Institutions, Democracy and ‘Corruption’ in India: Examining Potency and Performance

Abstract

The success of India's democracy hinges on the pivotal role played by its auxiliary institutions in negotiating major challenges through slow and persistent transformation. However, an objective audit of the performance of these institutions in the recent past would indicate a decline in operations and an acute crisis of corruption. Key institutions responsible for governance – Parliament, civil services, judiciary, the Election Commission, the Central Bureau of Investigation, the Central Vigilance Commission, and the Comptroller and Auditor General – have been put under the spotlight by an alert and mobilized civil society, urging immediate measures for ensuring their operational efficiency and integrity. This essay undertakes a critical examination of the present performance and efficiency of major democratic institutions in India, in the light of their prescribed roles and the malaise of corruption that plagues them. It argues that in order to articulate a comprehensive institutional response to the problem, relevant measures of political reform and constant vigil by civil society would prove crucial. The article is divided into six sections; first, a brief outline of the structure and changing nature of the institutional political set-up in India is provided; the second section examines the existing literature on ‘corruption’, and the third section highlights the increasing incidence of corruption in India at various politico-administrative tiers. The fourth section delineates the inception and role of anti-corruption institutions in India, signifying the early response to corruption. The fifth section critically reviews the theoretical and statistical evidence of performance-decline in the major institutions at present and gauges the potency of corruption; the sixth section explores the existing and prospective institutional responses for tackling corruption and the final section presents concluding observations.

Democracy, well‐being, and happiness: A 10‐nation study

“…India has low income per capita, high income inequality, and extensive problems with political corruption. India's political institutions play a key role in sustaining democracy, but their performance and quality of governance have been seriously undermined by corruption (Chatterjee & Roychoudhury, ). Corruption hinders economic growth, destroys trust and other forms of social capital, erodes legitimacy, and obstructs service delivery, especially to the poor who can least afford the numerous bribes needed for access to services.…”

“…Corruption is therefore a clear violation of physical and mental well‐being as well as political freedom and economic security (Ghosh, , p. 544). There is no doubt that it can lead to dissatisfaction and political instability (Chatterjee & Roychoudhury, , p. 404). The role of government and living standard has been identified as key contributors to well‐being in South Asia (Ngoo, Tey, & Tan, , p. 151).…”

Cronyism and corruption in India: A game theoretic analysis

“…In this context, it is also important to bear in mind that while political corruption, cronyism, and inefficiency are weighing heavily on Indian institutions, they are neither completely purchased nor utterly dysfunctional. As economic growth in India pulls the better off more towards private institutions, there will be both challenges and opportunities for the democratic polity (see Chatterjee & Roychoudhury, 2013).…”

Linking Traditional ‘Organic’ and ‘Induced’ Public Participation with Deliberative Democracy: Experiments in Pune, India

“…There is a high degree of criminalization of politics (ibid.) and widespread public perception that the government is corrupt and unaccountable, as evidenced by the large public following for a recent Indian anti-corruption campaign led by Anna Hazare (Chatterjee & Roychoudhury, 2013;Gupta, 2017). The need for reform and evolution in governance to allow for the emergence of more coherent city politics, more propeople, inclusive, pro-environment, approaches, better service delivery, greater transparency and accountability is articulated by many (e.g., Kumar & Narain, 2014;Maringanti, 2012).…”