CORRUPTION IS DANGEROUS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS : A STUDY
“CORRUPTION
IS DANGEROUS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS : A STUDY”
Dr. ASHISH
SHRIVASTAVA
Abstrect:
The aim
of this paper is to encourage and assist individuals and institutions which
work to promote and protect human rights to engage with corruption issues and
collaborate more closely with anti-corruption organizations. It may also assist
those who combat corruption to recognize the value of human rights to their
work and the advantages of closer collaboration with human rights
organizations. The paper may help to
raise awareness among key stakeholders and the public of the links between
corruption and human rights, thereby diminishing public tolerance of corruption
and strengthening public support for anticorruption measures. The paper already
set itself a demanding objective when it sought to clarify the formal links
between violations of rights and acts of corruption by state officials.
Extending the analysis to cover the subject of private corruption would have
made the work extremely complicated to complete. This is therefore not a
scholarly treatise but a paper written mainly for human rights specialists and
organizations who want to know how they might effectively address corruption
and the harm it causes.
KEYWORDS: Corruption,
Human Rights, Relation between both
INTRODUCTION:
The
term “corruption” comes from the Latin word corruptio which means “moral
decay, wicked behavior, putridity or rottenness”.( Milovanovic,
2001.)
The concept may have a physical reference, as in “[t]he destruction or spoiling
of anything, especially by disintegration or by decomposition with its
attendant unwholesomeness and loathsomeness; putrefaction”; or moral
significance, as in “moral deterioration or decay… [the] [p]erversion or
destruction of integrity in the discharge of public duties by bribery or
favour…”.1
These definitions are representative of two common
shortcomings: they define corruption only in terms of bribery, or in terms that
are very general. As a result, corruption definitions tend either to be too
restrictive or excessively broad. In fact, this is not as contradictory as it
may seem. Corruption has indeed broad causes and consequences.
As Michael Johnston, a Professor at Colgate
University, has stated: “In rapidly changing societies the limit between what
is corrupt and what is not is not always clear and the term corruption may be
applied broadly.” 2
Corruption demands a multidisciplinary approach, and
many fields of study, from political science to economics, have addressed the
issue. Each has a different perception of the problem and therefore generates
different policies: operational definitions tend therefore to start broad and
become more specific as they try to render corruption measurable. A well-known
classification distinguishes grand from petty corruption. Grand corruption refers
to the corruption of heads of state, ministers, and top officials and usually
involves large amounts of assets.3
Petty corruption,
also called “low” and “street” corruption, indicates the kinds of corruption
that people experience in their encounters with public officials and when they
use public services (hospitals, schools, local licensing authorities, police,
tax offices, etc.).4
CORRUPTION
AS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:
An analysis of corruption that draws on human rights
will emphasize the harm to individuals that corruption causes. From this
perspective, it is often taken for granted that corruption “violates”
human rights. When people make this claim, they have a range of issues in mind.
They mean that, when corruption is widespread, people do not have access to
justice, are not secure and cannot protect their livelihoods.
Court
officials and the police pay more heed to bribes than to law. Hospitals do not
heal people because the medical staff give better treatment to patients who pay
backhanders or because clinics lack supplies due to corrupt public contracting
procedures.
Poor families cannot feed themselves because social
security programmes are corrupt or distorted to support a patronage network.
Schools cannot offer their students a sound education because the education
budget has been looted and as a result teachers cannot be paid and books cannot
be purchased.
Farmers and market sellers cannot earn a living
because police take a cut of their produce and sales. In numerous ways like
these, corruption encourages discrimination, deprives vulnerable people of
income, and prevents people from fulfilling their political, civil, social,
cultural and economic rights.
UN treaty bodies and UN special procedures have
concluded that, where corruption is widespread, states cannot comply with their
human rights obligations. Some
international documents have even considered corruption to be a “crime
against humanity”, a category of crimes that includes genocide and
torture. However, these statements are
generally framed in broad terms. The extent to which acts of corruption
directly violate human rights, or lead to violations, is rarely defined or
explained.
Most existing work examines the causes of
corruption, mechanisms and policies to prevent it, and forms of technical
cooperation to assist developing countries and countries in economic
transition. Little work has been done to describe in precise terms what the
links are between acts of corruption and violations of human rights.
CONNECTION BETWEEN
BOTH:
In recent years, the subject of corruption has
received considerable attention. Work on governance has brought it into the
light and it is no longer taboo. Corruption is being addressed by financial
institutions, government agencies, bilateral donors, international
organizations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and development
professionals. Its causes have been measured empirically, as have its impacts
on human development. Institutions and administrative procedures have been
overhauled.
Countries have negotiated and signed international
anti-corruption conventions. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)
Global Programme against Corruption has acted as a catalyst, helping countries
to implement the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).
Transparency International (TI) and other civil society actors have created a
large forum for discussion and advocacy around its many forms; an international
coalition of NGOs has emerged, challenging corruption “from below”.
Yet corruption clearly remains a challenge. Despite
countless policy diagnoses, public campaigns to raise awareness, and institutional
and legal reforms to improve public administration, research shows that it
continues to flourish. Indeed, opinion polls suggest that the public is more
pessimistic than before about the likelihood of eliminating it. Combating
corruption requires strong collective efforts from different sectors in society
acting in co-ordinated ways.
The aim is to provide a technique for analyzing
corruption in human rights terms. The presentation here is inevitably
illustrative; a complete description of every possible link would be
impossible. Readers are therefore invited to make use of the logic employed in
this chapter to assess other cases and other forms of corruption to see whether
they violate human rights and, if they do, what rights they violate.
THE DECLARATION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
DEFENDERS:
The Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of
Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally
Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms provides for the support and protection
of human rights defenders in the context of their work. The Declaration does
not create new rights but articulates existing rights in ways that make them
easier to apply to the needs and experience of human rights defenders.
The Declaration considers a “human rights defender”
to be one who, individually or with others, acts to promote or protect human
rights. It appears to be widely agreed that those who advocate good governance,
democratization and an end to corruption and abuses of power are human rights
defenders.
ENFORCEMENT
OF LAW AND THE CREATION OF NEW LAW AND CODE OF CONDUCT:
Human rights and anti-corruption organizations could
explore common interests in several areas. They could work to enact laws and
develop policies that will reduce the secrecy of government decision-making
processes and promote access to information and transparency; campaign for
freedom of expression and plural media; and campaign to ratify anti-corruption
treaties such as the UNCAC. Codes of conduct can set a standard for public
servants by ensuring that they do not use their public office for private gain
or show bias in carrying out their public duties.
Human rights and anti-corruption organizations can
also work together to develop firmer professional standards and codes of
conduct, ideally in cooperation with law enforcement officials and members of
the judiciary. In this regard, wider dissemination of the Bangalore Principles
of Judicial Conduct would be a useful common objective. They could also target
other actors, such as bankers, accountants, real estate agents and other
professionals, without whose assistance corruption and its proceeds cannot be
concealed; and work to raise awareness among journalists and media
professionals.
In addition, the paper may help to raise awareness among key
stakeholders and the public of the links between corruption and human rights,
thereby diminishing public tolerance of corruption and strengthening public
support for anticorruption measures.
It suggests some additional tools that individuals
can use to denounce corruption as well as to protect those who combat it. Other
relevant international civil society actors include but are not limited to:
Global Integrity (www.globalintegrity.org); Global Witness (www.globalwitness.
org); the Revenue Watch Institute (www.revenuewatch.org); Tiri (www.tiri.org);
and the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption (GOPAC)
(www. gopacnetwork.org).
ANTI-CORRUPTION
ORGANIZATIONS:
Though institutions have used various methodologies
to measure levels of corruption in different countries, due to its covert
nature, and the unwillingness of those engaged in corruption to discuss it,
objective documentation remains difficult to obtain. Most information relating
to corruption is still therefore based on perceptions of corruption in a country or profession.
While these
perceptions are useful to researchers, activists and policy-makers, it should
be understood that most of the information available on corruption remains
subjective.ond will examine how human rights might be
integrated within anti-corruption programmes. It discusses where use of a human
rights framework can strengthen national and local programmes, and some of the
obstacles and conflicts that may inhibit effective cooperation.
The International Council recognizes that, to combat
corruption effectively, policies must deal with corrupt practices in the
private sector. Corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes take this
view. The Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human
Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises has
included corruption among the abuses of human rights committed by transnational
corporations.
The CSR initiative of the UN, the Global Compact,
also contains an Anti-Corruption Principle: “Business should work against
corruption in all its forms, including extortion and bribery.”
When preparing this research, nevertheless, the
International Council chose to focus on state responsibility, and neither of
its reports examines the degree to which private companies have legal
responsibility for human rights violations, including those associated with
corruption. This decision was made on practical grounds.
The paper already set itself a demanding objective
when it sought to clarify the formal links between violations of rights and
acts of corruption by state officials. Extending the analysis to cover the
subject of private corruption would have made the work extremely complicated to
complete.
Private sector corruption should be the subject of
another inquiry; however, this paper does refer to the duty of states to
protect individuals against acts committed by private persons or entities.
As we will see, states contravene their human rights
obligations when they fail “to take appropriate measures or to exercise due
diligence to prevent, punish, investigate or redress the harm caused by such
acts by private persons or entities” 5 The
Council also acknowledges the importance of dealing with corruption in
development assistance: both donor and recipient countries need to tackle
corruption in aid programmes because it seriously undermines their usefulness
and no doubt harms the human rights of beneficiaries.
The subject is not examined directly here because it
is already on the agenda of policy-makers UN. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/97, paras.
25-27.
This principle was not enunciated when the Global
Compact was launched in 2000. It became the Compact’s “tenth principle” in
2004, after it was realized that work on this issue was essential. Companies
that participate in the Compact must oppose corruption in their strategy,
culture, and day-to-day operations.
Corruption and Human Rights: Making the Connection
and has been extensively researched. To the extent that policies to end
corruption in aid programmes need to be aligned with domestic accountability,
nevertheless, several of this report’s recommendations may be useful to those
addressing corruption in aid. Moreover, opening up discussion of the links
between corruption and human rights may encourage aid agencies to address the
subject more publicly.
Some scholars have argued for recognition of a right
to live in a corruption free world. They do so on the grounds that endemic
corruption destroys the fundamental values of human dignity and political
equality, making it impossible to guarantee the rights to life, personal
dignity and equality, and many other rights. While acknowledging the merits of
such a proposal, this paper takes a different approach.
It focuses on the human rights recognized in major
international treaties. These rights are legally binding on states that have
ratified them (state parties).
The paper builds a case for saying that, where
rights are guaranteed and implemented, corruption will drastically reduce.
The goal is
to provide an operational framework that will make it possible to apply human
rights principles and methods usefully in anti-corruption programmes.
The commitments that states have made to combat
corruption have run parallel with their commitments to promote and respect
human rights. However, international anti-corruption conventions rarely refer
to human rights; and major human rights instruments rarely mention corruption.
The absence in international law of direct
references to the links between corruption and human rights mirrors the way
these two issues are discussed politically, but is at odds with experience: in
reality many links are evident.
There are exceptions. The Preamble of the Council
of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption emphasizes that “corruption
threatens the rule of law, democracy and human rights, undermines good
governance, fairness and social justice, distorts competition, hinders
economic development and endangers the stability of democratic
institutions and the moral foundations of society”.
This is not to say, of course, that all acts of
corruption imply a violation of rights. The assumption that one implies the
other is quite often made, nevertheless – and, if taken to extremes, it will
tend to banalise and overextend the sensible application of human rights
principles.
SUGGESTIONS:
1.
Greater solutions may include population control to improve the
quality than the quantity, Controlling population will bring up the quality of
life and thus lesser competition and effective control of people and government
processes. However feasible solutions are to impart moral principles in
schools, and introduction of stringent audits, accountability, effective
tracking of corrupt individuals through citizen cards or tax id's.
2.
Computerization of processes, privatization of public sectors,
eliminating the chain of corruption by not just punishing the first level but
also higher levels involved.
3.
Corruption is not limited to atheists, even the most corrupts
are highly religious and have close family ties, in other words corruption has
no boundaries. Religion and religious congregations can support and promote
anti-corruption drives.
4.
Corruption is NOT a luxury tax. Whoever described corruption is
a luxury tax probably said it out of frustration, the religion of corruption,
the corruption of politics, the dishonest souls and perversion of integrity is
unpardonable.
5.
Refuse
to pay money to grease any body's hands.
And do not yourself seek to do any thing illegally. Be on the right side of law. Do’nt give money for fast service.
And do not yourself seek to do any thing illegally. Be on the right side of law. Do’nt give money for fast service.
6. Create awareness about the need to cleanse our
system free from corrupt practices. There should be public awareness about it.
Whenever any wrong doing comes to light, people should not hesitate to agitate.
Such movements should be organized in every village/town/cities.
7.
Keep
clarity and transparency at all levels starting from the formulation of the
programmes / projects / schemes / welfare measures / mechanism with the full
participation of all the stakeholders. Create awareness for all the
stakeholders in respect of clarity in the roles and mechanism so that every one
can understand the responsibility in doing the things and expecting from
others.
8. To prevent corruption you would first have to remove the entire government.
Then you would need to make all future politicians accountable for every single
action.
9. Term Limits for politicians would eliminate the entrenchment and
corruption of anyone who would want to make politics a profession. After being
in office for an extended period, all politicians start looking for supplements
to their income. Guess who gets to pay.
10. Inspectors, administrators and other government employees should
never be allowed to make a decision without the agreement of a second person.
Two people should be sent if there is ever a possibility of corruption or
graft. They should never be paired up as "partners", but instead they
should be randomly assigned to work together for a day. Departments should
offer rewards or bonuses for finding mistakes or evidence of graft. These are
just some quick ideas that didn't require much thought. I'm sure a panel or
committee could figure out some effective and inexpensive ways to decrease
corruption.
CONCLUSION:
The
aim of this paper is, therefore, first, to show how links between acts of
corruption and violations of rights can be described accurately; and second, to
distinguish cases where acts of corruption do imply violations of rights from
cases where they do not.
This
paper has not asked human rights organizations to become anti-corruption
organizations; or anti-corruption organizations to convert to human rights
organizations. It argues that human rights organizations will collide with, and
will need to address the issue of corruption in the course of their work,
because problems of corruption have human rights consequences; and that
mainstreaming of human rights by the UN and many other institutions will mean
that anti-corruption institutions will need (and want) to know how to apply
human rights.
Our
aim has been to provide some tools that will enable them to begin to exchange
expertise and may help each to deal with the human suffering caused by
corruption more effectively.
This
said, those who work to end corruption have created their own institutions,
practices and laws – their own tradition – as human rights organizations have.
Efforts to apply human rights will not be effective in practice unless they
take account of this context. We should work
with this broader issue .
This
is therefore not a scholarly treatise but a paper written mainly for human
rights specialists and organizations who want to know how they might
effectively address corruption and the harm it causes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
§
Corruption and
Children’s Rights
§
A “Right to Know”: The
Human Right to Seek and Receive
Information
§
Access to Information
under the UNCAC
§
The UNCAC
§
Definition of “Public
Official” According to the UNCAC
§
Summary Review of a
Human Rights Violation
§
Equality and Non-Discrimination
in Human Rights Treaties
§
The Judicial Group on
Strengthening Judicial Integrity
§
Bangalore Principles of
Judicial Conduct
§
Uses and Abuses of Due
Legal Process
§
Whistleblower Laws
§
State Violations of the
Right to Health Associated with Corruption
§
Situations of High Risk
§
The Rights of
Anti-Corruption Advocates that Are often Violated
§
UN Human Rights
Reporting and Accountability Mechanisms
§
Anti-Corruption
Advocates and the Declaration on Human Rights
Defenders
§
Living Large – Counting
the Cost of Official Extravagance in
Kenya
§
Access to Information
and Citizen Participation
§
Advocacy and Legal
Advice Centers
§
Checks and Balances on
Lawyers Corruption and Human Rights:
Making the Connection 95
§ —. “Politics and the Effectiveness of Foreign Aid.” European
Economic Review 40 (1996).
§
—,
ed. Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural Development. Cambridge:
Oxford University Press, 1991.
§
Duce,
Mauricio. “A Criminal Procedural Reform and the Ministerio Publico: Toward the
Construction of a New Criminal Justice System in Latin America.” Thesis,
Stanford University, 1999.
§
Gopakumar,
K. “Citizen Feedback Surveys to Highlight Corruption in Public Services: The
Experience of Public Affairs Centre.” Document prepared for the Annual General
Meeting of Transparency International, 1998.
§ Grumiau, Samuel. Garments ‘Made in Bangladesh’: The
Social Reality behind the Label. Report produced for the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions, 2002.
§
Heidenheimer,
A. J., et al., eds. Political Corruption: Concepts and Texts. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers, 2002.
§
Hines,
Andrew. “What Human Rights Indicators Should Measure.” In Measurement and
Human Rights: Tracking Progress, Assessing Impact. Carr Center for Human
Rights. Policy Project Report, Harvard University, 2005. www.hks.harvard.edu/cchrp/pdf/Measurement_2005Report.pdf
§ International Council on Human Rights Policy. Enhancing
Access to Human Rights. Geneva: ICHRP, 2004.
§
—.
Local Government and Human Rights: Doing Good Service. Geneva: ICHRP,
2005.
§
—.
Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements. Geneva: ICHRP,
2006.
§ —. “Human Rights and Governance: The Empirical
Challenge.” In Human Rights and Development: Towards Mutual Reinforcement,
edited by Philip Alston and Mary Robinson. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2005.
§
Klitgaard,
Robert. Controlling Corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1988.
§ Transparency International – UK. National Integrity
Systems: Country Study Report 2004. Transparency International, 2004. www.transparency.org/ content/download/1726/8633/file/uk_q.pdf
§
UNDP.
Anti-Corruption. Practice Note. UNDP, 2004. www.undp.org/governance/ docs/AC_PN_English.pdf
§ —. The Impact of Corruption on the Human Rights
Based Approach to Development. UNDP, 2004b.
www.undp.org/oslocentre/docs05/Thusitha_final.pdf
§
—.
Women and Political Participation: 21st Century Challenges. UNDP, 2000.
§
International
Council on Human Rights Policy. Versoix, Switzerland.
[1] OxfordEnglish Dictionary, 1978, pp. 1024-1025.)
[2] (Johnston, 2005, p. 11.)
[3] (
See Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Corruption Glossary available at: www.u4.no/document/faqs5.cfm#grandcorruption.
The term “Grand Corruption” was first used by Sir George Moody-Stuart to make
reference to the bribery of foreign public officials by international
corporations. See, Moody-Stuart, 1997. The term later evolved to cover all
corruption at the top levels of the public sphere, where policies and rules are
formulated. It is usually (but not always) synonymous with political
corruption.)
[4] ( See Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Corruption
Glossary, available at www.u4.no/
document/faqs5.cfm#pettycorruption.)
Post a Comment