Parliamentarians fighting corruption - a conceptual overview

Parliamentarians1 from around the world met in the Chamber of the Canadian House of Commons, from October 13th to 16th, 2002, and agreed on the need to form the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption (GOPAC). Corruption was described as the greatest threat to the democratic ideal of self-government through representative institutions periodically selected in free elections by broadly enfranchised citizens. But it was seen as more than that – as undermining economic development, violating social justice, and destroying trust in state institutions. And, if most commentators were right, it is getting worse in many countries and becoming more widespread. No country appears to be immune, although some suffer less than others and a few have successfully reduced the incidence and impact of corruption. Citizens, accordingly, bear the heavy economic and social burden of corruption. And, in a democracy that works, they look to their parliament – the people they select to set the framework of law and oversee its implementation – to help lighten this burden. This does not imply that corruption is caused by a weak parliament or parliamentary inaction. The causes of corruption are many and complex. Rather it suggests that parliament plays an essential – and a leadership – role. Moreover, in systems where the executive is not directly elected, it is the most direct instrument citizens have to influence the executive, the locus of most state corruption. International efforts to curb corruption to date have focused mostly on the executive branch of government and on the electoral process. This is quite appropriate. However the functioning of individual parliamentarians, political parties and the institutions of parliament are additional important considerations. This paper examines how parliament and parliamentarians can help, but these other institutions must be kept in mind. Governance structures – for example, Westminster or Congressional – do influence how parliamentarians can best fight corruption, but likely are not the key determinants. Public expectations regarding the role of the state and particular histories of political development in each country likely are more important determinants of actual corruption. The challenge is tailoring the individual instruments and packaging them into a coherent strategy in specific countries. Doing so requires a thorough understanding of the individual circumstances, as well as the practical lessons-learned from other jurisdictions.