The fact that corruption is rampant in Nagaland, particularly in governance, is undeniable. Humans by nature have conscience, the inherent ability of every healthy human being to perceive what is right and what is wrong and, on the strength of this perception, to control, monitor, evaluate and execute their actions.
Experts say that such values as right or wrong, good or evil, just or unjust, and fair or unfair have existed throughout human history and that they are shaped by an individual’s cultural, political and economic environment. In the Naga parlance, it can be said that corruption has become endemic so much so that it has become systemic.
Corruption is now the system. Maybe the prevailing socio-cultural environment enables corruption to thrive, or maybe it is the politico-economic environment, or maybe it is a combination of both. Whatever be the cause of corruption, we are all paying the price.
Almost all right-thinking citizens know that corruption must be fought against; yet, it is easier said than done. In the absence of any champion crusader against corruption, even the most potent anti-corruption tools are rendered ineffective. What then must we do?
When we talk about corruption, we often think of the government officials and the political class embezzling public funds or engaging in malpractices like backdoor appointment, fraudulent withdrawal of funds, misappropriation of development funds, etc. In other words, we usually think that corruption exists only at the ‘top level’.
However, a closer look at the whole spectrum reveals a very different picture. For whatever reasons, corruption has permeated down to the grassroots level, a clear indication that corruption is systemic and that it has now become a ‘way of life’.
Therefore, to address the issue of corruption only from the ‘top-down’ approach can be treated as a misdirected approach. While it is important to check corruption at the top level, it is also equally important to check corruption at the bottom level, at the grassroots.
Now that corruption has become systemic, it must be recognized and treated as such. For example, misappropriation of public funds by the political class or officers at the top and misappropriation at the village council level are both equally wrong and, therefore, illicit practices at both levels must be treated as equally corrupt.
Monitoring corruption typically is thought of as a top-down intervention but, particularly in the Naga context, it is equally important to consider a bottom-up approach. In fact, the bottom-up approach could prove to be more effective in our context.
For instance, holding the village council chairman accountable could be more effective than proving the erring officer wrong. If the village council chairman or VDB secretary is proven to have been guilty of corruption, then his immediate superior in the government can be taken to task and, hypothetically, the ripple effect could go right to the top.
In the final analysis, it can be said that a combination of top-down and bottom-up approach could possibly be the ideal way to deal with corruption in Nagaland today.