HIGHWAY TO HEAVEN (FOR PUBLICATION ON SUNDAY THE 6^TH AUGUST 2006

By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador)

Throughout the history of mankind the desire to perpetuate rule has been the avowed aim of dictators, be they wearing uniforms or professing the legitimacy of their rule through “imperfect” elections. Developed countries through centuries of trials and errors have reasonably perfected a system of governance that broadly represent the will of their peoples, and should there be any breach of contract with the people the system provides for the exit of governments through free and fair elections. In many developing countries governance is primarily aimed at distributing the “spoils of war”, elections can veritably be described as “war” won mostly through money and muscle power, among the faithful and constrict the voice of the opposition to its utmost, again aimed at perpetuating power which was the original aim of holding ‘imperfect” elections. The process of distribution of the “spoils of war” invariably embraces corruption in varying degrees. In some developing countries the head of government and his family become the richest people in the country with incredible speed confounding any economic theory on capital accumulation.

A legalistic definition of corruption would be “a secret form of social exchange by which political or administrative power holders make a living from their power or influence that they exercise by virtue of their mandate or function”. Invariant characteristics of corruption are: -  (a) violation of societal rules or norms; (b) secret exchange among political, social, and economic markets; (c) illegal access or influence given to individuals or groups to the process of political or administrative decision making; and (d) resultant tangible benefits to the parties involved in the transactions.

Most developed countries have by now legislated strict laws on corruption with expansive definition and the corrupt have to pay heavy price for their misdeeds. Though some cases have been put under the carpet few glaring examples are those of Italian Prime Ministers Andreotti and Benito Craxi; US Vice President Spiro Agnew; British Home Secretary David Blunkett, exile of Mendelson to the European Commission, and possible departure of Deputy Prime Minister David Prescott. In Asia Japan’s Prime Minister Tanaka, South Korean President Roh Tae-Woh , and in Bangladesh former President H M Ershad had to suffer imprisonment.

Not all can be accused of financial malfeasance. Some erred in judgment. But developed societies in particular are unforgiving that their chosen leader should stray from the righteous path. Such strict demand made of the politicians by the electorate in developed societies is possible because the electors have been empowered by law and tradition that strayers from the honest path be punished. Along with law on their side the electors are also financially well off as opposed to those in poverty-stricken countries who can be bought and bullied by a section of politicians who have amassed wealth by using their public office for private gains. Francis Fukuyama has included level of development of a country as one of the four basic conditions necessary for democratic transformation of a society. It has been found that virtually all industrialized economies are functionally democracies while relatively very poor countries are. When a country attains GDP per capita of US dollars six thousand or more and transforms itself from an agrarian society to an industrial one it also attains sustainable democracy. Fukuyama thinks that the growth of property owning middle class makes them a stakeholder for insisting on orderly transition of power through a transparent and predictable system. Property owning middle class being almost invariably educated are more aware of their rights and are less swayed by election mongering. But then any sweeping judgment that only the rich are for democracy and the poor have to wait to become rich before they can practice democracy is not only a fallacious contention but is also an arrogant premise as one posited by historian Bernard Lewis that democracy is a peculiar Western invention for administering public affairs which may or may not be suitable for others. Indeed Pandit Nehru correctly noted in his Glimpses of World History that if the French Revolution ushered in an age of political equality, the boundaries of democracy have to be extended to ensure economic equality as well. But then the efforts by some to come out of poverty have not been easy, and some would even argue that the efforts have failed. Except for Botswana in the last thirty five years none of the Least Developed Countries(LDC) has graduated out of that category. It has been argued that the LDCs  are so disadvantaged in their development process that they face “the risk of failing to come out of poverty”, and consequent differential treatment given to the LDCs instead of bolstering their economies has contributed to their failure to “address the misguided policies—in particular domestic over regulation, weak property rights, skewed trade regime, and lack of democracy” stunting their growth. Freedom House which ranks countries according to political rights and civil liberties their citizens enjoy have accorded LDCs median scores( 1 being most free and 7 being the least with Bangladesh scoring 3 for political rights and 4 for civil liberties and therefore defined as partially free) in the average index of 1995-2005. One could, therefore, infer that a co-relationship exists between good governance( and democracy) and economic development. That some command economies during the Cold War era e.g. South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore had developed by leaps and bounds( China can also be cited as an example due to its current phenomenal growth) does not negate the argument that there is congruence between democracy and development mainly because under democracy the government is accountable to the people. In this context Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz has raised the question of moral growth i.e. “growth that is sustainable, that increases living standard not just today but for future generations as well and that leads to a more tolerant, open society(where) the benefits of growth are shared equitably, creating a society with more social justice and solidarity”.

Challenges before countries like Bangladesh are not only to recover state institutions which have been politicized and robotized beyond recognition but also to over come the disadvantages inherent in small and weak economies in these days of globalization where stronger economies are better equipped to take advantage of unrestricted trade and to enforce the rules of the system to their own advantage. While we should train ourselves to compete with better educated and technologically more advanced economies we have to ensure that “social goods such as maximum employment, social security, social cohesion and over all quality of life” are made available to the people in general.