Local + Regional Corruption = National Corruption
The spread of corruption from local to state to national is often
ignored. And when corruption is discovered,
there is much litigation. In fact, it's often hard to see corruption
clearly here in the U.S. That's
why the occasional look at corruption abroad is useful, like looking in
an only
slightly distorted mirror.<br>
<br>
This is true of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/22/world/asia/22india.html?pagewanted=al…; target="”_blank">an
Indian
matter written about in yesterday's New York <i>Times</i></a>. Here is
a list of sentences that describe what apparently happened:<br>
<p>Raja was a local politician with regional contacts, who was appointed
national
telecommunications minister despite no background in telecommunications
or in business.</p>
<p>Because he was the most important Dalit (Untouchable) politician in the
state,
giving him this important position would bring Dalit votes to the
regional party.</p>
<p>He was favored by the daughter of the regional party leader (also a
party leader herself), and he was considered loyal to her.</p>
<p>He was no threat to the regional party leader's children.</p>
<p>The regional party "more closely resembles a sprawling family business
empire than a political party."</p>
<p>The regional party was necessary for the leading party's ruling
coalition.</p>
<p>The telecommunications minister was in charge of selling mobile
telephone spectrum licenses.</p>
<p>Many of these licenses were sold at "rock-bottom prices." The cost to
the national government was $40 billion.</p>
<p>The highly trusted prime minister did not respond to calls to
investigate Raja's sale of spectrum licenses, to the point that the
Supreme Court criticized him.</p>
<p>Raja denies any wrongdoing, but he resigned under pressure.</p>
<br>
This could be put into equation form: nepotism + patronage +
loyalty + opportunity = paybacks + kickbacks + cost to taxpayers. Or
local corruption + regional corruption = very big national corruption.<br>
<br>
When even a trusted leader fails to investigate, it's clear that the
ethics environment is very bad. It's also clear that national leaders
refuse to deal with regional corruption.<br>
<br>
Just like in the U.S., this situation shows that
leading by example is not enough. If there is nepotism and patronage
and other sorts of unethical conduct, they must be investigated and penalized
before anyone will follow an honest leader's example. But first, it
must be made clear that these are unacceptable, that the ethics
environment has changed. Without action and clear guidelines, a
leader's integrity is just for show.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---