“Corruption has even been seen as an integral part of government activities sometimes specifically devised to extract higher bribes” – Azam, Gauthier, Goyette, 2004.
Vigilance has been a method to control corruption long instituted in India. In Technology parlance, we talk of, control systems with feedback and without feedback. One of the prime things that we all learn during our Engineering program is, to control anything you should know how to measure it. It is said, ‘if you know how to measure it, then you know how to control it too’.
Question Number 1: Has the vigilance department come up with any specific measuring methodology to control corruption in its life time of more than 60 years?
Question Number 2: What was the feedback that the Vigilance department sends to the government about increase / decrease of corruption in the country?
Hardly ten days back, I had the opportunity to talk to a senior government official about how do they measure corruption in the government. He just laughed and brushed it aside saying such things can never be measured.
Really?
A farmer when he wants to control sheep, he uses a sheep-dog to do the job. It is a known fact that you cannot have one of the sheep to be a controlling sheep. To my knowledge, one can never have the same group control. For instance, you want to control drivers you can think of having police to do the job. Politicians are checked by the people once in five years, at least. When you want to have someone to control the ruling party, you have the opposition.
Question Number 3: Why, then, to control and monitor administrators of this government we have the same set of people posted as vigilance officers every where?
It is rather dumb that when we need to complain against a tax collecting officer, you need to complain to another tax collecting officer. The vigilance officer was also a superintendent at the tax office before and possibly the person you are complaining against will come to the post next!
Now, let us come to the question of Chief Vigilance Commissioner.
First point is: it is rather dumb of our governance system to post an IAS / IPS or for that matter any one from the administration service to the post of a CVC. How can this person take firm action against his own friends and peers? For one minute, let us assume that this person is a blemish less individual. Still how do you expect him to do justice to the person who is complaining? No wonder Vigilance department is a waste of public exchequer. No good ever comes out of it for the people except for the politically minded individuals in the administration who play dirty games between themselves.
Second point is: All over the world, Vigilance officers are elected from and by the people and not nominated from the Government Administrators. This is so because; it does not make sense to have a control mechanism on government administrators using government administrators. Therefore, it is almost always a nominee from the people or an elected representative who sits in the position of Chief Vigilance Officer or equivalent all over the well administered world.
I think the question whether the CVC can sit in his current posting or not was well answered by the Attorney General without mincing his words. He was quite right in saying that all other positions including judiciary will come under scrutiny if we start scrutinising that of CVC. How true!
The real question is not whether CVC can sit in that position or not but whether we should have another of those administrators sitting in that position to help us control corruption or not?
References:
Azam, Gauthier and Goyette (2004) “The Effect of Fiscal Policy and Corruption Control Mechanisms on Firm Growth and Social Welfare: Theory and Evidence “ seen at: http://www.csae.ox.ac.uk/conferences/2004-GPRAHDIA/papers/4m-AzamGauthier-CSAE2004.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment