Defining corruption in the Pakistani context
Corruption is a buzz word in Pakistan. However, a broader definition of corruption than what is currently bandied about in the mainstream narratives, PTI-style, is required in order to recognise the problem of corruption in its entirety. Consequently, a thorough analysis of the workings of global (and local fractions of) capital, the post-colonial state and historical patterns of imperialism is required. For instance, the class perks of feudal lords, pirs (often controlling local politics and waqf properties), or capitalist exploitation do not constitute corruption in the mainstream narratives. Likewise, institutionalised action by the civil and military bureaucracy do not merit as corruption. Private education and medical care, whereby the poor and marginalised sections of the population are systematically excluded, are not taken into account when corruption is characterised. National oppression, such as the plunder of Balochistan's resources, is excluded from instances of corruption. Therefore, it is imperative to critically approach the very idea of corruption.
The author of the ancient Indian political treatise, Arthshastra (Economics), Kautiliya writes: "Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey (or the poison) that finds itself at the tip of the tongue, so it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up, at least, a bit of the king's revenue. Just as fish moving under water cannot possibly be found out either as drinking or not drinking water, so government servants employed in the government work cannot be found out (while) taking money (for themselves)." He pointed out 40 ways of 'embezzlement' in ancient India (ca 370 BC).
Europe was hardly different. In an editorial, Marxist journal Monthly Review claims: "In early modern Europe, for instance, the job of collecting taxes was often 'farmed' out to individuals whose payment for the job came not from official state salaries but from raking off a share of the revenues. People could, and regularly did, even buy state offices, openly and unashamedly. The state apparatus of European absolutism couldn't have functioned without practices which, in hindsight, we might call corrupt".According to Pranab Bardhan, corruption, even in most liberal discourses, refers to the use of public office for private gain whereby "an official (the agent) entrusted with carrying out a task by the public (the principal) engages in some sort of malfeasance for private enrichment which is difficult to monitor for the principal".This definition implies a firm Weberian dichotomy between public/impersonal and private/personal spheres. However, Max Weber was clear that such a dichotomy was an ideal type, hard to find in reality.
The Weberian hypothesis issues from the fact that capitalists, unlike feudal lords or absolutist officials, accumulate by way of market instead of appropriate surpluses by directly exploiting official or public power. In other words, to quote Monthly Review, "the conduct of public business is supposed to be separate from the process of private appropriation". But both the history of capitalism and contemporary financial scandals betray capitalism's commitment to anti-cor- ruption. According to E P Thompson, one corrupt method employed by the capitalists in the past was 'lease-mongering'. The capitalists would buy up leases from poor tenants. These same leases were sublet to tenants at increased rents. In cases of non-payment tenants were evicted. Similarly, 'forestalling' and 'regrating' ('black marketing') were common capitalist practices at the dawn of capitalism. At the time, such practices were repugnant to prevailing morality in England/Europe and were resisted. Over time, as capitalism prevailed, such practices assumed institutional legitimacy, and became the 'lawful and legitimate stuff of everyday capitalist life'. This normalisation of once repugnant practices was not achieved through a strict separation of public/impersonal and private/personal. Similarly, despite the normalisation of prac- tices once considered corrupt, and a narrow definition of corruption, capitalism has not been able to deliver the end of corruption. In fact, corruption assumes new forms with every passing day.
A host of financial scandals in recent years (Enron, Worldcom etc), consequently, have prompted even 'anti-corruption theoreticians' to define corruption more broadly. Recent definitions also point out 'the illegitimate purchase by private actors of political consideration' as well as 'the abuse of trusted authority for private gain'. He views the chorus against corruption as the political expression of a class that is against representative democracy in Pakistan. He argues, "A proper debate on corruption will only occur when we start debating impunity enjoyed by the propertied classes and the non-elected arms of the state".