Search results1 – 10 of 30
This paper focuses on two examples of constitutional corruption in India where the constitution is used for questionable political reasons by the Bharatiya Janata Party…
This paper focuses on two examples of constitutional corruption in India where the constitution is used for questionable political reasons by the Bharatiya Janata Party under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The paper relies on public documents and media reports to analyse Prime Minister Modi's handling of the purchase of Rafale jet fighters from France and the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A which resulted in the division of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
Constitutional and democratic norms were violated in both cases, but the Supreme Court did not find any irregularities in the sale of the Rafale jet fighters. The second case is under challenge in the Supreme Court. The analysis reveals how the Modi government has undermined democratic values and used constitutional provisions to pursue its partisan and ideological agenda.
The paper focuses attention on the often neglected topic of constitutional corruption in India.
Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party made fighting corruption as a major election plank, and won the 2014 elections, and formed the National Democratic Alliance…
Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party made fighting corruption as a major election plank, and won the 2014 elections, and formed the National Democratic Alliance government – a majority party government in India in nearly 30 years. Modi was re-elected in May 2019 with a bigger majority. As his government celebrates the second term, it is time to assess the last five years’ accomplishments in fighting corruption. This chapter deals with the subject under four major headings. The first examines the efficacy of existing anti-corruption agencies. The second explains the office of Lokpal (Ombudsman). The third analyses the initial challenges and efforts of the Modi government. The fourth draws some conclusions.
Corruption in India reached a crescendo between 2011 and 2013, with the exposure of the 2G Spectrum scandal and the “Coalgate” report fiasco at the top of all recent events. The largest working democracy is under the scanner. As the third largest economy in Asia, a nuclear power, and an information technology powerhouse, India has a lot to clean up. Current experience shows the failure of the top investigative agencies and the lack of political will to tackle corruption. The spate of high-level corruption scandals has also led to a popular movement in 2011, which also fizzled out, including the newly introduced “Anti-Corruption, Grievance Redressal and Whistleblower Protection Act, 2011.” This chapter examines the several issues involved.
Right to Information (RTI) is a formidable tool in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and ensure transparency and accountability within a participatory…
Right to Information (RTI) is a formidable tool in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and ensure transparency and accountability within a participatory democracy. The RTI Act was promulgated in India in October 2005, and has fundamentally changed the power equation between the government and citizens. T.his chapter examines the contribution of the Act, in particular playing a significant role by providing information necessary to combat corruption in India. It is also noted, however, that RTI is not an unmixed-blessing as it is seen how costly it has been for zealous investigative journalists.
The 1994 elections had seen a near tectonic change in South Africa. The long run minority White regime was replaced by a majority Black government of the African National Congress headed by Nelson Mandela. He, along with Archbishop Desmond Tutu, did a magnificent job of avoiding a bloodbath and keeping peace between the races. A new Constitution was accepted by 1996 which subscribed to lofty ideals. Yet, they turned sour before long. Aspirations ran ahead of hard realities. Utopia seems to have morphed into dystopia. Greed, prompted by past deprivation, appears to have made opportunists of several while others became blind ideologues. In no time, the country turned to be totally corrupt. This spectacular failure of the system is explained in this chapter.
One cannot mandate honesty.– Veerappa Moily, Chair,Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2007India did not invent corruption, but it seems to excel in it. Transparency…
One cannot mandate honesty.– Veerappa Moily, Chair,Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2007India did not invent corruption, but it seems to excel in it. Transparency International, (TI) in its September 2007 Corruption Perception Index, placed India 72nd (tying with China and Brazil) with its neighbors Sri Lanka at 94th, Pakistan 138th, and Bangladesh 162nd as among the most corrupt of the 180 nations it surveyed. Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand stood at the top as the least corrupt, while Mynamar and Somalia are ranked at the bottom as the most corrupt. In 2008, India was ranked at 74th (Transparency International, 2007, 2008). In its 2005 study, TI found that as many as 62% of Indians believe corruption is real and in fact had first hand experience of paying bribes (Transparency International, 2005). Three-fourths in the survey also believe that the level of corruption in public services has only increased during 2004–2005. It is estimated that a total of about $5 billion are paid annually as bribes. The police are ranked as the most corrupt, followed by lower judiciary and Land Administration. Yet Suresh Pachauri, the Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs, Government of India, declared: “Government is fully committed to implement its policy of zero tolerance against corruption. It is moving progressively to eradicate corruption by improving transparency and accountability” (Pachauri, 2008). This is a rather sorry state for a country known as the largest working democracy.
Brazil and Chile have nearly similar recent political histories. Emerging from protracted military dictatorships at roughly the same time, both developed presidential and…
Brazil and Chile have nearly similar recent political histories. Emerging from protracted military dictatorships at roughly the same time, both developed presidential and representative democratic processes, though with contrasting individual national emphases. Military dictatorships in both countries originated in anti-corruption rationales, among others, and both have emphasized anti-corruption practices since regime changes. Brazil impeached two presidents, ostensibly for corrupt practices. Yet, Chile has managed a corruption level, according to Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, that is among the lowest in Latin America, while Brazil’s is among the highest. This study compares and contrasts the two nations’ experiences with a view to uncover key causal, or at least explanatory, variables in this striking contrast in levels of perceived corruption.