What has populist policy got to do with corruption? A lot, according to Thailand’s top graft-fighter, Panthep Klanarongran, who has just retired after nine years at the head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

But isn’t populism an integral part of politics? Politicians want to be popular, and the only obvious way to boost their chances of being reelected at the next election is to resort to populist policies.

But if populism and corruption are inseparable, how does one go about preventing misuse of public money by those who want to hold onto high office?

Panthep, in a recent lengthy interview with the Thai Post daily, admitted it isn’t an easy mission. In fact, with a backlog of over 10,000 complaints about corrupt practices in the bureaucracy and political circles piled up at the NACC, his mission remains “unfinished.” And it will stay that way for quite a while yet.

“If we can’t stop populist policies, we should lay down a rule that any policy that falls into this category must be accompanied by a set of measures to prevent corruption. These measures must be able to block suspicious practices from the beginning all the way to the end. They must specify how the public can really benefit from the scheme — and any possible loopholes that might open up opportunities for money to be siphoned off into the pockets of politicians, bureaucrats or businessmen,” he said.

Any project without the “protective shield against graft” must be rejected by the Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board and the Budget Bureau, Panthep proposed, adding that the additional “buffer” would add another layer of protection against widespread corruption.

Cynics would, of course, point out that however stringent the proposed measures, corrupt politicians always win out in the end. Once they manage to buy their way into public office, these people can always devise ways and means to circumvent existing rules to achieve their goals.

If recent history is any indication, even the “best Constitution ever” (in terms of providing proper checks and balances against abuse of power) — enacted in 1997 — could be exploited by politicians intent on usurping power and doing away with scrutiny by the opposition and the public.

Once one party became the dominant political grouping in Parliament, it managed to employ all kinds of tricky tactics to weaken “independent agencies” that had been incorporated into the charter as checks against corruption. Hence the phenomenon of “tyranny of the majority” in the House of Representatives — and the subsequent argument that elections alone couldn’t possibly be the only measure of “democracy.”

But why has the number of corruption cases risen despite the government’s repeated claims of success in tackling graft practices?

Panthep, who now heads a House select committee against corruption, puts the blame on insufficient legislation and the slow pace of probes, both of which have emboldened the wrongdoers.

“There is also the copycat phenomenon — when you see others getting away without being caught or punished, you tend to copy that behavior, confident you will also get off scot-free.”

Another reason, probably more serious and subtle, is the dangerous acceptance of corruption that has crept into the psyche of Thai society. “Everyone does it, one way or the other, on one level or another. It’s accepted, it doesn’t really affect me when others do it, and I stand to benefit when I do it myself.”

Panthep is hopeful, though, that things are changing for the better. A series of well-publicized campaigns to raise fresh awareness against corruption, all the way from schoolchildren to universities, from office workers to senior citizens, has offered hope of a more concerted effort among various segments in society to fight graft on all fronts.

The Constitution Drafting Committee, headed by Meechai Ruchupan, also plans to give the new charter sharper teeth to reduce corruption in high places — by proposing a clause that will bar anyone who has been found guilty of corruption from seeking public office for the rest of his or her life. No one should be surprised if heavy lobbying is launched against such a clause, on grounds that — you guessed it — it would “violate human rights.”

The majority of politicians simply don’t recognize the widely accepted formula: Corruption is authority plus monopoly minus transparency. Most want the first two without the third. That’s where the trouble really begins.

By Suthichai Yoon
(The Nation/Asia News Network)

Suthichai Yoon is the chairman of the Nation Group in Thailand. — Ed.