Golden Research Thought
Impact Factor:0.1870
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
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.” [1]
[2]
( 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.)
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.
ANTI-CORRUPTION ORGANIZATIONS:
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.
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.
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:
BIBLIOGRAPHY
§
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
Abstrect:
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.” [1]
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.[2]
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.). [3]
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
[2]
( 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.)
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.
This
is the first of two reports prepared by the International Council. The second
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” [1]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
§
—. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment