At a time when NGOs and state agencies involved in an anti-corruption drive in the country are mulling over why corruption has not been a priority of the government, Ratna Sansar Shrestha's idea ('Clean up politics', #310) that the drive should start from cleaning the Augean stable, i.e. political corruption is worth pondering. However, there are some pitfalls we need to worry about.

Definitely, if democracy does not stop corruption, corruption will stop democracy. Democracy is necessary, but is not a sufficient condition to fight corruption. Some of these conditions are in fact mentioned by Mr Shrestha. We should know that if political stability facilitates corruption; instability encourages corruption.

Political corruption should not be confined to the bribery, graft, nepotism and pork barrel politics by political parties. It should be extended to all kinds of corruption leading to what the World Bank calls 'state capture'. Pointing fingers on political parties is tantamount to giving excuses to 238 years of successive exploitation and corruption of Nepali society. Political parties may be called the headquarters of corruption but the den of corruption is somewhere else.

Simply because the medicine is expensive we should not be distracted by competitive politics. It is not political competition per se that is responsible for remedying corruption problems, rather it is the quantitative and qualitative aspect of political corruption.

My primary worry is not whether democracy will help solve the problems of corruption. It is trying to solve corruption with equally corrupt instruments. The problem here is not of who is going to audit, it is the question of auditing the auditors, monitoring the monitors and evaluating the evaluators.

Narayan Manandhar,
Kumaripati

. 'If democracy does not stop corruption, corruption will stop democracy.' So writes Ratna Sansar Shrestha, an accoutant and a lawyer, but not an economist. If Mr Shrestha is right, then, how does one explain that India, Indonesia and South Korea are today's booming economies and thriving democracies despite consistently receiving low marks from Transparency International?

To borrow the words of James Surowiecki from a related context, 'In a country where elaborate bureaucracies make it hard to start companies, import or export goods, or simply get a passport, bribes can cut through red tape, serving as what's called 'speed money'. Bribes can also motivate bureaucrats (and politicians) who would otherwise shirk their duties.'Nepali bribers have long known that 'corruption can be a useful means of bypassing inefficiencies in the short term'.

That said, the long-term solution to reducing corruption is not to dream about apolitical technocrats or incorruptible politicians. It is also not about inserting a line or two against corruption in the new constitution. The solution is in various citizen groups joining hands to be continuously active about demanding more transparent, responsive and accountable public institutions. In Nepal, talking about corruption is like talking about the weather. But the loud-talking civil society members hardly devote their lives to cleaning up our various public institutions.

Pradeep Dhital,
Samakhusi