Simply Said Series: E-Book

Ansari Dr. Reem Al

• Herausgeber: Hamad Bin Khalifa University Press
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

The Simply Said series offers balanced views and reliable explanations on complex issues in several categories. Leading authorities provide clear, consise, and up-to-date information to simplify even the most complicated subjects for general readers. Perfect for students, professionals and inquisitive individuals.
 
In What You Should Know About Anti-Corruption, corruption and anti-corruption are defined and explored through a historical lens and modern-day case studies, with an exploration of the global legal framework in place to combat the former, and champion the latter.

Leseprobe

Contents

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER ONE:

WHAT IS CORRUPTION?

CHAPTER TWO:

HOW TO PREVENT CORRUPTION

CHAPTER THREE:

THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION (UNCAC)

CHAPTER FOUR:

CORRUPTION IN EDUCATION

CHAPTER FIVE:

CORRUPTION IN HEALTHCARE

CHAPTER SIX:

HUMANITARIAN CORRUPTION

CONCLUSION AND TAKEAWAYS

INTRODUCTION

Teaching anti-corruption in educational institutions is something new. It is uncommon – almost a taboo – to find people using the word corruption itself, although they may refer to examples of it, in their efforts to raise awareness of corruption in different sectors of society.

This book is the distillation of real-life experiences in classrooms, lecture halls, consortiums and conferences, which involved students, experts in the field, non-experts, professionals, peers and family members as well. It will offer a clear framework which anyone can relate to, simplifying the complicated legalese.

The aim of this book is to describe the fields of corruption and anti-corruption. It is the decision of readers how they will conceptualize what they learn from their reading, what they do with it and where it takes them. Hopefully they will learn how to reason organically until they arrive at their own unique conclusions.

The book is arranged as follows. Chapter one offers a theoretical framework and discusses the origins of anti-corruption. Chapter two focuses on ways of preventing and dealing with it, describing the legal framework, legal instruments, case examples, investigative and competent authorities. Chapter three outlines the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and its importance. Chapters four, five and six offer in-depth, real life examples of anti-corruption in the fields of education, healthcare, and in the humanitarian sector. Finally, the last section presents conclusions and suggests the way forward.

CHAPTER ONE:

WHAT IS CORRUPTION?

1.1 Origins of Corruption

There is a well-known saying: “If it stings, it upsets you!”. We are not all exposed to the same level of corruption, but even if one is not suffering directly from it, it is better to be prepared before it stings. And even if there is no chance of it stinging, at least one should acquire the necessary skills to help others understand, deal with and overcome it.

In order to understand something, you must know where it came from. What is the origin of the term “corruption”? What does it look like? To answer these questions, it goes without saying that corruption has always been deeply rooted in the social, historical and political structure of states.(1) It is as old as human history, and it mutates.

Any attempt to analyze the concept of corruption must contend with the fact that even in international languages such as English and Arabic, the word “corruption” has a history of vastly different meanings and connotations(2) and the nuances do not allow a single historical conclusion. Its meaning continues to evolve even as these words are written. However, a discussion of the theoretical and historical perspectives of corruption as shown in its different forms over time sheds some light on what it means in reality.

Just as fish moving underwater cannot possibly be found out either as drinking or not drinking water, so government servants employed in government work cannot be found out (while) taking money (for themselves).(3)

These words were penned by the philosopher Kautilya, also known as Chanakya or Vishnugupta, in his treatise known as the Arthashastra, which was written in India and dates back to the fourth century B.C. In a passage of remarkable and characteristic precision in this treatise, Kautilya states that there are “forty ways of embezzlement” and goes on to enumerate them. Clearly, corruption is a complex problem as well as an ancient one.(4) As Kautilya shows, corruption in one form or another has always been with us. It is a phenomenon that permeates every social structure, with consequences that are difficult to measure in economic terms. However, it is far from uniform. It has had variegated appearances at different times and in different places. As mentioned previously, it has mutated, with varying degrees of damaging consequences. While the tenacity with which it persists in some cases leads to despair and resignation on the part of its combatants, a whole range of policy measures can and have helped to assuage the effects of corruption.

The concept of corruption will be explored from the secular derivatives of human antiquity, particularly in Babylonian, Egyptian, Chinese, Greek and Roman cultures as well as from religious/non-secular derivatives by exploring divinely-inspired texts that contribute to the definition. Religion impacts many human beings and different faiths speak about the origin of corruption in different terms. Therefore, the chapter also examines the religious texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The result is a deeper understanding of corruption, its effect on society and where this ancient concept may be headed.

FIGURE 1

1.2 Secular Derivatives

An interest in justice and awareness of the negative effects of administrative, political and social wrongdoing is evident from the very beginnings of civilization itself. Once nomadic tribal peoples began to settle in permanent organized societies, they began to create rules to regulate and govern their behavior that might enable them to avoid complete anarchy and the arbitrary abuse of power.(5) The development of writing permitted such rules to be written down and recorded as laws.(6) Archaeologists have discovered fragments of the earliest legal documents and collections from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia.(7) These include the Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu (c. 2100-2050 B.C.), the codex of Lipit-Ishtar (c. 1930 B.C.) and the Akkadian Laws of Eshnunna (c. 1770 B.C.).(8) These historical documents illuminate some of the earliest recorded instances of corruption in ancient governments.

This section will give examples of corruption from several eras, starting with the cradle of civilization, the Babylonian Empire, and then the subsequent dynasties: the Egyptian, Chinese, Greek and Roman Empires.

1.2.1The Babylonian Empire

A bright thread runs between corruption, offerings and sacrifices. It bears investigation because we should naturally distinguish between customs and usages, although this may be nothing more than a mere matter of nuance.(9) In this sense, the ancient Babylonian empire represents the main reference for understanding the concept of corruption as it relates to customs. The types of symbolic scheme that dominated political and economic decisions of the time and the methods of exchange used by some of the parties involved show this connection.(10)

In the age of the Sumerians and Semites, King Urukagina (or Uruinimghina) of Lagash, the ancient city-state of Sumer, reorganized the state administration in order to put an end to the abuses of its officials and judges. He regulated payments for ceremonies and stood against the corruption and greed of the clergy, accusing them of avarice for taking bribes in administering the law and for oppressing farmers and fishermen. These measures rid the administration of corrupt officials, establishing laws that regulated the taxes paid to the temples and protecting King Urukagina’s people against extortion.(11)

After the kings of Sumer and Akkad (Sumer was the south and Akkad the north of the region of Lower Mesopotamia, two great divisions which made up Babylon in that period), the rulers struggled to maintain order in Mesopotamia, and the old Babylonian empire emerged.(12) Forms of corruption were preserved by the existing systems within social classes, and written systems upheld corruption as quid pro quo.(13) In essence, a religious practice such as sacrifice constitutes, with all the distinctions and caveats that we might apply to a ritual and its attendant symbolisms, a form of quid pro quo,(14) a Latin phrase meaning “something for something”. It is an exchange of acts or things of approximately equal value.(15)

This concept of sacrifice as quid pro quo is also known as the “law of reciprocity” and there are other illustrations of it in Hammurabi’s code.(16) According to this code, corruption appears through “bending the bond of reciprocity” as phrased by American judge John Thomas Noonan in his book entitled Bribes.(17) It happens when there is a failure to offer equal value in exchange for value received, which in turn defies the logic of exchange and constitutes a violation of the concept.(18)

Most of Hammurabi’s English editors entitle this section of the laws of Babylon “The Corrupt Judge”.(19) There are a number of instances of such corruption in Hammurabi’s legislation,(20) exemplified in the notion of “tatu”.(21) This is when a judge delivers a decision and then changes his mind. He may be a judge who receives a bribe, gives the expected verdict, and then reneges. The word “tatu” used in the text of Hammurabi in this section generally indicates an offering made by a subordinate.(22)

According to historical texts, offerings and corruption merge one into the other, creating a grey area where “corruption” is often considered utterly normal and even preferred. A more generalized condemnation of corrupt giving would only arrive later, in the modern age. The notions of sacrifice and favor and the concept of corruption must be kept quite separate, particularly bearing in mind the historic and religious rules which are followed and revered by devotees.(23) From a secular and historical standpoint, an example of corruption appeared in the fact that Hammurabi’s editors state that there were no instances of the Babylonian judge’s being bribed, yet it occurred in the background. The custom of gift giving was widespread, and consequently it is hard to be sure that Hammurabi intended in his Code to prevent cases of the corruption of judges.(24) It is possible, instead, that the punishment mentioned had to do with verdicts not being applied, or even cases of judges who had not done their part in exchange for a gift.(25)

From a very different perspective to that of Hammurabi, Kautilya, the Brahmin of the fourth century B.C., wrote a fascinating book on the art of government entitled Arthashastra, quoted earlier at the beginning of this chapter. It is an important source on this topic. His treatise may be translated as “Instructions on Material Prosperity”,(26) but the Indian economist Amartya Sen has suggested a simpler translation: “Economics”. The Sanskrit text, discovered in 1905, explores the vast and evergreen phenomenon of corruption.(27) Although it was and still is difficult to prove dishonesty, since it does not have a material manifestation and resides within the heart and intention of human beings, yet, as per Kautilya’s adages, those who govern use every means to achieve their objectives. Rules of rigor and honesty seem to apply,(28) at least in substance, only to their subjects.

Originally included in Noonan’s aforementioned book Bribes, and updated by Baruch Ottervanger for the State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts series, is “The Poor Man of Nippur”,(29) an ancient folk tale transcribed by Olivier Robert Gurney.(30) This story, which revolves around the idea of quid pro quo, also known as “reciprocity”, originates from about 1500 B.C. in ancient Mesopotamia.(31) Reciprocity was then strictly respected, since breaches in the logic of exchange led to punishment.(32) Therefore, the misdeed lay not in the act of making a gift, but rather in failing to offer value in exchange for the value received.

In Bribes, Noonan comments that the most serious misdeed lay not in the act of corrupting, but in the effect of corruption: breaking one’s word in a society where keeping one’s word was a divine characteristic.(33)

Of particular note is The Tale of the Poor Man of Nippur. This story is purely secular. No god is named or invoked, and the moral structure is supplied by the rule of reciprocity. The tale revolves around a poor man who, when wronged by the governor of Nippur, cunningly takes revenge on his abuser and wrongdoer. Gimil-Ninurta, the poor man, gives the mayor his goat in an attempt to improve his lot.(34) The mayor then announces that he will hold a feast,(35) but when the feast is held, all that Gimil-Ninurta receives is a bone and sinew of the goat. He asks the meaning of such treatment, but in reply, he is beaten on the mayor’s orders. He departs, vowing retaliation. Gimil-Ninurta executes his revenge through activating the notion of reciprocity. He visits the king of Nippur and offers him a mina of gold in return for loan of his chariot for a day. Using the chariot, Gimil returns to Nippur and is received as a well-respected official at the mayor’s residence. Gimil claims that an amount of gold in the chariot has disappeared. The mayor, lacking the temerity to defend himself, placates Gimil with a gift of two minas of gold.(36) Gimil-Ninurta returns triumphant in the royal chariot, unrecognized by the mayor as the man he had mistreated!

Here it can be seen that the misdeed lay not in the act of making a gift in one’s own interest, but rather in the receiver failing to offer value in exchange for value received. Gimil expected something in return, yet the mayor defied the logic of reciprocity and became the villain when he took what was given and failed to reciprocate adequately. Furthermore, another implied form of corruption appears in the silence of the king against the background of the mayor’s wrongdoing to Gimil. This, in and of itself, can be construed a form of unjust, corrupt behavior.

1.2.2 Egyptian Dynasties

At the time of the ancient Egyptian empire, corruption was linked to Pharaonic ritual. Due to a well-known Pharaonic belief in life after death, when the dead could interact with the living, Egyptian tombs were filled with furniture, clothes, jewelry, food and drink, and tomb robbing occurred. Criminals in the late Ramses period testified to everything from the theft of objects from tombs to the looting of precious metals from coffins and mummies, and even to robbing the royal corpse. Other texts record carousing on royal burial equipment and blasphemous activity by individuals. Such behavior suggests that at least part of the population had little fear of repercussions from human authorities in this world or from godly ones in the next. Morality was articulated as the sum of actions, good and bad, and as fulfilling social norms, not as faith or piety. Judgment was presented postmortem.(37) The Egyptian dead were judged on the weighted balance between their good and bad actions,(38) depicted as the weighing of the heart after death. The requirement was that their hearts were lighter or equal in weight with the Maat-feather (linked with the goddess Maat, who symbolized justice and truth).

As in the Babylonian age, corruption was found in the Egyptian judiciary.(39) A man’s confession dated c.1110 B.C. described not only how the tombs were robbed, but also how easy it was to escape punishment if arrested and return to one’s comrades to rob again.(40),(41) Pharaonic Egypt was centered around absolute power vested in one person, “Pharaon”. Pharaon was the supreme head of state as well as all the authorities, executive, legislative, judicial and religious. Lack of separation of powers resulted in bureaucratic corruption for more than two thousand years of the Pharaonic period.(42) In the late Pharaonic and Ptolemaic periods, in particular, the legislature took over the duties of the judiciary. Pharaon served as supreme judge and the greatest priest. This consequently marked increasing bureaucratic penetration and standardization of process, but did not represent real structural efficiency or consistency.(43)

1.2.3 Ancient China

“A big rooster eats no small rice,” and “money falls into the hands of yamen [also known as state office] secretaries”. Both these Chinese proverbs show how corruption has left its mark on the Chinese language and culture.(44)

The Criminal Code of the Quin Chinese dynasty (221-207 B.C.) mentions the phenomenon of corruption and records extremely harsh punishments for the practice.(45) Yet power had special implications in the social life of ancient China, because it could enrich an individual in “ways much faster than other avenues”. A couple of popular Chinese sayings reveal the special function of power in Chinese society. The first, “sheng guan fa chain”, translates to “get promoted and then become rich” and “sannian qinzhifu, shiwan baihuayinw” translates to “a three-year term of office could earn an extra income of 100,000 tales of silver even for a clean magistrate”.(46) Surprisingly, the Confucian concept of renzhi or “people’s government” largely contributed to widespread corruption throughout China.(47) In Confucian’s view, a true and honest state bureaucrat should be guided by moral principles(48) and therefore, striving for material wealth was considered inappropriate. However, this was not seen in practice. Wang Anshi, the famous Chinese economist of the Song dynasty, wanted to introduce reforms in monetary institutions that would reduce corruption and nepotism, but his ideas were dismissed by the Confucian elite.(49) As a result, corruption continued to exist on an even larger scale, involving the court itself and the local elite. In practice, it meant that the more important an issue was, the deeper one would need to reach into one’s pocket. During the Ming Dynasty, a powerful bureaucrat did not believe, even when in jail, that he would be sentenced, because of a nepotistic sentiment: “all the senior officials of the royal court are my friends and relatives”. It is notable that according to Confucius, a good minister is “one who follows the way, he does not follow the rules”.(50)

1.2.4 Ancient Greece(51)

In ancient Greece, corruption was often equated with violating the law to ensure personal advantage. Both Plato and Thucydides offer portraits of the perfect city, but then point towards corruption required in such cities. Without corruption, they argue, these cities cannot maintain perfection, as they suffer transformations in a world of constant change. Socrates, according to Athenian accusations, corrupted the youth of Athens, urging them not to support the political agenda of the city any longer. Both the Athenians and Socrates attempted to eliminate the cause of potential corruption, Socrates by the power of the word and the Athenians by putting Socrates to death.(52) According to Demosthenes, a Greek statesman and orator of ancient Athens, those who accepted bribes, or who offered them, or corrupted others through promises at the expense of people in general or any citizen, were punished by the Athenian law by deprivation of rights. Their possessions were confiscated and the same punishment was applied to their sons.(53) Corruption was one of the most serious crimes. In ancient Greece, to reduce the scourge of corruption, Plato proposed capital punishment for officials or dignitaries who accepted gifts to do their duties. The rise of corruption damaged the prestige of priests and the sanctuary. Priests of Delphi oracles held a privileged position and influenced the course of Greek policy.(54)