The Delhi Government has launched an
anti-corruption helpline, number 1031 where anybody can file a complaint
against a corrupt government official. Good, a very progressive step by the
Government to reign in one of the most widespread rots in India.
But, there was another news article,
which I shall discuss later, which made me sit up and think…is corruption
limited to government servants only?
In the eighties, the USSR invaded
Afghanistan and established a communist government under President Najibullah.
In the fight against the communist regime and the Soviet Union, the US and its
allies raised rebel forces called Mujahideens. They were the “good terrorists”
supporting the US cause, but when the same Mujahideens transformed into Al-Qaida
under Osama-bin-Laden they became the “bad terrorists” because they were now
opposing the US. Borrowing a simile from here, can there be a “good corruption”
and “bad corruption”, in the same way as “good terrorist” and “ bad terrorist”?
By good corruption, I mean corruption
that monetarily benefits the poor and marginalised and which is supported by
the government and bad corruption is corruption that monetarily benefits people
in influential positions.
Have I succeeded in creating enough
confusion? Let me continue.
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy
defines Business Ethics as the applied ethics discipline that addresses
the moral features of commercial activity. There is a great amount of hullabaloo
in India when airlines suddenly increase spot prices based on supply and demand
during summer holidays or when an unfortunate rival airline terminates its
services. The practice is considered unethical and regulators come into action
putting a cap on the maximum price that the airline can charge. Not only this,
the media does not shy away from crying itself hoarse if a passenger is denied
boarding for any reason. So that means, if someone is in the business of
providing transport services, it is unethical and incorrect for the service
provider to charge exorbitant rates or deny the transport service to a
passenger.
In such cases, the government moves in
stating well being of public and action is taken against the erring airline.
Hence, I assume that overcharging passengers or refusing to ferry them is a
corrupt practice and needs to be controlled. Legal action needs to be taken
against such corrupt practices. This would fall under the “bad corruption” as
it benefits the airline companies.
Now let’s shift the whole scenario from
the elite, rich aeroplane flying passenger to the hapless daily commuter on
his/ her way to office. The Aam Admi (common man) commuter for whom the Delhi
Government has so much of declared empathy. This commuter approaches an
individual providing transport services, the auto rickshaw or taxi driver. The
driver, as is common in Delhi, would on most occasions either refuse the fare
to the passenger or charge him/ her exorbitantly. Taking a fare by the meter is
a rarity in Delhi and you would usually pay more than the official fare, the multiple
being decided by one’s negotiating capability.
Is this a corrupt practice? Going by the
definition and airline example, yes. Should the government support it,
logically no.
As succour to the harried commuter,
earlier governments had issued an order under traffic police rule 66192 that in
such a case, if reported to traffic police, the police could intervene on the
side of the commuter and force the offending auto rickshaw or taxi driver to
obey the law. In extreme cases, the traffic police could impound the offending
driver’s vehicle.
The auto rickshaw and taxi drivers were
obviously against the impounding because that meant they had to go to court to pay
the fine and get the vehicle released. This also meant a loss of livelihood till
such time as the vehicle was in police custody. As a result they were
pressurising the Delhi government to withdraw this order. Today, the Delhi
government has withdrawn this order despite the objections raised by traffic
police.
The utilitarian theory of ethics states
that best decisions are those which maximise the greatest good for the largest
number of people. In this case the largest number of people are the commuters,
hence their welfare should be upmost in the mind of the government while taking
any decision. And anyway, if the auto rickshaw or taxi driver was following the
law and not refusing fare, he could easily carry out his business, though
earning lesser money.
Comments