In his 2006-2007 budget speech in the parliament, former speaker and deputy leader of the opposition, Abdul Hamid, suggested that the details of the assets of the prime minister, the opposition leader, ministers and the lawmakers, should be kept track of for the sake of checking graft. He made the assertion that: "If the lawmakers submit their accounts of assets, the government employees will be alert and corruption will gradually recede." He opined that an examination of assets the MPs had before liberation of the country in 1971 with their present possessions would reveal the extent of corruption. Further, he offered that the examination should start with him.

BNP secretary general, LGRD and Cooperatives Minister Abdul Mannan Bhuiyan, in response, expressed concern over the spread of corruption, but sidetracked the issue by saying: "The practice of bribing is going on from top to bottom. We have to build social resistance against corruption."

Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, in her 75-minute long budget speech, spent most of the time detailing her government's various successes but did not respond to the opposition's allegations of corruption. She did not even mention the "Anti-Corruption Commission," an agency created at the insistence of the donors to combat corruption. However, the prime minister and her son Tarique Rahman, who is also the senior joint secretary general of BNP, once again loudly pledged in public meetings across the country that if voted to power again in the upcoming elections they would eliminate graft and corruption.

In the 2001 parliamentary election campaign, the BNP also promised to eradicate corruption. To give credence to their promise, they pledged to disclose the accounts of assets of MPs, including the PM and ministers. While corruption has further bloomed since then, no moves have been taken to disclose these specific accounts during the last four and half years of BNP's 5-year term. Time and time again, the AL President and Opposition Leader Sheikh Hasina launched blistering attacks on the government, mainly pointed at the prime minister and her family members, accusing them of corruption.

"Corruption" is a national a problem -- a malaise for which an antidote is not easy to find. It is often the country's socio-political environment and practices that encourage its growth. "Corruption" is not poverty driven, but is closely linked with greed and temptation. Occasionally, the inability to meet ones needs induces corruption, but inadequate income is not the root cause of the issue. "Corruption" arises from the misuse of ones power, position, privileges and authority as "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

A minister whose popularity in his constituency was beyond any question once told me that in order to become a member of parliament he had to spend almost Tk 7.5 million and that at the next election the expenditure could possibly be several times more. He wondered what choices were there for the poorer politicians except for using their power and position to amass wealth in order to win elections? MPs, as well as aspirants, when visiting their constituencies, are expected to make donations to mosques, clubs, or libraries, and give at least small amounts to the poor as well pay local elites and prominent goons. Organising processions and printing publicity materials cost a lot of money. They are also expected to, at least, meet the expenses of setting-up of offices through out the constituency, bear entertainment expenses, and provide workers with pocket money and transportation costs.

World Bank Country Director Christine Wallich observed that election financing is a major source of corruption in Bangladesh and that an estimated Tk. 2,000 crores, equivalent to 5 percent of GDP, was spent on electioneering in the last general election.

Allowable limit of expenses set by the Election Commission per candidate is Tk. 500,000. However, the actual expenses are many times more and depend on the location and who one's rivals are. Perhaps taking into account the flurry of activities in the forthcoming general election the finance minister has projected a higher GDP growth rate next year.

Most honest and dedicated political leaders and workers do not have the means to bear the huge election expenditure and win the elections. Only rich businessmen and industrialists are in a position to bear the campaign costs and take the risks associated with its uncertain outcome. Therefore, politicians devoted to public welfare are gradually marginalised in their own domain.

Presently, over 80 per cent of members of parliament are businessmen; most of them are from BNP or its partners in the four-party alliance. The alliance won more than two-thirds of the seats in the 2001 election. The alliance's election strategy was chalked out and executed by the young leaders of Hawa Bhaban. They are allegedly running "Bangladesh Incorporated" through the PM's "kitchen cabinet" and are apparently managing its affairs in the manner and style of a holding company.

The nexus between politics and business promotes corruption. Cronyism is detrimental to national interests -- it leads to concentration of wealth and widens income inequality, creates social tension and unrest, fuel price spiral and in the long run slows down the nation's progress. It is widely alleged that the Hawa Bhaban-based young leaders are using their power, influence and connections to enrich themselves and their associates. The opposition, in this scenario, is left with no choice but to nominate more rich business tycoons and goons as their candidates to counter the influence of big money and concomitant muscle power that the BNP candidates assert.

The parliament is the source of all power and authority. The MPs, particularly those belonging to the ruling party, have the choice to either use their position for the people's welfare or for personal aggrandisement through corruption. It is likely that business tycoons, who get elected by investing huge sums of money, would recover their investments with dividends. Instead of upholding the law, they would indulge in corruption. Allowing others to import expensive cars and jeeps, duty free in their names, is just an example.

Prima facie, the system of "electioneering" we practice is the mother of all sources of corruption. Therefore, without freeing politics from the clutches of people seeking to make profit, any attempt to curb corruption would be futile.

An effort can be made to ensure that the political parties nominate leaders and workers who are dedicated to people's welfare instead of business tycoons and wealthy ex-bureaucrats. Of course, businessmen with long political association should continue to have their rightful place in the political arena.

It is perfectly legitimate for political leaders and workers, when not holding official positions, to remain engaged in some gainful activities, rather than influence peddling, tender snatching and toll extortion, to earn an honest living. However, without reforming the electoral system to free it from the influence of money and concomitant muscle power, no political party can take the risk of losing. Thus, with the current electoral scenario in place as the election expenditures rise, the country will sink deeper and deeper into the quagmire of corruption.

The author is a former Secretary to the government.