Bootstrapping India
 Main Page       Feedback? MehtaRahulC@yahoo.com

Why are politicians of India more corrupt than in US?

    Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Why is corruption/nexuses in India's corporators more than those in US
  3. Why is corruption/nexuses in India's MLAs more than those in US
  4. Why is corruption/nexuses in India's MPs more than those in US
  5. Summary
  6. How can citizens of India reduce corruption/nexuses in India's MPs, MLAs etc?

Introduction

The purpose of this article is to enumerate and discuss ONLY
  1. factors which increase corruption/nexuses in Corporators, MLAs and MPs, that are present in India, and are absent in West.
  2. factors which decrease corruption/nexuses in MLAs etc, which are present in West and absent in India.
The purpose of this article is NOT to enumerate factors that are present/absent in BOTH countries. Hence a large number of factors, such as moral values, greed etc will get dismissed as non-issues. Why? Becuase greed is present in US/West as well as India. And moral values are at same level in India as well as West.

I will compare Corporator of US with Corporator of India, MLAs of India with Assemblymen of US and MPs of India with Congressmen/Senators of US. For simplicity, I will refer to Assemblymen of US as MLAs and Congressmen and Senators of US as MPs


Why are India's corporators more corrupt/nexused than those in US

Following are the key reasons why Corporators in India are more nexused/corrupt :
  1. Lack of Jury System : This is the MOST important reason. The Jury System is nexusless, and creates a fear in Corporator's mind that he may lend in prison if evidences are found against him. Therefore, he becomes very discreet in taking bribes, and so he is forced to pass many oppurtunities. In India, the judge system is full of nexuses and the Corporator knows that he can always find a lawyer who has nexuses with the judge who is presiding over the case. So he is LESS worried about indulging into bribery.

  2. Defunct prosecution : In US, most district prosecutors are directly elected and independent of Mayor, Governor etc. In India, district prosecutors are appointed by Chief Ministers. The CM needs to have nexuses with MLAs, as MLAs can expel a CM. And MLAs need to have nexuses with Corporators, as Corporators are useful during the election of MLA. Therefore, if a Coriporator is facing a trial, he can always ask MLAs to force prosecutor to spoil the case, or he can ask MLA to force CM to force prosecutor to spoil the case. This nexus if often very successful in India. while in US, this nexus is less useful and effective and prosecutors are often DIRECTLY elected. In addition, the prosecution is supervised by Grand Jurors, which is nexusless. All in all, the prosecution system in US is less nexus-prone and less nexused, and this forces Corporator to check his bribery.

  3. Lesser corruption in junior officers : Due to Jury System the counts are nexusless and due to Grand Jury System, prosecution in US is less nexused than in India. So junior officers in US are afraid of indulging into bribes and taking actions that violate the public norms. No such fear exists in the minds of Indian officers. Now in a large number of cases, be India or US, a corporator can ensure an illegitimate benefit to some contractor using his powers, but it would require collaboration of junior officers. Thats where things change in US and India --- in India, the junior officers has no fear of courts and prosecution, and so he collaberates, where as junior officer in US would simply refuse. This also reduces effective amount of bribery in US's corporators.

The Jury System is THE MOST important reason. Other reasons are also important.


Why are India's MLAs more corrupt/nexused than those in US

  1. Lack of Jury System : This is the MOST important reason. The Jury System is nexusless, and creates a fear in American MLA's mind that he may lend in prison if evidences are found against him. Therefore, he becomes very discreet in taking bribes, and so he is forced to pass many oppurtunities. In India, the judge system is full of nexuses and the MLA knows that he can always find a lawyer who has nexuses with the judge who is presiding over the case. So he is LESS worried about indulging into bribery.

  2. Defunct prosecution of India : In US, most district prosecutors are directly elected and independent of Mayor, Governor etc. In India, district prosecutors are appointed by Chief Ministers. The CM depends on MLAs for support, as MLAs can expel a CM. Therefore, if a MLA is facing a trial, he can always ask CM to ask prosecutor to spoil the case. While in US, this nexus is less useful and effective as prosecutors are often DIRECTLY elected. In addition, the prosecution is supervised by Grand Jurors, who have no nexuses with MLAs. All in all, the prosecution system in US is less nexus-prone and less nexused, and this forces MLAs to check his bribery.

  3. Less power for MLAs : MLAs in US have significantly less power than MLAs in India. In India, the CM appoints district police chiefs, district magistrates who have quite a bit of judicial powers, district collectors who decides on disputes related with land and land taxes, district education officer and several district level administrative heads. The CM also has power to transfer/suspend these officials. Since CM depends on MLAs to a condierable extent, the MLA also gets power to influence these officers, and thus generate bribes. In US, NONE of these district level heads are appointed by CM. Many of them are DIRECTLY elected by citizens, and rest are appointed by district mayor after approval of councilors, and so MLA has no say and no oppurtunity to generate bribes from their offices.

  4. Lesser corruption in junior officers : Due to Jury System the courts in US are nexusless and due to Grand Jury System, prosecution in US is less nexused than in India. So junior officers in US are afraid of indulging into bribes and taking actions that violate the public norms. No such fear exists in the minds of Indian officers. Now in a large number of cases, be India or US, an MLA can ensure an illegitimate benefit to some contractor etc using his powers, but it would require collaboration of junior officers. Thats where things differ in US and India --- in India, the junior officers has no fear of courts and prosecution, and so he collaberates, where as junior officer in US would simply refuse. This also reduces effective amount of bribery in US's MLAs.

The Jury System is THE MOST important reason. Other reasons are also important.

Also, please note that MLAs in US are NOT as non-corrupt as say policemen in US. The nexuses/corruption is fairly high. But when compared to India, following difference would appear : MLAs in India would indulge into 10-15 large bribes a year worth Rs 10 lakhs, and would also indulge into 100-200 small bribes of Rs 10000 to Rs 50000. While MLA in US will confine himself to large bribes and will NOT indulge into so many small bribes. Why? This is NOT graciousness of US's MLAs, but their limitations. Most of the tasks that MLAs execute, which fetch them some bribe, also require colloberation of officers. The large tasks, which yeild large bribes, require colloberation of senior officers. The small tasks, which would fetch small bribes, would need colloberation of small officers. The senior officers are few in number, and so MLAs can form nexuses with them. Also, the senior officers are NOT supervisied by Jurors or Grand Jurors, so they are less scared of wrong doings. Hence MLAs, using their nexuses with senior officers, manage to obtain favors to their clients, and thus get bribes.

But things change in "small" cases. The small cases invariably come before small officers. They are large in number and MLAs can NOT establish nexuses with all of them. Also these officers are supervised by Jurors and Grand Jurors, and who are nexusless, and so they are afraid of indulging into bribery. So MLA in US has to let these oppurtunities go. But in India, where there is NO fear from courts and prosecution, the small officers are often willing to colloberate with the MLA. Hence MLAs in India also indule in 100s of small bribes.

Thats why, one often notices MLAs helping in US helping contractors to get road contracts or port contracts etc. Huge huge projects lie outside the domain of Jurors, in general But seldom would an MLA dare to call a police inspector and release an accused arrested for some allegation. Because the police inspector, may end up getting dismissed by Jurors for his wrongful actions, and so he would NOT obey that MLA. While in India, MLAs do BOTH --- help highway contractors and also force policemen to act as they want them to.

As a result, the lives of commons in US is indeed damaged by the instances of large bribes. But in India, the lives of commons are damages by instances of large bribes as well as instances of small bribes.


Why are India's MPs more corrupt/nexused than those in US

The MPs of US, known as Congressmen or Representatives or Senators, are as corrupt as MPs of India. But there is a following difference :

  1. The MPs in India indulge into several large bribes a year, say 10-15 bribes of Rs 10 lakh to Rs 1cr each. In addition, they also indulge in 100-200-500 small bribes of Rs 10000 to Rs 50000 as well.

  2. The MPs in US indulge into several large bribes a year and will seldom indulge into small bribes.

Why is this difference?

This is NOT graciousness of US's MPs, but their limitations. When will an MP get some bribe from say a contractor or a businessman etc? When MPs helps that person in obtaining some profits in a task that involves govt. Most of these tasks would also require colloberation of officers. The large tasks, which yeild large bribes, require colloberation of senior officers. The small tasks, which would fetch small bribes, would need colloberation of small officers. The senior officers are few in number, and so MPs in US can form nexuses with them. Also, the senior officers are NOT supervisied by Jurors or Grand Jurors, in general, so they are less scared of taking wrong actions. Hence MPs, using their nexuses with senior officers, manage to obtain favors to their clients, and thus get large bribes.

But things change in "small" cases. The small cases invariably come before small officers. They are large in number and MPs can NOT establish personal nexuses with all of them. Also these officers are supervised by Jurors and Grand Jurors, and who are nexusless, and so these small officers are afraid of indulging into bribery. So MPs in US has to let these oppurtunities go. But in India, where there is NO fear from courts and prosecution, the small officers are also often willing to colloberate with the MPs. Hence MPs in India also indulge in 100s of small bribes.

As a result, the lives of commons in US is indeed damaged by the instances of large bribes. But in India, the lives of commons are damages by instances of large bribes as well as instances of small bribes.


Summary

In short following are reasons why MPs/MLAs are LESS corrupt in US than India :
  1. The Jury System : since 12 Jurors change with every trial, no lawyer/criminal or MP/MLA etc can form nexuses with so many Jurors and hence courts are nexusfree.

  2. The Grand Jury System : since 20-30 Grand Jurors change every 3-12 months, no lawyer/criminal or MP/MLA etc can form nexuses with so many Grand Jurors and hence prosecution is less nexused.

  3. The MPs/MLAs in US have less powers as
    1. PM/CM in US are directly elected, and MPs/MLAs have less power over him. So MPs/MLAs in US have less political powers than MPs/MLAs in India.

    2. A large number of officers are DIRECTLY elected --- like district police chief, district public prosecutors, district education officer etc --- and MPs/MLAs and Corporators cannot dislodge them. This reduces MPs/MLAs' ability to extract bribes in US. While in US, MPs/MLAs have powers over these officers, and so they can collect by using their powers.

  4. The junior officers do NOT colloberate --- in many cases, MLAs/MPs can generate bribes, but only if officers colloberate. In US, due to fear of Jurors and Grand Jurors, the junior officers DO NOT colloberate, and so the MLAs/MPs have let those oppurtunities pass.

There are NO other significant reasons. Last but least, India's history and political are NOT responsible for defunctness, nexuses and corruption in courts -- the fault lies ONLY on the administrative procedures.


How can citizens of India reduce corruption/nexuses in MPs, MLAs and Corporators?

How can citizens of India make reduce bribery etc in Corporators, MLAs and MPs?

Trivial.
  1. Steps 1-3: The citizens should force MLAs, MPs and District Panchayat Members to create procedures that would enable citizens to pass laws in District Panchayats, Assemblies and Parliament. Please read LM.01 to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in District Panchayats and City Councils. Please read LM.02 to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in Assembly. And please read LM.03 to see the procedure using which citizens can pass laws in Parliament.

  2. Steps 4-6 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 should enact procedures LM.04-06 by which they can partially (or wholly) recall Corporators, Panchayat Members, MLAs and MPs. For details, please click here.

  3. Steps 7-9 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 should enact procedures LM.07-09 by which they have "Review of Citizen Jurors" on the laws that are passed by the representatives. This will reduce the powers of MLAs etc to help special interests. For details, please click here.

  4. Steps 10-12 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 should enact procedures PREZ.01-03 by which they can DIRECTLY elect/recall Mayor (or District Sarpanch), CM and PM. This will reduce powers of Corporators, MLAs and MPs to extract bribes and favors from Mayor, CM and PM. For details, please click here.

  5. Steps 13-28 : The citizens of India, using LM.01-03 should enact procedures CT.01-16. These procedures reduce the powers of MLAs etc as they enable citizes to DIRECTLY elect/recall key officers such as district police chiefs, district public prosecutors, regulators, judges etc and thus reduce the powers of CM/MLAs over these officers. Also, the procedures bring Jury System over policemen and all other employees of the govt, which would deter them from colloberating with MPs/MLAs etc. This would further reduce corruption in MLAs/MPs.

These TRIVIAL steps will reduce corruption in India's MLAs/MPs etc to as low as that in West, or lower.