A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Friday, August 11, 2017
Sri Lanka’s Fight Against Corruption
“As
good customs have need of laws for maintaining themselves, so the laws,
to be observed, have need of good customs. In addition to this, the
institutions and laws made in a Republic at its origin when men were
good, are not afterward more suitable, when they [men] have become evil.
And if laws vary according to circumstances and events in a City, its
institutions rarely or never vary: which results in the fact that new
laws are not enough, for the institutions that remain firm will corrupt
it.” ~ Nicolo Machiavelli
This compilation is to explore and focus attention on the issues of political forthrightness and the fight against corruption as
essential components of the process of strengthening democratic
institutions. It aims at contributing a set of initial contemplations on
crucial topics related to political integrity, such as the blueprint of
conflicts of interest, the role of the press in monitoring the abuse of
political office and, most of all, the control of the role of money in
democratic elections. All these issues are built-in in democratic
governance. As such, this compilation is both an attempt to identify
some good and bad international practices to deal with these issues; a
discussion that is domestic as much as it is international.
There
is a justifiable desire to ascertain political corruption. The
discussion is not about what corruption is, so much as about how one can
arrive at a standard formula for analyzing the naturally flawless
condition from which corrupt politicians veer. Political corruption
echoes the political system in which it is based. As such, the different
natures of the political ideology would modify the forms and range that
political corruption takes. Thus, political corruption in a democratic
body politic might take a very different form to that in a
non-democracy.
The
perspective on politics from which the interpretation of corruption
gives birth will play a major role in defining the political corruption.
Definitions
of political corruption within restrictive boundaries fail to take into
account everlasting factors, most importantly those dealing with
standards of observable factors. Thus, without knowing what norms or
standards of politics one should accept, it is not possible to solve
problems in defining and analyzing political corruption. Another path
uses the concept of ‘public interest’ to illustrate the crux of
corruption.
While
this definition focuses our attention on any act or set of acts that
threaten to destroy a political system, one should determine what the
public or common interest is before assessing whether a particular act
is corrupt. Furthermore, this definition enables a person to justify
almost any act by claiming that it is in the public interest. Then, if
we agree that political corruption is what the public in any given
society perceives as violations of the common interest, we will face
even more difficulties with such an approach for two reasons. First,
public opinion cannot be freely expressed on any given issue and it is
debatable to use a term ‘common interest’. Moreover, studies of public
opinion have depicted that in many cases public opinion about ‘common
interest’ is either inconclusive or divided. Second, the reliance on a
‘common interest’ makes any equivalent analysis very difficult, since
the definition of common interest would be culture-specific. What is
corrupt in one country may not be corrupt in another. This leads to
situations in which similar acts can be defined as infringements or not
according to where they take place.
Another
group of academics have developed market-centered definitions,
primarily related to demand, supply, and exchange concepts derived from,
in his article ‘The Concept of Corruption’, states that economic in
theory, political corruption is viewed as a particular model of agency
relationship. Jacob Van Klaveren states:-
“A
corrupt government official regards his public office as a business,
the income of which he will, seek to maximize. The size of his income
then does not depend on an ethical evaluation of his usefulness for the
common good but precisely upon the market situation finding the point of
maximal gain”
Each
government servant determines the reward for his services in every
case, according to the well-known principle of the railways’ rate
policy, “charge what the traffic can bear.” The civil servant will
regard his public office as a business particularly if he does not
obtain a salary or obtains symbolic payment.
The
market-centered approach, when compared to other approaches, to a
greater extent emphasizes the mechanics of political corruption and
circumstances under which it becomes possible. Moreover, the
market-centered approach might be too simplistic to capture all aspects
of the corruption phenomenon. Neither the politicians’ decisions nor the
corrupt bureaucrats can be treated as private entrepreneurs and thus
the simplistic application of market analysis is not sufficient. To make
progress, one must combine an economist’s concern of modeling
self-interested behavior with a political scientist’s recognition that
political and bureaucratic institutions provide incentive structures far
different from those presupposed by the competitive market paradigm.
As
illustrated above, multiple definitions of political corruption
introduced by diverse groups of academics have been proposed. However,
the complexity of the phenomenon and questions about how and why it
occurs makes it difficult to find a single general, satisfactory
definition. The number of different types of political corruption makes
this challenging