A whiff of relief may have wafted our sensibilities following the just-released corruption perception index (CPI) of the Transparency International's local chapter, TIB.
Bangladesh has moved two steps up by scoring 28 points among 180 countries surveyed, compared with 26 in the CPI of 2016 but 27 in 2013.
The improving trend is noticeable giving a positive vibe: Placed at the rock-bottom for five successive years from 2001-2005 we went on to rank 3rd, 7th, 10TH, 13th, 12th; back again to 13th in 2011 and 2012.After rising to the 16th in 2013; we slumped to 14th, 13th, slightly bouncing back to 15th in 2016. As of this year, we have bettered to the 17th position.
Whilst the score of 43 is regarded as 'satisfactory', with our present score at 28, we have a long way to go--indeed. When you are ranked 143rd among 180 countries; the second most corrupt country in South Asia after Afghanistan; and the fourth worst in the Asia-Pacific region, it is little solace for being in the company of some worse performers. We need to internalise the hard truth that the overall graft situation remains deeply concerning.
To sustain the process of improvement, we take the first cue from the factors that contributed to the modest upswing in the rankings. Dr. Iftekharuzzaman, the TIB chief said that 'the improvement has been driven by the positive perception of the country's legal, institutional and policy structures. It is a generalisation that needs to be amplified and elaborated through further research aimed at pinpointing the stimuli so that we can build on them and replicate the small success stories.
We note that digitalisation, even on a modest scale, has helped curb some of the corruption in land administration. We have been consistently advocating for E-governance in public service as well as in private sector since this has the potential for averting cumbersome procedures that breed corruption.
There is another source of power that can be utilised in order to enforce transparency and accountability in public services. That consists of strengthening the content and user-friendliness of Right To Information Act (RTI). Its implementation is hurtling along in a large part due to lack of what the experts see any enthusiastic demand for information.
Among all the annual markings of our performances by global watch bodies, the corruption perception index (CPI) perhaps draws maximum national attention. Internationally, it tends to reflect on a country's image. Although developing countries, by and large -- some 59 per cent making for 109 countries -- are regarded as below par on corruptibility index, yet several of them have been recipients of FDIs. They may have even received other forms of largesse even though found wanting in vital aspects of international behaviour.
A casual observer or a protagonist of corruption may argue that such and such countries have developed in spite of corruption. So, why make a fuss over it! The most convincing reply to their expedient and inherently assailable position is that they do a soul-searching about how much more rapid would our national growth have been without the critical mass of corruption and malpractice!
Nevertheless, we believe that the rankings should be considered 'pivotal'. But is it regarded as a key to measuring the success or failure in terms of economic performance, socio-economic justice, service delivery and effective governance? The question is mainly directed to the countries being ranked on some common denominators on a comparative scale but in part it may also oblige the rank allocators to have a measuring rod for how much is lost through graft-taking and giving.
The World Bank has a figure as percentage of corruption-induced loss to GDP growth. We need a national accounting of that.
