**As a member of the young generation who got to exercise his democratic right for the first time to vote in the last general election, I am inclined to conclude that, in Bangladesh, corruption is carried out for the people, by the people's representatives who are, of course, of the people.
CORRUPTION has become a way of life for the citizens of Bangladesh, irrespective of their socio-economic background. Bangladesh, being one of the LDCs in the world, has been plagued with corruption since we gained independence. It is ranked as one of the most corrupt countries in the world by Transparency International. This should not come as a surprise to us, but the fact that corruption is multi-dimensional and should be resolved with a unified and national effort needs to be a priori comprehended.
With a per capita GDP of approximately $675 and more than 50 million people living below the national poverty line, perpetuated by rising levels of inequality, the state needs to play a critically important role in controlling the level of corruption. It would have to take into account the sociological and psychological sentiments of the citizens for establishing the fact that "the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer."
In order to play this vital role, the government has to take initiatives to improve the public provisions, which seek to provide basic necessities, through shifting from a supplymanaged policy to demand-oriented, rights-based social protection schemes. Denying the common man basic necessities may tempt him to engage in activities that go against social norms. Some positive lessons can be drawn from India, where they have now implemented social programmes through establishing right to education, work and food.
While some have given up efforts to fight corruption, there is an optimistic group that believes that this is only a transition period. The latter assume that there is an inverted-U relationship which exists between corruption and the level of development of a nation. Thus, the assumption that corruption level will decline after a nation reaches a certain stage of development can only be confirmed in the days that we are yet to see.
What are the causes of corruption? Can corruption be eradicated or kept to a minimum? These two interrelated questions are always asked but seldom accurately answered. The causal relationship between democracy and corruption has been discussed extensively by different scholars and different conclusions have been reached. However, what has been
established is that democracy and corruption are mutually exclusive.
It is widely known that corruption is endemic in the public sector. But does corruption only have a supply-side aspect? Rent-seeking and bribery have cropped up as a result of the prevailing low remuneration structure. The remuneration structure has not been up to international standards because of certain institutional shortcomings. Surely, we may go on to prove Say's law that supply has created its own demand. However, this is not entirely correct.
Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB), in a study carried out in 2008, undertook a perception survey to assess the citizens' expectation from elected representatives. The TIB survey reported that more than 80% of the respondents wanted MPs involvement in bringing developmental "goodies" to the constituency and, more pertinently, sought personal access to the MPs for a variety of reasons from attending to personal needs to requests for dispute settlement. This clearly implies that there is a demand-side to corruption as well! In other words, demand has perhaps created its own supply.
An example can be drawn in the case of the USA to depict the multi-faceted side of corruption when the government was having some success in controlling the corruption level in the late 1990s. Crime level was escalating throughout 1960s and 1970s despite the fact that the number of law enforcing agencies was
being dramatically increased. Eminent economists predicted that the level of corruption was going to augment further but it turned out that the crime level dropped significandy starting from early 1990s. Everyone credited the police force for it, but the actual reason was the legalisation of abortion in some states.
It might appear strange to relate abortion legalisation and the level of corruption; but certainly, there is a key link. It is common sense that new generation of criminals would come from families with a destitute background. The new abortion law enabled pregnant women from these families to not give birth if they desired, thus, reducing the number of potential gangsters and thieves.
To conclude, it is more important to eliminate the source of corruption, and not the corrupt. Everyone has to assume individual responsibility with a patriotic mindset, and think about public welfare as a whole over their personal benefits. Only then would the country be able to liberate itself from the firm grip of corruption. As a member of the young generation who got to exercise his democratic right for the first time to vote in the last general election, I am inclined to conclude that, in Bangladesh, corruption is carried out for the people, by the people's representatives who are, of course, of the people.
The writer is Research Associate at Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD). E-mail: akbar.mashfique@gmail.com