PUNISHING those proven to be corrupt is no doubt a necessary condition to fight corruption, but it certainly is not sufficientfor its future prevention. In last month's FORUM, the monthly publication of The Daily Star, Bandicoot (a pseudonym, I trust) referring to the current debate on corruption in the country raised the sixty-four million dollar question: "What is it that needs cleaning up? The system or the individual? The party or the member? The system or the servants?"

Obviously, it is the system that needs to be urgently reformed or adjusted. The Anti-Corruption Commission has moved quickly against high ups, who were thought to be above the laws of the country, for their alleged corruption. These bold actions by the commission have been widely acclaimed. Hopefully, if punishments are meted out following a due and transparent process of law, they will deter other offenders in the future. But deterrent measures will not remedy the system that itself has become corrupt and can be deliberately manipulated again by the party, or more specifically the mafia groups within a party.

So the answer to the question raised by the intrepid Bandicoot is, of course, we have to begin with systemic changes within the government. Administrative reforms which can effectively prevent corruption in the future, are urgently needed and have to be carried out across the board, on a number of strategic fronts, as soon as possible. After all it is the failure in the administrative systems and methodical destruction of institutions by the vested interest groups, that need to be remedied in the first instance.

Conventional approach will not do

The reform challenge is enormous! How do we change the character of a fossilised government caught in a quagmire of outdated procedures,

notorious in terms of its enormous capacity to harass its own citizens.

A recent survey of secondary school children showed that an overwhelming number of students thought: "government agencies were too corrupt - you can't get anything done without paying bribes to officials," "government is oppressive;" "government is too remote, difficult to reach;" "a poor person cannot access services from government officials, because they serve only moneyed people;" and so on.

What sort of systemic reforms are needed to turn this into a government that works, a government that will have a human face, a government that will care for its citizens? How can these reforms be planned and implemented?

Large scale all embracing institutional reforms are extremely difficult to implement -history of administrative reforms in ourcountry as well as elsewhere, is littered with many failures. Just look at the number of administrative reforms commissions which were set up in this country in the past and the precious little that they have achieved.

Reforms that aim to bring about big systemic changes are invariably complex, involving many institutions which interact with one another and work processes that require fundamental changes in people's behaviour. Mostly, it is the bureaucracy itself which has resisted introduction of these reforms in the past, as it was the principal beneficiary of the malfunctioning system.

Therefore, simply setting up a stereotyped administrative reforms commission with very comprehensive terms of reference to bring about big changes, will not be a very practical thing to do at this stage. The commission will take years to carry out their investigations, elicit public opinion and come up with their recommendations for massive reforms across the board. Repeating the exercise of previous administrative reforms commissions like the Enam Committee during the Ershad regime, would be another exercise in futility.

Administrative reforms must not be conceived as a one shot, once for all affair, confined merely to modification in structures and routine reduction of manpower. Reforms to be meaningful, should be focused on the ways in which government agencies work, functions they perform, methods and tools that are employed in discharging those functions.

A more practical approach would be for the government, in consultation with the civic and political leaders, to identify the immediate needs for systemic changes in different sectors or agencies within the administration and prioritise in the first instance a practical reform agenda. Then we can consider what would be the most cost effective and quick time solutions to the administrative problems that will have maximum impact in terms of citizens' welfare and development.

Instead of a big commission that delivers late and very little, one can consider the option of setting up a number of high-powered inter-ministerial committees, with a coordinator who has the required mandate as well as resources, to plan as well as implement reform decisions. There will be standing committees in different sectors of government, which will set reform targets and continue to function until the reform action is completed.

Reforms need to be planned, implemented, and monitored on a continuing basis, since they are likely to require organisational changes, simplification of work procedures, integration and coordination amongst departments, contracting out public services and introduction of new technologies.

It may also involve deregulation or even framing of new regulations. It may mean privatisation, elimination of existing red tape and doing away with numerous government controls which invariably are causes for delay that create opportunities for corruption.

Concept of governance is changing

Public governance today in terms of

the various administrative functions performed, no longer means what it was even twenty years ago. Before undertaking administrative reforms we have to take a fresh look at the basic concept of government and determine what would be politically most relevant for the country, at the beginning of 21 st century.

There is a broad social mandate for public governance, that is incorporated in Part II of our Constitution which lays down the "Fundamental Principles of State Policy." Then there are more specific provisions which outline the functions of the various organs of the government. In the context of current debate, a distinction should be made between guarantees of basic services to be provided by the state and the question of how and by whom will these services by provided. Would it be provided directly by the government?

For example, in case of law and order and administration of justice, government has the direct responsibility. But there are many other functions of the government, like provision of health, education, municipal services or supply of agricultural credit and electricity, which definitely can be contracted out, but would have to be supervised and regulated by governmentagencies.

I would like to underscore the basic changes which have taken place in the concept of public governance around the world since the 1970s. There was a time - one can trace it back to the British colonial period - when the central government was considered to be "ma-baap" - the idea being that the government takes care of every activity relating to the citizenry from the cradle to the grave.

Following independence from colonial rule, developing countries in Asia and Africa, inspired by revolutions in the Soviet Union and China, adopted the path of state socialism. We witnessed the phenomenal rise of public enterprises, since government was mandated the task of initiating socio-economic development.

It was the era of charismatic national leaders like Soekarno,

Nkrumah, Jawaharlal Nehru, and Julius Nyerere. They represented the new ideals of development based on social equity and encouraged massive public sector investments in the context of imperfect or undeveloped market conditions.

Collapse of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union formally ended the era of state socialism for most developing countries and even for countries in the communist bloc. The agenda for administrative reforms, therefore, should firstly stress the need to redefine the scope of government, considering the reality of the society and economy of Bangladesh.

A primary objective would be to reduce the functions of government agencies according to assessed needs, eliminating inefficiency in work processes and minimising government controls. It may also involve redefining existing regulations or introducing altogether new ones where these are needed; but unlike in the past it has to be ensured so that such regulations are enforced with greater strictness.

For example, we definitely require very strict enforcement of land settlement regulations specially in urban areas, the reserve forests and the inland rivers, to protect our environment and the natural waterways. The thrust clearly should be to deregulate and diminish the scope of government interventions to the maximum extent possible, many of which have now become redundant in any case.

Priority to services provided from government counters

In the short run there is need to focus on bringing reforms in respect of all those government functions and agencies where people line up daily to receive services to which they are entitled. These are the services that are provided from public counters or offices, where ordinary citizens come face to face with a government functionary. This is the critical point where ordinary people in fact encounter the government. These are offices where people congregate daily and are subjected to harassments, they

suffer undue delays, they have to pay bribes or are altogether denied the services that they urgently need.

One reads the stories of corruption, harassments and hardships daily in the newspapers or sees the news on television. The services are provided from thousands of counters or government offices, all over the country - it could be the outdoor units of hospitals, the police thana, the civil and criminal courts, passport offices, banks where electricity as well as other utility bills are paid, subregistrar offices, income tax offices, fertiliser factories from where fertilisers are supplied to dealers, REB offices, and soon.

I am talking about the entire range of government services which, like the health services, are either free or can be obtained on payment of prescribed fees. To obtain the services, people usually would have to come to a counter, submit a form, make a payment if required, and then wait anxiously for the service to be provided.

In the vast majority of cases the citizens direly in need of services go away after a long wait, frustrated, confused, angry and often humiliated by the arrogance of the service provider. This is the situation that needs to be reversed in the short run through urgent reforms in administration.

Contracting out municipal services

Many of the services now provided by the government could be more effectively provided by private or non-government bodies. One vital area where reforms could be introduced would be in respect of municipal services, which even in a large metropolitan city like Dhaka have been in shambles. Successive governments have beautified Dhaka by spending billions of taka, building water fountains, decorating the road islands and illuminating the roads.

But they have not provided the basic sanitation services like clean public toilets - as a consequence the floating population as well as the general public often use segments

of the foot paths as toilets. Even the broad avenues adjoining five star hotels like the Sonargaon Hotel are filled with human waste and stench.

A recent report by World Bank and Proshika showed that less than 17 percent of the metropolitan households were satisfied with sanitation services provided by the municipalities. The problem can be addressed by the city corporation in collaboration with the NGOs or communities themselves, provided necessary reforms are initiated by the concerned municipal authorities.

That the urban sanitation problem can be efficiently solved has been dramatically demonstrated through the dedicated work of Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak in our neighbouring country, India. He has spearheaded a quiet revolution in public sanitation in collaboration with the municipal government. He initiated the "Sulabh Shauchalaya" movement in 1974 which became a landmark in the history of sanitation. He introduced a system for operating and maintaining community toilets with bathing, laundry and urinal facilities (popularly known as Sulabh Shauchalaya Complex) with attendants providing service round the clock on pay-and-use basis first in Patna city and then elsewhere.

Dr. Pathak convinced administrators, planners and engineers about the successful two-pit pour-flush toilet in urban areas which would provide an affordable, safe and hygienic system for disposal of human waste in the absence of sewers and septic tanks. Before his arrival on the scene, nobody including the engineers, was ready to believe that this technology could work in big cities.

Now Sulabh is operating and maintaining more than 5,500 community complexes in 1,075 towns and metropolitan areas across India. These complexes have electricity and 24-hour water supply with separate enclosures for men and women. The users are charged nominal sums for using toilets and bath facilities. Some of the complexes are also provided with bath

and shower facility, cloak-rooms, telephones, and even primary healthcare. These complexes have been widely welcomed both by people and the authorities due to their cleanliness and good management.

Pay-and-use system ensures self-sustainability without any burden on public exchequer or local bodies. The complexes have also improved the surrounding environment considerably. It is a major reform in municipal services that can be quickly introduced by the local government authorities in our country as well - they can either visit the country next door or better still, invite Dr.Pathak to visit Bangladesh and learn from him directly how he brought about the impressive reforms in urban public sanitation.

This would be one example of how government can show that it is concerned about the welfare of its citizens and help improve their quality of life. Until the institutional reforms take place, the city corporation can at least show that it cares for ordinary citizens and do one favour to the millions of pedestrians - simply send its water trucks and wash the concerned segments of the foot paths once a day.

Khalid Shams, a former civil servant, is Deputy Managing Director, Grameen Bank.