By Narayan Manandhar - Suddenly, the Gen-Z movement has turned good governance and anti-corruption agenda into a sexy topic. No political discussion, debate and agreement can begin or reached without ever referring to this agenda.

Either by design or default, those people who dethrone, the then CIAA Chief, Mr Lok Man Singh Karki, and saved him from impeachment motion, are, now, at the helm of the power (PM Sushila Karki, Home Minister Mr Om Prakash Aryal). Readers must be aware that anti-corruption has always been a part of Nepali politics. There is a saying, ‘you can take corruption out of politics but not politics out of corruption.’ And this is so much true in Nepal. Literally, the Interim Government is squeezed between holding elections on time (specific, clear, short-term agenda) and Gen-Z’s demand for controlling corruption (broad, vague, long-term agenda).  

Chicken or egg?

The seven-point agreement that put grand NC-UML coalition into power in September 2004 did contain a clause on controlling corruption and establishing good governance. But the problem with them was they could not identify “cause” from “effect”. NC Speaker Mr Prakash Saran Mahat could be heard, while briefing media, that “by controlling corruption we will establish good governance in the country.” This scribe was shocked to listen to him. What I have been reading is “it is good governance that helps to controls corruption, not the other way round.” There is a kind of “chicken-egg” dilemma.

Punitive approach

The Gen-Z young guns and supporters are equally jubilant in offering solutions to the problem: Open big files, catch big fishes, nationalize their ill-amassed wealth, put them behind the bars and, lo, with this magic wand,  you solve the problem! In anti-corruption terminology, we call this a punitive approach to fighting corruption. By now, Mrs Sushila Karki Government must have realized that fighting corruption is “easier said than done”. Earlier, social media reported her saying it can be controlled within five days if we have enough political will to so. Fortunately or unfortunately, this has turned out to be a wishful thinking.

There are other problems serious than corruption

First, let me mention here in categorical terms: Definitely, corruption is a priority problem in Nepal but it is not as serious as being projected in the media. There are countries with worst corruption situation. I don’t exactly remember the date and issue of the broad sheet vernacular national daily where it published an interview of a Sri Lankan academic, I suppose, completed his PhD on Tharuhat movement. I do recall him telling, “It is a school-level problem, if you want to know about university-level corruption, come to Sri Lanka.” Some one who has an university-level degree can easily fathom the difference between university level and school level curricula. This is not to say that we should do nothing about corruption problem. Even Denmark, supposed to be the cleanest country in the world, has a corruption problem. No Danes will ever agree that they don’t have corruption.

There are no quick solutions to corruption problem

Second, it takes ages to clean this Augean Stable. There are no overnight, quick fix solutions like the one Mrs Karki earlier offered. It took nearly 100 years for USA to control its 19^th Century Machine Corruption. One thing I do love about American approach to fighting corruption is: If you cannot control corruption legitimize it. 

There is no point fighting corruption for the sake of fighting corruption

Third, I pick up this idea from Daniel Kaufmann, the inventor of The World Bank’s world wide governance indicators, “There is no point fighting corruption for the sake of fighting corruption.” It must have a purpose.

Youths are most vulnerable to corruption

Fourth and this message to Gen-Z young guns: Youths are most vulnerable to corruption. By vulnerability I mean to say both perpetrators as well as victims of corruption. It is youths who are most affected by corruption and they are also the ones tempted by corruption. Because they don’t have patience to stay in the queue, they look for instant, short-cuts to gratification.

Let me come down to the main point of this writing.

What is wrong with the CIAA?

Can we control corruption by strengthening the CIAA? There is already an idea that we have needlessly made this institution too strong (Sekhar Koirala from NC) - as a result, public officials are too scared to take decisions. I can bet with anyone, investigation corruption in the construction of Pokhara International Airport will be like Gyanendra Shah implicating PM Deuba and his minister Prakash Man Singh into corruption in the construction of access road in Melamchi Drinking Water Project. Beggars are not the choosers. I will add here: They are the losers.

Is the CIAA too strong or too weak to fight corruption? During Gen-Z movement, arsonists targeted the CIAA building. The Gen-Z young guns are demanding Chief’s resignation. The CIAA Chief can be removed only through impeachment motion. And we don’t have the parliament to do so. Gen-Z’s have the taste of their own medicine. 

Two lines of thoughts

When approaching the problems of corruption, the fundamental question to ask is: Who is or should be made responsible to fight corruption? There are two lines of thoughts. One, since a large portion of corruption takes place within the government, it is the responsibility of the government. The idea behind is that it is the wearer of the shoe who knows where the shoe pinches. Therefore, responsibility is with the Chief Executive or for that matter, in our case, the Prime Minister. Remember, the outcry when the then Oli Government brought Revenue Investigation, Anti-Money Laundering and National Bureau of Investigation directly under the PM’s Office?

The second line of thought is that: Assuming corruption to take place within the government, the government will be interested in controlling petty corruptions only. Because big corruption will topple the government. The grand corruptions or state captures, the big fishes, will never draw attention of the government. Hence to control big corruption, what we need is an independent, constitutional body like the CIAA. But we have made a joke on this body. 

Hybrid Model

Interestingly, what we have ended up is establishing a hybrid model. We have a powerful independent constitutional body like the CIAA, established outside the purview of the Executive. There are other numerous agencies like the National Vigilance Centre, National Bureau of Investigation, Revenue Investigation Department and Anti-Money Laundering Department within the Executive. In addition to this we have Parliamentary Accounts Committee and Good Governance Committee to oversee corruption issues. Add to this list of anti-corruption agencies, a number of other civil society, media and academic organizations, the list will be pretty long. Along with the rise in corruption, there is a proliferation of anti-corruption agencies. This is our distinct feature in anti-corruption drive. And this has complicated the task of fighting corruption in terms of overlapping of jurisdiction or mandate. When it is everybody’s job, in fact, it is no body’s job.

Smart and Stronger CIAA

Just like an alternative to democracy can only be more democracy, an alternative to the CIAA will be more strong and smart CIAA. We need to study how this body has come to a present avatar from all-powerful sweeping agency, the CPAA of Panchayat regime to present day meek body with considerably curtailed mandate and power. I just cannot explain why a retired secretary from the government be an expert in anti-corruption? There is similar tendency in our South Asian neighbouring countries like in Sri Lanka it will always be from the judiciary, in Pakistan it is from the Army. If the assumption is that corruption takes place in government bureaucracy then we are completely misguided. There are two sides in a corrupt transaction - givers (supply side) and takers of the bribe (demand side). We are only addressing the demand side. There is little or nothing on supply side. It is the private sector which supplies bribes to public officials. And it is so pathetic to see even former Chief Commissioner taking stand that the CIAA should not investigate private sector corruption, there are other bodies to do so; it will discourage FDI in the country. Spell here your f-word. As long as we have this type of thinking dominating anti-corruption scenario, forget controlling corruption and establishing good governance agenda in the country .

Are we looking for RCCC Model?

It is grossly mistaken to establish another independent anti-corruption agency, as agreed in, a recently signed 10 point agreement between the government and Gen-Z representatives. That is tantamount to establishing RCCC like body during Gyanendra’s takeover in 2005. What we need is to review CIAA activities and look towards making it strong, smart and independent in a true sense of the term. You hire Tom, Dick, Harry into the job and expect to control corruption is only a wishful thinking. One radical approach, beside broadening its mandate and inducting with smart people, will be to introduce performance based budgeting system. By this method the CIAA should be made able to claim a percentage of financial penalty (say 10-20%) that the court sanctioned to the convicted. This will automatically led the CIAA to open and investigate big files and help government generate resources for development. I have been telling people that we need to design anti-corruption tool as a resource mobilization strategy.

Federalism and Corruption

One other area we need to investigate is the relationship between our federalism and the increase in corruption, given the fact that provincial and local level corruption are on rise vis-a-vis federal level corruption. In fact, other than mentioning the establishment of Provincial Investigation Bureaus in the Constitution, we have not done anything on controlling corruption in a federal structure. The enactment of Lok-pal bill in the Terai-Madhes Province is a joke. Just like CPAA went into hibernatiion after notorious “Carpet Scandal’, I suppose, Madhes Pradesh is calm and quiet after “Bicycle-Scandal”.

In a system where corruption tends to decentralize we need a strong centralized agency. Because, as mentioned above, local levels will be biased or interested only in controlling petty corruptions. You need a strong independent oversight agency.

Ciaa