Democratic politics is about making government work for the people by giving citizens a voice in government and the ability to remove leaders from office. Corruption is the misuse of public office for private gain. When politicians use their office to enrich themselves or their political allies, they violate the public’s trust and undermine the legitimacy of their governments. Politicians in liberal democracies should be more resilient to corruption than their counterparts in authoritarian regimes are, but experiences in Asia show that the region’s democratic governments are by no means immune from corruption. As these papers on Malaysia, the Philippines, and South Korea reveal, corruption remains a central policy issue for democratic governments in Asia, and the politics of controlling corruption is central to understanding electoral politics and elite political maneuvering.
Of course, even though both democratic and nondemocratic countries face the challenge of corruption, democracies offer more opportunities to address corruption. In a democracy, citizens have the ability to vote politicians out of office for violating the public’s trust. Politicians also have an incentive to write laws that can help control corruption. Democracies also tolerate criticism and media freedoms, both of which are essential for helping the public identify corruption where it exists. As noted in each paper, public debate about corruption impels governments to take steps to rein in corrupt dealings. By contrast, the anti-corruption efforts of nondemocracies depend on the will of unelected politicians, many of whom claim to oppose corruption while they simultaneously line their pockets.
Yet, despite the opportunities afforded to Asia’s democracies, reducing corruption is still a significant challenge. Democratically elected politicians often seem immune to popular sanction, using their access to public coffers to reward their supporters. Bureaucrats and administrators who are appointed rather than elected can benefit from political favoritism. Most distressingly, the institutions that monitor corruption can themselves fall victim to politics, rendered ineffective by legislative or executive action or staffed by political appointees with private agendas. In Malaysia, the Philippines, and South Korea, these and other corruption challenges are afflicting their new and uncertain democracies, while their democratic governments are working to reduce corruption and fulfill the promises of democracy for their citizens.
Malaysia presents a particularly interesting case, as the country’s high economic performance has coexisted with corruption ever since its independence. Francis E. Hutchinson notes that although corruption has long been an issue in Malaysia, it reached new heights under the administration of former Prime Minister Najib Razak; high-profile corruption scandals implicated the prime minister himself and his closest political allies. Malaysia’s opposition movement seized upon these and other scandals to push through a change in government, revealing the importance of democratic politics in sanctioning elected politicians for their misuse of office. Yet, as subsequent events showed, a change in government is often insufficient for enacting sustainable reform. The newly elected democratic government in Malaysia struggled to root out corruption once and for all. Malaysia’s party system and the courts proved to be highly resistant to change. Moreover, the electoral impetus to punish the most corrupt politicians quickly had the counterproductive effect of distracting the new government from its handling of pocketbook issues, leading to its subsequent loss of power and the return of the old guard. Hutchinson concludes that efforts to combat corruption must be attentive not only to the worst political scandals, but also to the concerns of ordinary people. Malaysia’s recent history of anti-corruption efforts shows that the popular voice can produce real change, but for it to last, that change requires grassroots support from civil society to maintain consistent pressure on those holding power.
Maria Ela L. Atienza’s analysis of corruption and democracy in the Philippines captures the challenges facing a country with both a longer history of electoral democracy and a more fraught history of economic performance. Since the overthrow of the Ferdinand Marcos regime in 1986, spurred by a mass protest movement that targeted the regime’s corruption and violence, successive democratic governments in the Philippines have struggled to contain corruption. Atienza identifies several institutional challenges in addressing corruption, ranging from administrative inefficiency and judicial inaction to threats from the executive and legislative branches against anti-corruption activists both in government and in civil society. At the same time, she highlights some notable examples of good policies, such as Bottom-Up Budgeting, which puts key policy decisions in the hands of local communities. Atienza’s recommendations for further strengthening the Philippines’ anti-corruption efforts bear strong resemblance to recommendations for strengthening Philippine democracy itself, focusing on transparency and civil society, institutional and judicial independence, and a more coherent party system that gives Philippine citizens a real voice in how their country is run.
In the last paper, Hyeok Yong Kwon showcases the recent democratic successes and continued challenges of corruption in South Korea. Echoing Hutchinson’s points about the importance of civil society in Malaysia and Atienza’s points about institutional challenges in the Philippines, Kwon emphasizes that even in a country such as South Korea that has made demonstrable progress in recent decades in addressing corruption, the details matter and success takes time. Corruption scandals have led to the conviction and imprisonment of two former South Korean presidents, and successive administrations have created a series of high-level institutions responsible for investigating and prosecuting corruption cases. Yet South Korean politics continues to be characterized by close relationships between the state and large business conglomerates, and new anti-corruption bodies face crucial institutional design and resourcing problems. The case of South Korea nevertheless reveals that progress in addressing corruption is possible — and that democratic political competition makes this progress more likely, even if it is slow and halting at times.
In sum, these three papers provide anti-corruption activists and democratic policymakers with important tools and insights into democracy and corruption in the Asia-Pacific region. The most important principle is that success does not come easily or quickly. Combatting corruption requires sustained effort and coordination among elected officials and bureaucrats, with the understanding that official corruption is difficult to root out because those who are responsible for it have strong incentives to fight back using the tools at their disposal.
Reducing corruption also requires sustained pressure from civil society. For ordinary citizens to root out corruption, voters have to have the ability to sanction politicians at the ballot box, and civil society actors must be vigilant and committed to anti-corruption messaging that resonates with ordinary people’s concerns. Few public policy problems are as thorny as corruption, but civil society action is part and parcel of any democratic solution to corruption.
Acknowledgements and disclosures
The authors would like to thank McCall Mintzer, Adrien Chorn, and Jennifer Mason for their assistance with this project, Lori Merritt for editing, Chris Krupinski for layout, Rachel Slattery for web design, and Alexandra Dimsdale for assisting with the publication process.
"""Sera ya kidemokrasia ni kuhusu kufanya serikali ifanye kazi kwa ajili ya watu kwa kuwapa wananchi sauti katika serikali na uwezo wa kuwaondoa viongozi katika ofisi." Ufisadi ni matumizi mabaya ya cheo cha umma kwa faida ya kibinafsi. Wanasiasa wanapotumia ofisi yao kujiridhisha wenyewe au washirika wao wa kisiasa, wanakiuka imani ya umma na kudhoofisha uhalali wa serikali zao. """Wasiasa katika demokrasia huria wanapaswa kuwa na nguvu zaidi dhidi ya ufisadi kuliko wenzao katika serikali za kimabavu, lakini uzoefu katika Asia unaonyesha kwamba serikali za kidemokrasia za mkoa huo hazina kinga dhidi ya ufisadi." Kama makala hizi kuhusu Malaysia, Ufilipino na Korea Kusini zinavyofunua, ufisadi unabaki kuwa suala kuu la sera kwa serikali za kidemokrasia katika Asia, na siasa za kudhibiti ufisadi ni muhimu kuelewa siasa za uchaguzi na uendeshaji wa kisiasa wa wasomi. "Hata hivyo, hata kama nchi za kidemokrasia na zisizo za kidemokrasia zinakabiliwa na changamoto ya ufisadi, demokrasia hutoa fursa zaidi za kukabiliana na ufisadi.""" Katika demokrasia, wananchi wana uwezo wa kupiga kura wanasiasa nje ya ofisi kwa kukiuka imani ya umma. Wanasiasa pia wana kichocheo cha kuandika sheria zinazoweza kusaidia kudhibiti ufisadi. Demokrasia pia huruhusu ukosoaji na uhuru wa vyombo vya habari, vyote viwili ni muhimu kwa kusaidia umma kutambua ufisadi ambapo ipo. Kama ilivyotajwa katika karatasi zote mbili, mjadala wa umma kuhusu ufisadi unawasukuma serikali kuchukua hatua za kuzuia shughuli za ufisadi. Kwa kulinganisha, juhudi za kupambana na ufisadi katika nchi zisizo za kidemokrasia zinategemea mapenzi ya wanasiasa wasiochaguliwa, ambao wengi wao wanadai kupinga ufisadi wakati wao wenyewe wanajipanga. Hata hivyo, licha ya fursa zinazotolewa kwa demokrasia za Asia, kupunguza ufisadi bado ni changamoto kubwa. Wanasiasa waliochaguliwa kidemokrasia mara nyingi wanaonekana kuwa hawana kinga dhidi ya adhabu ya watu, wakitumia upatikanaji wao wa hazina za umma kuwatoza tuzo wafuasi wao. Maofisa na wasimamizi ambao huteuliwa badala ya kuchaguliwa wanaweza kufaidika kutokana na upendeleo wa kisiasa. "Kitu cha kusikitisha zaidi ni kwamba taasisi zinazofuatilia ufisadi zinaweza kuwa waathirika wa siasa, na kuwa na ufanisi wa kisheria au wa utekelezaji, au kuajiriwa na watu walioteuliwa na siasa na ajenda za kibinafsi. """ """Katika Malaysia, Ufilipino na Korea Kusini, changamoto hizi na nyingine za ufisadi zinakabili demokrasia zao mpya na zisizo na uhakika, wakati serikali zao za kidemokrasia zinafanya kazi kupunguza ufisadi na kutimiza ahadi za demokrasia kwa raia wao." Malaysia inatoa kesi ya kuvutia hasa, kama utendaji wa nchi ya juu ya kiuchumi imekuwa coexisted na ufisadi tangu uhuru wake. "Hatchinson anasema, ""Hata kama ufisadi umekuwa tatizo kwa muda mrefu nchini Malaysia, umefikia kilele kipya chini ya utawala wa Waziri Mkuu wa zamani Najib Razak, na kashfa za ufisadi za hali ya juu zilimhusisha Waziri Mkuu mwenyewe na washirika wake wa karibu wa kisiasa.""" Harakati za upinzani nchini Malaysia zilitumia kashfa hizi na nyingine kushinikiza mabadiliko ya serikali, ikionyesha umuhimu wa siasa za kidemokrasia katika kuwaadhibu wanasiasa waliochaguliwa kwa matumizi mabaya ya ofisi yao. Hata hivyo, kama matukio ya baadaye yalivyoonyesha, mara nyingi mabadiliko ya serikali hayatoshi kutekeleza marekebisho ya kudumu. Serikali mpya ya kidemokrasia iliyochaguliwa nchini Malaysia ilijitahidi kukomesha ufisadi mara moja kwa wakati wote. Mfumo wa vyama vya Malaysia na mahakama zilithibitika kuwa sugu sana kwa mabadiliko. "Zaidi ya hayo, msukumo wa uchaguzi wa kuwaadhibu wanasiasa walioharibika zaidi ulikuwa na athari mbaya ya kugeuza serikali mpya kutoka kwa utunzaji wake wa masuala ya mfuko, na kusababisha kupoteza nguvu na kurudi kwa walinzi wa zamani. """ "Hutchinson anasema: ""Jitihada za kupambana na ufisadi lazima ziwe makini sio tu kwa kashfa mbaya za kisiasa, lakini pia kwa wasiwasi wa watu wa kawaida." Historia ya hivi karibuni ya juhudi za kupambana na ufisadi nchini Malaysia inaonyesha kuwa sauti ya watu inaweza kuleta mabadiliko halisi, lakini ili iweze kudumu, mabadiliko hayo yanahitaji msaada wa msingi kutoka kwa jamii ya kiraia ili kudumisha shinikizo thabiti kwa wale walio na mamlaka. Uchambuzi wa Maria Ela Atienza wa ufisadi na demokrasia nchini Ufilipino unaonyesha changamoto zinazokabili nchi yenye historia ndefu ya demokrasia ya uchaguzi na historia ngumu zaidi ya utendaji wa kiuchumi. Tangu kuangushwa kwa utawala wa Ferdinand Marcos mwaka 1986, kwa kuchochewa na harakati kubwa ya maandamano ambayo ililenga ufisadi na vurugu za utawala huo, serikali za kidemokrasia zilizojitokeza nchini Ufilipino zimepambana na ufisadi. Atienza anatambua changamoto kadhaa za taasisi katika kukabiliana na ufisadi, kuanzia ukosefu wa ufanisi wa utawala na kutofanya kazi kwa mahakama hadi vitisho kutoka kwa matawi ya utekelezaji na sheria dhidi ya wanaharakati wa kupambana na ufisadi katika serikali na jamii ya kiraia. "Kama mfano, kuna ""Bottom-up Budgeting"" ambayo inatoa maamuzi muhimu ya sera mikononi mwa jamii za mitaa." """Mapendekezo ya Atienza ya kuimarisha zaidi juhudi za kupambana na ufisadi nchini Ufilipino yanafanana sana na mapendekezo ya kuimarisha demokrasia ya Ufilipino yenyewe, kuzingatia uwazi na jamii ya kiraia, uhuru wa taasisi na mahakama, na mfumo wa vyama unaopatana zaidi ambao unawapa raia wa Ufilipino sauti halisi katika jinsi nchi yao inavyoendeshwa." Katika makala yake ya mwisho, Hyeok Yong-won anaonyesha mafanikio ya hivi karibuni ya kidemokrasia na changamoto za kuendelea za ufisadi nchini Korea Kusini. Akirudia hoja za Hutchinson kuhusu umuhimu wa jamii ya kiraia nchini Malaysia na Atienza kuhusu changamoto za taasisi nchini Ufilipino, Kwon anasisitiza kwamba hata katika nchi kama vile Korea Kusini ambayo imefanya maendeleo ya kuonekana katika miongo ya hivi karibuni katika kukabiliana na ufisadi, maelezo ni muhimu na mafanikio huchukua muda. Mashtaka ya ufisadi yamewafanya marais wawili wa Korea Kusini kuhukumiwa na kufungwa gerezani na serikali za nchi hiyo zimeanzisha taasisi za ngazi ya juu zinazohusika na uchunguzi na mashtaka ya ufisadi. Hata hivyo, siasa za Korea Kusini zinaendelea kuonyeshwa na mahusiano ya karibu kati ya serikali na makundi makubwa ya biashara, na mashirika mapya ya kupambana na ufisadi yanakabiliwa na matatizo muhimu ya muundo wa taasisi na rasilimali. Hata hivyo, kisa cha Korea Kusini kinaonyesha kwamba maendeleo katika kukabiliana na ufisadi yanawezekana na kwamba ushindani wa kisiasa wa kidemokrasia hufanya maendeleo haya yawe ya uwezekano zaidi, hata kama ni ya polepole na wakati mwingine inasimama. Kwa jumla, karatasi hizi tatu hutoa wanaharakati wa kupambana na ufisadi na watunga sera za kidemokrasia na zana muhimu na ufahamu wa demokrasia na ufisadi katika mkoa wa Asia-Pacific. Kanuni muhimu zaidi ni kwamba mafanikio hayakuja kwa urahisi au haraka. """Kupambana na ufisadi inahitaji juhudi za kudumu na uratibu kati ya maafisa waliochaguliwa na maofisa, kwa uelewa kwamba ufisadi wa rasmi ni vigumu kuondolewa kwa sababu wale wanaohusika na ufisadi wana motisha mkubwa wa kupigana kwa kutumia zana zilizo karibu nao." Kupunguza ufisadi pia inahitaji shinikizo endelevu kutoka kwa jamii ya kiraia. Ili wananchi wa kawaida kuondoa ufisadi, wapiga kura wanapaswa kuwa na uwezo wa kuwaadhibu wanasiasa kwenye sanduku la kura, na watendaji wa jamii ya kiraia lazima wawe macho na kujitolea kwa ujumbe wa kupambana na ufisadi ambao unalingana na wasiwasi wa watu wa kawaida. Kuna matatizo machache ya sera za umma ambayo ni magumu kama ufisadi, lakini hatua za jamii ya kiraia ni sehemu muhimu ya suluhisho lolote la kidemokrasia kwa ufisadi. "Wanahabari wa tovuti ya ""Make My Day"" wanashukuru kwa msaada wao katika mradi huu, kwa Lori Merritt kwa uhariri, Chris Krupinski kwa mpangilio, Rachel Slattery kwa kubuni wavuti, na Alexandra Dimsdale kwa kusaidia mchakato wa kuchapisha."