There is no surprise that public hearings hosted by the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) have otherwise become quite popular. Aggrieved people seeking various government services vent their anger out of frustration mostly among themselves but without redress. But they seek remedy to their problems and the denial of services from relevant government offices or agencies. The court is there to settle disputes but when it comes to common people's access to various services, they lose their way in bureaucratic labyrinth. Often they are compelled to part with speed money to facilitate the service. Few want to go to court for redress; instead people prefer to maintain silence over the underhand dealings. Thus the culture of corruption proliferates. People suffer silently and government employees and officials take full advantage of this kind of cooperation in corruption by default.
The ACC expressly constituted to deal with corruption in the public sector finds itself in an advantageous position so far as its range and scope are concerned to perform the job. It is only natural that the public will be always behind it if it takes action against genuine culprits, not being influenced, overtly or covertly, by any political consideration. It has a role more than just a watchdog's in that it is armed with instruments to probe into malpractices by persons and even offices before suing them. Now the stronger the ACC stands, the greater the chance of reducing corruption in the country. It is exactly against such a backdrop, the ACC has been striving to prove it is up to the job. Surely it still has a long way to go before it can bring the bigwigs to book and set examples for others not to indulge in corrupt practices. Dispensing with law is as much important as perceiving that it is dispensed with.
So the ACC-initiated public hearings are not just any other debate on an issue, it is the barometer of people's sentiment, feeling and emotion about corruption. The body has so far hosted 64 such public hearings and the response from the common people has been highly encouraging. This is an indication that people want a very powerful forum where they can protest against corruption in the officialdom and at the same time expect appropriate moves to bring an end to the same. It is thus time for the ACC to take actions. Without effective follow-up of genuine complaints that are ventilated by the hapless citizens, the very purpose of public hearings will be utterly defeated. It will then be all sound and fury, signifying nothing in substance. The anti-corruption watchdog can take it for granted that the country's people - the overwhelming majority of whom are innocent - will endorse any effective measure against corrupt practices.
However, it would be foolhardy to gloss over the stark realities on this count; the tentacles of corruption now so widespread cannot be wiped out overnight. But the ACC must go about the business in a most dedicated manner so that people can feel that it is not leaving anything undone to fight corruption. This is an impression that counts. Those at the helm of affairs of the ACC know it very well that a lot depends on how they create the momentum against corruption in public offices. If they can succeed in rooting out corruption in one sector or department, its reflection will be there for all to see. This is how they can strengthen their power and swipe step by step to make the country free of corruption.