the creation of a joint drafting committee for the bill, with members from both "civil society" and government.
[2]

Following Hazare's initial, much publicised protest action, a second major protest saw controversial events take place at the Ramlila Maidan, New Delhi on 4 June 2011. The figurehead for these protests was Swami Ramdev and their aim was to highlight the need for strong legislation to bring back to the country what has been called "black money" deposited abroad. Ramdev demanded that untaxed money invested abroad should be declared to be the wealth of the nation. Further, that the act of caching money, which is alleged to have been obtained illegally, in foreign banks should be declared a crime against the state. He also demanded that the nation's wealth held in foreign banks should be brought back and that India should sign the United Nations Convention against Corruption. It is estimated that aroundUS$ 350 billion to US$ 1400 billion worth of illegal money is in foreign banks.
[3][4]

The protests led to the creation of a movement that saw protests being organised in various cities and towns of India. Protests included fasts, candlelight vigils andrallies. The protests are unusual in India as they have no political affiliation and the protesters have been hostile to any attempt by political parties to use them to strengthen their own political agenda.
Contents
[hide]

1 Background 2 Protest timeline 3 Use of cyberspace 4 Government response 5 Political response to the Jantar Mantar protests 6 Ramlila ground protests

o o

6.1 Background to the Ramlila ground protests 6.2 Police action against the demonstration

6.2.1 Police clarification on action 6.2.2 Protest against police action on Ramdev's demonstration

7 Aftermath of the Ramlila ground protests

o o o o

7.1 Civil society response 7.2 Government response 7.3 Other political parties response 7.4 Suo Moto Cognizance by the Supreme Court

8 See also 9 References 10 External links

[edit]Background See also: Corruption in India, List of alleged scams in India, and Indian political scandals

Mahatma Gandhi fought for our freedom but we are yet to achieve real independence. The second struggle of independence has started. We are ready to sacrifice our lives but will not buckle under pressure

Anna Hazare[5]

Issues regarding corruption in India have become more prominent in recent years. The country was subject to socialist-inspired economic policies between the 1950s and the late 1980s. Extensive regulation, protectionism, and public ownership led to slow growth.
[6][7]

Forbes commented in 2007 that the

[8]

system of bureaucratic controls called License Rajwas often at the core of corruption.

The Vohra Report of 1993, submitted by the former Indian Union Home Secretary N. N. Vohra, studied the problem of the criminalization of politics and of the nexus among criminals, politicians and bureaucrats in India. The report contained several observations made by official agencies on the criminal network which was virtually running a parallel government. It also discussed criminal gangs who enjoyed the patronage of politicians of all political parties and the protection of government functionaries. It revealed that political leaders had become the leaders of gangs. They were also connected to the military. Over the years criminals had been elected to local bodies, State Assemblies, and even the Parliament.
[9][10][11]

Anna Hazare's hunger strike at Jantar Mantar inDelhi, on the second day of his fast.

The Right to Information Act of 2005 has helped civilians work effectively towards tackling corruption. It allows Indian citizens (except those living in Jammu and Kashmir) to request information, for a fixed fee of 10 (US$ 0.22), from a "public authority" (a body of Government or "instrumentality of State") which is

required to reply expeditiously or within thirty days.

[12]

[clarification needed]

Activists have used this to uncover graft

cases against various politicians and bureaucrats, one consequence being that some of those activists have been attacked and even killed.

Various scandals were discovered in the period 2010-2011, including the 2G spectrum scam,Adarsh Housing Society Scam, and the Commonwealth Games scam. These involved various Ministers and also members of the Armed Forces, and they demonstrated how entrenched corruption had become in India.
[13][14][15]

They led also to popular, non-political movements campaigning to fight graft via new

legislation. The Jan Lokpal Bill is a proposal to establish an independent body to investigate cases of corruption within a year and to ensure a speedy prosecution within two years of an investigation being started. [edit]Protest 12 March 2011
[16]

timeline

Dandi March 2

A massive protest of 240 miles walk, Dandi March II was organised in California, USA, from March 12 to March 26, 2011 to protest against corruption in India and to support Jan Lokpal bill.
[17]

The march started at Martin Luther King park at San Diego, proceeded to Los

Angeles and culminated at Gandhi statue in San Francisco in USA. The walk was organised by People for Lok Satta and volunteers from similar organisations. 13 March 2011

A poster against corruption in India

A group of Delhi residents drove around the city dressed in similar clothing in an attempt to raise awareness of corruption issues and to gain support for the Jan Lokpal Bill. 28 March 2011 There were protest marches in various cities 30 March 2011 Kapil Dev, a former captain of the Indian national cricket team, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister,Manmohan Singh, complaining that the many investigations into scams arising from the recent Commonwealth Games had achieved nothing so far. He said that, "Why can't we have an independent Lokpal to look into these scams. I consider you as the cleanest politician in the recent history and I urge you for a Jan Lokpal Bill." 4 April 2011 Hazare announced that he would commence his "fast unto death" and that this would last until a comprehensive measure to tackle corruption was introduced. He claimed that the government had excluded "civil society" from the panel set up to draft the Jan Lokpal Bill and implied that at least one of the people who was to be on the drafting committee - Sharad Pawar - might be unsuitable for that role because of his large landholdings. Kiran Bedi and Swami Agnivesh supported Hazare.
[20] [20] [where?] [18]

across the world, including some in the US.

[19]

5 April 2011

Protesters have come out in support of Anna Hazare

Hazare, initiated his fast at Jantar Mantar in Delhi. There were reports that around 6000 protestors in Mumbai might express their support for his action by themselves fasting, although in their case just for one day.
[21]

Campaigners for India Against Corruption (IAC)

estimated that a petition circulated in the city of Pune which demanded that the government enact a bill had attracted between 5000 and 6000 signatures between 3 April and 5 April. Hazare has been involved with IAC, a group established by various prominent activists with the primary purpose of achieving the legal enactment and subsequent enforcement of a strong version of the Jan Lokpal bill.
[22] [23]

Many Bangaloreans visited the city's Freedom Park to support Hazare. 7 April 2011

Protests have continued as the Government fails to offer better terms to the activists

Two rounds of talks failed. There was agreement regarding constituting a panel to examine the Bill but the government would not accede to demands that it should be a formally constituted panel or that Hazare should lead it. As a consequence of this, Hazare continued his fast.
[24]

Narendra Modi, the chief Minister of Gujarat lashes out at Manmohan Singh for resisting the passage of the Jan Lokpal Bill
[25]

Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Indian National Congress party and the head of theNational Advisory Council appealed to Hazare to end his indefinite fast.
[26]

Hazare and the protesters tried to keep the protests non-political. No politicians were welcome at the site of the fast. Former Haryana Chief Minister Om Prakash Chautala, former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Uma Bharti and pro Sonia Gandhi journalist Barkha Dutt were forced by civilians to leave, after the protesters objected against their presence which they believed was harming the integrity of their movement. 8 April 2011
[27]

Protesters in Delhi

Protesters in Pune

Protests spread to Mumbai, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Bangalore, Chennai, Patna, Bhopal, Ahmedabad, Ranchi, Pune, Nashik and Kochi.
[28][29]

Protests were organised at the University of Jammu in Jammu, Thiruvananthapuram,Guwahati and Jaipur too.
[28]

The government continued to squabble with the activists stating that the bill drafting committee will be headed by a government appointed minister and not a civil society member as the protesters demanded to avoid allowing the government to make the bill less powerful.
[30]

The Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, met with the President of India to outline to her how the government was going ahead with the demands of the population.
[30]

15 supporters of Hazare on fast were hospitalized.

[31]

Bollywood came out in support of the protests, with actors, musicians and directors speaking in support of the movement and Hazare. Director Farah Khan, actor Anupam Kher, music director Vishal Dadlani, poet-filmmaker Pritish Nandy and actor Tom Alter all visited Jantar Mantar; others stated their support for the movement via social networking websites or the media. Oscar winning Indian composer A. R. Rahman also declared his support for the antigraft movement.

Qatari artist M. F. Hussain showed his support by drawing a cartoon of Hazare.

[32]

Indian students at Cambridge University, the former alma mater of the Indian prime minister also expressed their support for the movement.
[33]

Many prominent people from the government agencies as well as from various corporate houses came out in support of the movement. Some of them were - Delhi Metro chief E. Sreedharan
[34]

(also called the Metro Man of India), Punj Lloyd chairman Atul Punj, Maruti

Suzuki chairman R. C. Bhargava, Hero group's Sunil Munjal, Tata Steel vice-chairman B Muthuraman, Bajaj Auto Chairman Rahul Bajaj, Godrej Group head Adi Godrej, Biocon Chairman and Managing Director Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw and Kotak Mahindra Bank vice-chairman & managing director Uday Kotak. They all declared their support for Hazare and the movement.
[35][36]

ASSOCHAM President Dilip Modi and FICCI Director General Rajiv Kumar, too came out in support of the movement.
[35]

The Government of India accepted the compromise formula that there be a politician chairman and an activist, non-politician Co-Chairman. It was reported that Pranab Mukherjee will be the Chairman of the draft committee while Shanti Bhushan will be the cochairman.
[37]

Shanti Bhushan was one of the original drafters of the Lokpal Bill along with

Hazare, Justice N. Santosh Hegde, advocate Prashant Bhushan, and RTI activist Arvind Kejriwal.
[38]

9 April 2011 After accepting all the demands of Hazare, the Government of India issued a Official Gazette saying that the draft of lokpal would be made and presented in the coming monsoon session of Lok Sabha. Victory celebrations took place at locations throughout the country. village.
[40][41][42] [43] [39]

and even Hazare's

Bollywood lauded the outcome, repeating their support for the movement.

Protesters and leaders of the movement alike stated that the path to attaining complete passing of the bill is still a difficult one, and the movement has to see more harsher days ahead.
[44] [45][46]

Many commentators have called the movement the 'wake-up' call for India.

I want to tell the government that we are not two but one. You should wipe it out of your mind that you are the masters. You are not the masters, the people are. Gram Sabha is

more powerful than Lok Sabha or State Assemblies

Anna Hazare[5]

Within a day of the beginning of the agitation, more than 30,000 people had pledged their support to the Lokpal Bill. Organisers of the India Against Corruption said 30,000 people from Maharashtra expressed their support on their website. in Mumbai alone.
[48] [49] [47]

The website has 20,000 members

Within a few days the Facebook page forIndia Against Corruption had 16 April 2011

more than 220,000 likes.

The first meeting regarding a draft of the Lokpal Bill was held on 16 April. The government agreed to audio-record all meetings of the Lokpal Bill panel and to hold public consultations before a final draft is prepared. refused.
[51] [50]

Hazare demanded that the proceedings be televised live but the government 4 June 2011

Swami Ramdev begins his indefinite hunger strike at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi to bring back the black money stashed in tax havens abroad.
[52]

65,000 followers gathered at Ramlila Maidan

[53]

In a press conference in the evening Kapil Sibbal made public a letter from Ramdev's camp to call off the hunger strike. Ramdev took it as a betrayal and hardened position. 5 June 2011

At midnight, police raid the ground when most protesters are sleeping and Ramdev is busy at a meeting with his core group.
[54]

A large police force lob tear gas shells, burn the place and lathicharge the crowd at 1 am (IST) to evict them.

Police had arranged buses to drop supporters at railway stations and bus stands in advance; had ammunition ready and were in battle-gear wearing vests and helmets and kept some ambulances on standby.

Delhi Police arrest Ramdev, who was disguised in a salwar kameez with a group of female protesters heading peacefully towards theNew Delhi Railway Station

Ramdev is held in a government guesthouse for a few hours and then sent to Dehradun in a BSF aircraft.

Ramdev is sent to his Patanjali Yogpeeth ashram in Haridwar where he delivers a press conference.
[55]

53 people are injured and are treated at the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash (LNJP) hospital, AIIMS Trauma Center and Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.
[56][56][1]

Protesters huddle near the Metro station, bus depots and railway stations. Many walk down to Gurdwara Bangla Sahib and other nearby ashrams.
[57]

According to New Delhi railway

station authorities, supporters continued to leave in batches through the course of the day. While several supporters spent the day at a park near Ramlila Maidan, others took shelter at an Arya Samaj facility in Paharganj.
[58]

Ramdev is prohibited from entering Delhi for 15 days.

We are really curious why the government is against the idea of telecasting live the proceedings of the committee. The people ought to know the reasons why there is a difference between your and our viewpoint,

9 June 2011

Shanti Bhushan[59]

Hazare describes his fight against corruption as the "Second Freedom Struggle" and set an ultimatum of 15 August 2011, as the last date to pass a strong Jan Lokpal Bill threatening to otherwise intensify his anti-corruption agitation and start another fast from 16 August. 16 June 2011
[60]

The Government and the civil societysplit wide open due to differences in jointly drafting bill. Government representatives informed that if a consensus on the common bill is not reached, two drafts will be sent to the Cabinet, one drafted by the Government and the other drafted by the civil society. Team Anna also claimed that only 15 points out of total 71 recommended were agreed and included in the joint draft. Hazare declared that if the government version of the bill was passed in the Parliament, he will start his hunger strike from August 16, 2011. [edit]Use
[61]

of cyberspace

Hacker group Anonymous has come out in support of a civil movement against corruption in India by hacking one of the key website of a Indian government

of National Informatics Centre. This cyber movement has been called "Operation India".
[62]

[edit]Government

response

Hazare's protest has led to the resignation of Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar from the Group of Ministers on corruption.
[63]

On 8 April,

the government started seriously considering the demands of the protesters. The government has stated that it will table the bill in the parliament in the upcoming Monsoon session.
[64]

On 9 April, the government

finally agreed to have a 50:50 distribution of the Government appointed officials and the members of the civil society.
[65]

On May 13, PM

Manmohan Singh stated that the Indian government has completed the process for ratification of UN Convention against Corruption.
[66]

[edit]Political

response to the Jantar Mantar protests

Bhartiya Janata Party The Bhartiya Janata Party supported Hazare, with a prominent member, Arun Jaitley, urging the government to take Hazare's fast very seriously.
[67]

Another prominent BJP figure, L.K. Advani suggested that a meeting of political parties should be convened to discuss the issue "particularly in the

context of black money and curbing money-power in elections".

[68]

BJP leader Narendra Modi posted on his Facebook account that he was praying for Hazare's health. He also published an open letter to Hazare thanking him for the latter's support for the development work in Gujarat (being spearheaded by Modi himself as the chief minister of the state). Modi also warned Hazare of possible vilification by a certain 'powerful-group' that wishes to defame Modi and Gujarat. He reiterated his support for the Jan Lokpal Bill.
[69]

Communist Party of India (Marxist) The Communist Party of India (Marxist) came out in support of Anna Hazare. Prakash Karat pledged support to Hazare over the Jan Lokpal Bill. [edit]Ramlila
[70]

ground protests

Ramdev claimed that Bharat Swabhiman Yatra had evoked massive support from the masses and more than 10 crore people had been directly involved with the movement. His yatra ended on June 1 at Ujjain in Madhya Pradesh after travelling over 100,000 kilometres (62,000 mi) across the country. Almost 3.2 million "netizens" joined the campaign.
[71] [72]

Ramdev declared that a people's movement to liberate the country from rampant corruption and build a strong spiritual Bharat' would be launched by

him in June. The movement was called "Satyagraha against Corruption".

[73]

He

declared one of the main objectives of the movement was to bring about an end to corruption and bring back black money stashed away in various financial institutions in the country and abroad. On the midnight of 5 June, police raided the site where Ramdev was fasting against corruption and black money issues in the capital and forcefully detained him and removed his supporters from the site after firing tear gas shells and resorting to lathicharge to end his day-old indefinite hunger strike on black money issue.
[74]

Seventy-one

people were injured and moved to hospital, four of whom were reported to be in critical condition.
[53]

Finance

Minister Pranab Mukherjee called the police action "unfortunate", but added that the government had to do that as Ramdev had no permission to hold a protest at the Ramlila Ground.
[75]

He maintained that second phase of Bharat Swabhiman Yatra would begin from October 2011 year and the Yatra would once again travel a distance of 100,000 kilometres (62,000 mi). [edit]Background
[72]

to the Ramlila ground protests

On March 16, 2011, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) issued its manifesto for the upcoming Bengal polls in 2011, which said that "[if the

party came to power, it would] launch a drive to unearth black money, especially those (sic) stashed in Swiss and other tax havens." The issue was taken up by Sharad Yadav of Janata Dal (United), who said on March 27 that there were US$ 1,470 billion stashed by Indians in Swiss banks. Four senior Union Ministers Pranab Mukherjee, Kapil Sibal, Pawan Kumar Bansal and Subodh Kant Sahay met Ramdev and discussed issues and his demands at Delhi Airport on June 1, 2011.
[76]

Back-channel talk between two

[77]

sides were held in The Claridges, New Delhi on June 2, 2011. Next day talks

were held for a third time between the ministers and Ramdev and both sides claimed consensus. The government gave a response to the demands while Ramdev planned to go ahead with his hunger strike. 250,000 square metres (0.25 km ; 0.097 sq mi) of overhead waterproof tent was set up and the ground was booked for 40 days for the protest. A volunteer centre at the extreme end of the maidan was set up. 650 bathrooms and toilets was stationed inside the maidan, out of which 40 percent were for women. Also provided for was drinking water facility, medical facility and a media centre with three communication towers.
[78] 2

[edit]Police

action against the demonstration

Police fired tear gas, burned the place and lathicharged peacefully fasting men, women and children. 53 persons were reportedly injured and were treated at the Lok Nayak Jai Prakash (LNJP) hospital, AIIMS trauma center and Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital.
[56][1]

About 5000 supporters were still missing according to Ramdev.

[79]

Jadeep Arya, a

key advisor on Ramdevs team, said that about 19 girls students from the Chotipur Gurukul who were seated near the dais were thought to be still missing.
[80]

Behen Suman, womens

representative of the Trust, said many of these girls were roughed up when the police tried to reach Ramdev and were crying since police officials were pulling their hair, dragging them and their clothes were torn. Police, however, said no one was missing.
[80]

There is an allegation that CCTV footage of the raid is missing.

[81][82]

[edit]Police clarification on action A senior police officer commented on the police action saying, "there were talks in the police headquarters since June 2 that Baba Ramdev would be detained as we knew he is definitely not going to hold a Yoga camp." Allegedly, Ramdev's detention was not a spontaneous decision but had been planned for several days.
[54]

The police said Ramdev was informed around 11 pm (IST) on Saturday that his permission to continue his agitation had been canceled. By that time, over 5000 police officers, including 12 battalions of the Delhi Police, three battalions of Rapid Action Force, two of Central Reserve Police Force commandos and local police were briefed by senior police officers to get ready for action. The Ramlila Ground was then surrounded by several buses and tempos, towards the ground from Haryana, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab but were sent back from the borders.
[54] [vague]

heading

[edit]Protest against police action

on Ramdev's demonstration
How can the government stop anyone from protesting? The land is not their 'father's property'. The citizens are the masters of this country and the ministers are their servants". - Anna Hazare
( When some press reporter ask him how can he protest at Jantar Mantar since prohibitory orders)

[83]

On 6 June the National Human Rights Commission of India issued notices to the Union Home Secretary, Delhi Chief Secretary and the Delhi City Commissioner of Police seeking reports

within two weeks regarding the midnight crackdown at the Ramlila Ground.
[84]

In a response to the crackdown Hazare said that he would hold a one day hunger strike at Jantar Mantar on 8 June. The venue was changed to Rajghat when he could not get police permission to do so. [edit]Aftermath
[56]

of the Ramlila ground protests

Protests were held in many different parts of country, including the cities of Bangalore, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Jam mu, and Lucknow. Protests against the action also spread to Nepal. [edit]Civil
[85][86][87][88]

society response

Ramdev accused the government of not being serious about discussing issues of corruption and black money, alleging that government negotiator Kapil Sibal had cheated him through "scheming and cunning" attitude. He alleged that there was a conspiracy to kill him and a "threat" was given to him during a meeting with senior ministers. He also claimed that the ruling government chairperson Sonia Gandhi and the United Progressive Alliance government will be responsible for any threat to his life and alleged that he was nearly strangled by the police.
[89]

After being evicted from Delhi,

Ramdev wanted to continue his fast from Noida but was denied permission

to do so by the Uttar Pradesh government. He decided to continue his hunger strike and satyagraha from Haridwar only until June 12, 2011.
[90][91][92]

Hazare said there might have been some faults with Ramdev's agitation but that the beating up of people at night rather than in the day-time was a "blot on democracy" and that "There was no firing otherwise the eviction was similar to Jallianwala Bagh incident." He said that the "strangulation of democracy" would cause civil society to launch protests throughout the country to "teach government a lesson".
[93][94]

Other

civil society leaders, such as Arvind Kejriwal, also termed the use of police force on non-violent sleeping protesters as undemocratic. Shanti Bhushan and Swami Agnivesh also criticised the police action to end the hunger strike.
[95][96]

[edit]Government

response

Congress General Secretary Digvijay Singh called Ramdev a "cheat" and "fraud".
[97]

According to him the

[98]

government had reached an agreement before the protests were held. The

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wrote to Ramdev, asking to cease-and-desist from holding the protests.
[99]

Nationalist

Congress Party General Secretary Tariq Anwar said that "Both Hazare and Ramdev are blackmailing the

government and they should first peep into their own hearts."
[100]

Pawan

Bansal commented on the midnight police action and said that "It was not a crackdown, we [the government] had to do it to maintain law and order". [edit]Other
[101]

political parties

response
Bharatiya Janata Party: The party called the police action to break up the hunger strike "undemocratic".
[102]

BJP

President Nitin Gadkarisaid they will organize a 24-hour long Satyagraha at Rajghat independent of government's permission.
[103]

Nitin

Gadkari further added; "Women and children were attacked. They were lathi charged and teargas was used. This reminds us of the Emergency days in 1975. We strongly condemn it," and "The Prime Minister and Sonia Gandhi used force on democratic ways of protest against corruption and black money. I condemn the action of Manmohan Singh and Sonia Gandhi. They should apologize for the act,"
[104]

Gujarat Chief

MinisterNarendra Modi strongly condemned the incident comparing atrocities on Ramlila ground by governemnt with RavanaLila further adding that It is one of the worst days of Indian history. The

Prime Minister had said during the elections that he would bring back black money stashed in Swiss banks within 100 days of coming into power. But today, it is two years and nothing has happened.
[104]

Senior BJP

leader Lal Krishna Advani said that the police action reminded him of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and added that the police crackdown on Ramdev is a "naked fascism".
[104]

Leader of the

Opposition in the Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj said: "This is not democracy...the police cannot alone had taken such a step. It had the approval of the Prime Minister and full approval of the Congress President.
[104]

Bahujan Samaj Party: BSP leader and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister, Mayawati, condemned the government's midnight crackdown on Ramdev and demanded that Supreme Court of India order an investigation into the incident stating that justice cannot be expected from the Central Government.
[105][106]

Samajwadi Party: Samajwadi Party chief Mulayam Singh Yadav condemned the incident saying that the action shows Centre

has lost its mental balance. Charging the ruling Congress Party, Yadav further said: "A Congress leader said that Baba is a thug. I want to say that Congress is the biggest thug and it should introspect its deeds.
[105]

"The government

swooped down on Ramdev and his supporters as if it were carrying an attack on a foreign enemy," Yadav told reporters at a press conference.
[106]

Rashtriya Janata Dal: RJD leader Lalu Prasad Yadav accused Ramdev of being a front for the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.
[107]

Communist Party of India (Marxist): CPI(M) termed the police action at the protest site of Ramdev as "deplorable and shortsighted". However, they found fault with the yoga guru for making the issue of black money "farcical" by entering into a secret agreement with government.
[108]

"The manner in

which Ramdev's demands were drafted and the way in which he has conducted his interactions with the government, coming to a secret agreement to withdraw the hunger strike on the basis of assurances, then reneging and announcing its extension trivialised the seriousness

of the issue of black money and made it farcical," the party said.
[106]

Shiv Sena: The Shiv Sena strongly condemned the police action against Ramdev.
[106]

Janata Dal (United): Nitish Kumar, leader of JD(U) and the Chief Minister of Bihar, condemned the attack saying "It is a major blow to democracy and an attack on the democractic rights of the people ... It is also an attack on the fundamental rights of the citizens.
[104]

[edit]Suo

Moto Cognizance by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of India issued notices to the Union Home Secretary, Chief Secretary of Delhi, Delhi administration, and Delhi Police Commissioner asking them to respond within two weeks, after taking suo motu cognizance of forceful eviction of Ramdev and his followers from the Ramlila ground.
[109]

However, the court declined to entertain a petition filed by advocate Ajay Aggarwal, who said that no FIR
[vague]

had

been registered against the police officials. The bench expressed its displeasure that before the matter came up for hearing before it, the entire contents of the petition were leaked to t
[109]

editCorruption Perceptions IndexList

National scenario Corruption in India is a consequence of the nexus between Bureaucracy, politics and criminals. India is now no longer considered a soft state. It has now become a consideration state where everything can be had for a consideration. Today, the number of ministers with an honest image can be counted on fingers. At one time, bribe was paid for getting wrong things done but now bribe is paid for getting right things done at right time. Effects of corruption Indian administration is tainted with scandals. India is among 55 of the 106 countries where corruption is rampant, according to the Corruption Perception Index 2004 Report released by Transparency International India. Corruption in India leads to promotion not prison. It is very difficult to catch big sharks. Corruption in India has wings not wheels. As nation grows, the corrupt also grow to invent new methods of cheating the government and public. Causes of corruption The causes of corruption are many and complex. Following are some of the causes of corruption. Emergence of political elite who believe in interest-oriented rather than nation-oriented programmes and policies. Artificial scarcity created by the people with malevolent intentions wrecks the fabric of the economy. Corruption is caused as well as increased because of the change in the value system and ethical qualities of men who administer. The old ideals of morality, service and honesty are regarded as an achronistic. Tolerance of people towards corruption, complete lack of intense public outcry against corruption and the absence of strong public forum to oppose corruption allow corruption to reign over people. Vast size of population coupled with widespread illiteracy and the poor economic infrastructure lead to endemic corruption in public life. In a highly inflationary economy, low salaries of government officials compel them to resort to the road of corruption. Graduates from IIMs with no experience draw a far handsome salary than what government secretaries draw. Complex laws and procedures alienate common people to ask for any help from

government. Election time is a time when corruption is at its peak level. Big industrialist fund politicians to meet high cost of election and ultimately to seek personal favour. Bribery to politicians buys influence, and bribery by politicians buys votes. In order to get elected, politicians bribe poor illiterate people, who are slogging for two times meal.

Measures to combat corruption Is it possible to contain corruption in our society? Corruption is a cancer, which every Indian must strive to cure. Many new leaders when come into power declare their determination to eradicate corruption but soon they themselves become corrupt and start amassing huge wealth. There are many myths about corruption, which have to be exploded if we really want to combat it. Some of these myths are: Corruption is a way of life and nothing can be done about it. Only people from underdeveloped or developing countries are prone to corruption. We will have to guard against all these crude fallacies while planning measures to fight corruption. Foolproof laws should be made so that there is no room for discretion for politicians and bureaucrats. The role of the politician should be minimized. Application of the evolved policies should be left in the hands of independent commission or authority in each area of public interest. Decision of the commission or authority should be challengeable only in the courts. Cooperation of the people has to be obtained for successfully containing corruption. People should have a right to recall the elected representatives if they see them becoming indifferent to the electorate. Funding of elections is at the core of political corruption. Electoral reforms are crucial in this regard. Several reforms like: State funding of election expenses for candidates; strict enforcement of statutory requirements like holding in-party elections, making political parties get their accounts audited regularly and filing income-tax returns; denying persons with criminal records a chance to contest elections, should be brought in. Responsiveness, accountability and transparency are a must for a clean system. Bureaucracy, the backbone of good governance, should be made more citizen friendly, accountable, ethical and transparent. More and more courts should be opened for speedy & inexpensive justice so that cases dont linger in courts for years and justice is delivered on time.

 Local bodies, Independent of the government, like Lokpals, Lokadalats, CVCs and Vigilance Commissions should be formed to provide speedy justice with low expenses. A new Fundamental Right viz. Right to Information should be introduced, which will empower the citizens to ask for the information they want. Barring some confidential information, which concerns national and international security, other information should be made available to general public as and when required. Stringent actions against corrupt officials will certainly have a deterrent impact.

Conclusion Corruption is an intractable problem. It is like diabetes, can only be controlled, but not totally eliminated. It may not be possible to root out corruption completely at all levels but it is possible to contain it within tolerable limits. Honest and dedicated persons in public life, control over electoral expenses could be the most important prescriptions to combat corruption. Corruption has a corrosive impact on our economy. It worsens our image in international market and leads to loss of overseas opportunities. Corruption is a global problem that all countries of the world have to confront, solutions, however, can only be home grown. We have tolerated corruption for so long. The time has now come to root it out from its roots.