Article originally published in the public group A community of practice in Democracy Support
Corruption continues to take a heavy toll on countries around the globe. The consequences of corruption occasionally make the international headlines in a spectacular manner, such as when the Afghan government collapsed in 2021. Mostly, however, the effects constitute a vast and continuous drag on living standards and quality of governance, which observers treat almost as “normal” and unavoidable. In most of Asia, around 90% think that corruption in government is a big problem.1 Surprisingly, majorities often also believe that their governments are doing well in tackling corruption.
Lessons learnt about how to strengthen democratic governance and tackle corruption, based on a training organised by the MKS programme2 and country data:
The relation between corruption and the state of democracy could partly account for the apparent contradiction between the opinions on corruption as a problem, and beliefs in governmental anti-corruption efforts. Several countries where the majorities of citizens believe that their governments tackle corruption well have hybrid or authoritarian regimes. The optimistic opinions may reflect genuine beliefs in anti-corruption efforts of the governments and be based on real facts. However, government-sponsored propaganda, or even citizens’ fears to judge the government’s work critically, may also play a role.
The truth is, however, that autocracies almost never achieve good control of corruption.3 In March 2022, the MKS Programme organised an anti-corruption training for DG INTPA staff in EU Delegations, where trainers and participants discussed the vicious circle of corrupt elites attacking democracy to protect their wealth. Countries with decades, or even centuries, of democratic experience have seen political leaders who deliberately undermine accountability institutions to protect themselves.4 Once they succeed, such leaders gain even more opportunities to steal and avoid accountability. Even if democracy does not always guarantee effective control of corruption, without democracy, the prospect of success disappears altogether. Therefore, protection and strengthening of democratic institutions are a necessary – even if not sufficient – condition for successful anti-corruption policy.
In 12 of 18 Asian countries covered in the Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) in 2020, majorities also believe that anti-corruption agencies (ACAs) of the respective countries are doing well in the fight against corruption. Globally, the track record of ACAs has shown both failures and successes. The findings of the GCB in Asia indicate that these specialized bodies should not be written off, despite some studies showing lack of significant improvements after the introduction of anti-corruption agencies in the past. Instead, reform efforts should focus on ensuring necessary preconditions for effective ACAs, such as political support from national political leadership, the political and operational independence needed to investigate acts at the highest levels of government, exemplary behaviour of the ACA itself, sufficient and reliable funding, etc.5 Anti-corruption advocates should capitalize on public trust in the ability of ACAs to counter corruption and pressure decision makers. In that way, they will ensure the necessary conditions for their success.
Anti-corruption must go beyond anti-corruption agencies. During the MKS training, a simulation exercise on reforms to bring to account public officials with unexplained lavish lifestyles showed many ways that the general framework of governance is decisive for anti-corruption success. A reliable and accessible cadastre, effective tax administration, and due limits on banking secrecy are as important as strong law enforcement bodies. According to a report by the OECD and the World Bank, tax authorities may further anti-corruption work by detecting indicators of corruption such as taxpayers whose known income could not support their lifestyle; sharing information such as intelligence and evidence collected through criminal investigations; providing access to databases covering information on income, assets and financial transactions; leveraging assistance from foreign countries and their tax administrations; and, undertaking net worth analyses of subjects, etc. The co-operation should be mutually beneficial since ACAs also have many ways to support tax bodies.
The box of tools that directly or indirectly help fighting corruption is vast, and many of them remain underutilized across the region. For example, the offence of illicit enrichment – defined by the United Nations Convention against Corruption as a significant increase in the assets of a public official that he or she cannot reasonably explain in relation to his or her lawful income – has been enacted in some form in many countries of the Asia-Pacific region, but remains mostly unused in practice. Sustainable anti-corruption efforts should focus not only on specific anti-corruption measures but also on broader changes to strengthen the complex system of impartial, effective and democratic governance.
Like, comment and share this article with your peers
|
Resources
|
Photo © Luis Quintero, Unsplash
1 For more information, see Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) Asia 2020.
2 ''Methodological and Knowledge Sharing Support for EU External Interventions" programme, managed by DG INTPA Unit D4.
3 See the Corruption Perceptions Index of Transparency International.
5 See recent analysis on how to make anticorruption agencies more effective.
Log in with your EU Login account to post or comment on the platform.