Fairer sex = a fairer system?
Corruption, scams and scandals have been the most voted flavour of the season. From the phone hacking scandal in London to the Anna Hazare movement in India, corruption has been a favourite topic not just for the media but also the common man. Various anti-corruption scholarships were also generated in the background as Team Anna’s movement attracted maximum attention and analysis. Right from calling it India’s second freedom struggle to describing it as a middle-class revolution against the ruling class, the movement has come to be analysed extensively within nationalist, class and caste parameters. What was interesting is that like other socio-political analysis, even the anti-corruption paradigm seemed to employ a gender neutral logic that seemingly ignored the gendered dimensions of corruption. This gives rise to some interesting questions - is corruption gender neutral? Are women less corrupt than men? Will promoting women in public life act as an effective anti-corruption check?
While uncovering the corruption dynamics and answers to these self-imposed questions, the first thing that comes to the surface is the space defined for governance. On one hand, corruption is synonymous with the government. On the other, government or the political space is often equated with men and considered to be predominantly a male bastion. Though an ideal scenario in governance would mean a common space that offers a participatory platform for decision making by every member of society, reality seldom witnesses this ideal. Therefore, men have become the face of any decision, any act that evolves and develops within this sphere with corruption being no exception. While increasing women’s representation in public offices emerges as a logical trajectory to lower corruption levels, would an increase in the number of the fairer sex in office actually be an ideal gateway to a fairer system?
As anti-corruption scholarship grapples with these questions, various research and surveys have highlighted the success of this proposition. In Mexico City the Police Chief has taken away ticket-writing authority from the city’s 900 male traffic policemen and created a new force consisting exclusively of women, hoping to reduce corruption (Moore, 1999). A similar policy has also been introduced in Lima, Peru where it is claimed there has been a fall in corruption after the introduction of women in various government departments. (McDermott, 1999).
While this news is heartening, instances of corruption wherein women have been active perpetrators also emerged. In fact, it is quite common to interface with corrupt women officers when one looks at retail/ transactional cases of corruption. A Bribe Report below illustrated this quite eloquently.
“I had gone to transfer the title deed of our house from my father’s name to my mother’s name after his demise. Since I was a serving officer, the clerk was very hesitant to ask me for a bribe. Since she was a lady I did not expect her to ask for a bribe but after completing the work she came out side and requested for some baksheesh as she normally takes Rs 200 for this work. I just paid her Rs 50 and walked out.”
There were other stories.
“This is in relation to my brother (aged 23 years) who travelled from Qatar to Mumbai on December 16, 2010, arrived at Mumbai International Airport at early in the morning at 3.30 am. After immigration, a lady customs officer detained him for no reason and after not finding any thing where she can get any money from him, she forced him to buy 4 bottles of liquor (Black Label) from Duty free on his passport for letting him go. Since my brother is a new age guy, & returned second time on annual vacation from abroad to India, he got scared & fulfilled her wish. She harassed him for more than an hour at the airport…”
A close analysis of the bribe experiences mentioned above highlights two behaviour patterns:
- It is perceived that officers do not ask/ demand bribes from women beneficiaries.
- Women officers also indulge in corrupt practices and unethical behaviour.
“A lady official asked me for a bribe in the commercial tax department when I approached her for my Sales Certificate” –ipaidabribe.com
This leads us to infer that the act of corruption is gender neutral – ‘act’ being defined as ‘the incidences of indulging in corrupt practices’. (The impact of corruption however needs to be de-neutralised as its effects are different for men and women.) While men and women are both subject to corrupt behaviour, the percentage and scale differs depending on the extent to which individuals have access to various professional and social networks of patronage.
From times immemorial, corrupt practices have been an extension of systems of patronage, while networks of patronage based relationships have been at the helm of politics and governance. With the public space being a male hegemonic sphere, access to these networks were and are still to a large extent limited to men. As women have limited or virtually no access to such spaces, their role in perpetuating corrupt practises has hitherto been be minimised. But this in no way proves that women are naturally less corrupt in comparison to their male counterparts.
“It is very unfortunate to see the level that bribes have reached. Now it is no longer pay `something’ but pay the % of transaction you are doing. Of course everyone wants to make money in a short cut method which is true even in developed countries in their own fashion. In India they take pride even in accepting bribes and announcing this well openly. It is unfortunate we paid the bribe to a woman officer.”-ipaidabribe.com
When we take a closer look at the structure of traditional Indian society, women were restricted from interacting openly with others in a public or political domain by social and cultural norms. The level of interactions women had with men outside the organized, permitted network was rare, thus relegating them to the periphery. But within these networks where women exercised power, there have been incidences of corruption. A serious procurement scandal around contracts to supply baby food in Karnataka involved top-ranking women officials (Sengupta, 1998) while the recent 2G scam had Nira Radia and Kanimozhi operating as key players. As an avalanche of corruption charges were brought down on them by the media, it was evident that these women who once occupied power-yielding positions did not shy away from unethical practices. From every possible angle they defy the stereotypical ‘moral standards’ that women are traditionally meant to uphold and instil. In fact, Indian politics and the media are full of such feminine stalwarts; be it our very own chief ministers, Jayalalitha or Mayawati; it is not uncommon to read about their role in major corruption scams and scandals.
Therefore it is impossible to state that women are less corrupt and walk the higher moral ground on the basis of conventional and stereotypical traits that femininity has been associated with since times immemorial. In fact, the levels of accessibility to corrupt practises, loop holes in the administrative processes along with mechanisms that facilitate the governing norms and not gender alone, are the actual parameters that encourage/ dissuade an individual from engaging in corruption and bribery. Therefore, increasing the presence of women in the government and bureaucracy may not guarantee the installation of a just and fair system. A parallel set of checks and balances together with electoral and administrative reforms across our systems is the only pre-requisite.
Reference: Corruption Accountability and Gender: Understanding the Connections @ 2010 UNDP and UNIFEM
- Sharda V