Moa Jamir
"Today, corruption is like the cancer of our society… But unless we come out and own the issue we will be fighting a losing war,” the Nagaland Baptist Church Council (NBCC) General Secretary, Rev. Dr. Zelhou Keyho asserted on Saturday. The latest in a series of rhetoric and actions towards corruption we have seen in recent times.
Corruption – loosely akin to ‘misuse of public office for private gain’ – has become so deeply embedded in the system that despite such rhetoric from those at the helms of the affairs or the general public, the fight against corruption remains futile.
Relevant empirical studies need to be consulted in order to take things into perspective and study it within the context of Nagaland.
In a comprehensive study on why the fight against corruption fails in most of the countries, especially in the developing countries, Persson et al (2012) argued that while the majority of thoroughly corrupt countries now have a strong legal and institutional anti-corruption framework “they still struggle to translate those laws into practice” and instead create “new opportunities and incentives for corruption.”
Taking the case of corruption in Uganda and Kenya, and the study examined why the people living choose not to report and punish corrupt behavior despite frameworks designed to facilitate such actions or morally condemning the same.
Most of them thought it is meaningless to report corruption since this will not make any difference anyway.
“It is simply the way ‘things work.’ Everybody does it, so whether it is bad or good, everybody does it anyway. Am I the one who is going to change the world? …They are not much concerned because they see it as an easy way to access something.
“If you have an office but have not stolen—if you have not helped your family— they are actually going to curse you… if you get into a state institution and you walk in with one suit and one shamba (a plot of land), and you walk out on your retirement with one suit and one shamba, you will be considered foolish,” quoted the study.
“…People are seeing their relatives and friends in high offices and they don’t care how they get the money as long as the money is going to the village and they benefit... For someone in the position of need, if someone comes and sorts out school fees for your children, which you otherwise could not afford, you are going to praise that guy and say ‘you are a great guy and doing a good job’. People look at him and say 'he is our man'."
The unwillingness on behalf of ordinary citizens in thoroughly corrupt settings—and especially the poor—to report corruption should be understood in a context.
For those lucky enough to be having a job in the formal sector, the fear of losing one’s job, or even life, seems to hold many people back and the reporting system is corrupt itself, the study further noted.
Podumljak (2008) writing about corruption in the Balkan region pointed out that civil society organizations and Non-Governmental Organisations are co-opted by the government and serve as defenders of the government “against public criticism” losing their credibility and public trust in a corrupt society.
“Some NGO leaders became part of the governing instruments, explaining that they can do more if they are inside the system.”
This arises because the process of building a sustainable NGO sector was never created and they become highly dependable on government funding which distributes funds according to the criteria, “let’s fund friends and support our political views,” Podumljak noted.
Such traits mentioned above are verifiable in our society. It is not unusual to hear in common discussion, stated as a matter-of-fact, that since so and so from such village or tribe is heading a department or the minister, things can be done easily.
As a result, the processes and actions which can be construed as nepotism and favoritism otherwise, become a normal practice in the administration and polity.
A minister getting you a job, a departmental head enabling a ‘backdoor’ appointment is neither derided nor taken as an offence, but by doing so, the person is put on a pedestal.
Consequently, such practices have become so common, that if anyone wants to change the system, they will become a ‘social pariah,’ a reality from where there is no easy escape.
Our proclivity towards quick fixes and shortcuts, unless it is a government project, is also feeding the system. Ironically, our completed projects are also mostly ‘quick-fixes’ or ‘lipstick services.’
Nagas’ legendary aspersion towards standing or maintaining queues in any scenario reflects these traits.
In such a scenario, a politician or bureaucrat fighting a corruption charge will get more supporters than an anti corruption campaign.
Such reality unfolds in front of us daily but as we are institutionalized under the system since our childhood, we remain stoical.
Most recently, instead of reality, we have taken the fight against corruption to the social media with vulgar cynicism. The moral high ground posited by commenting on social media serves as an illusionary cathartic relief, though at ground level things remain the same.
Studies have shown that Hong Kong and Singapore have successfully fought corruption from “above,” implying that the members of the ruling elite themselves set an example by changing their behavior beyond the rhetorical level.
Countries that have successfully transferred from corrupt to less corrupt systems of rule seem to share the same characteristic —that is, high-level public officials—have served as role models, Persson et al also noted.
Does the church, and other organizations, engender such confidence and go beyond rhetoric?
For any comment, drop a line to moajamir@live.com
