In the second week of this month, former Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak was found guilty of corruption and sentenced to 15 years in prison by the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

Najib has been convicted on four charges, including transferring more than $543 million from the Malaysia Development Berhad Investment Fund to his personal account, and 21 charges related to money laundering. 

Earlier in 2020, Najib was sentenced to six years in prison for irregularities involving about $10 million. This example from Malaysia shows that no one is above the law based on political status or party affiliation. 

If we compare this context with Nepal, the picture is different. The Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority filed a case against former Prime Minister Madhav Kumar Nepal in the Patanjali land case on 22 Jestha 2082 in the Special Court. He has become the co-coordinator of the Nepal Communist Party on the basis of a loophole provided by the Nepali law. Despite the case being filed in the court with a fine of Rs 185.85 million and a demand for punishment, Nepal did not leave politics.

On the other hand, the situation of Rastriya Swatantra Party Chairman Ravi Lamichhane is similar. Cases are pending against him in 5 courts for cooperative fraud. Lamichhane, who was released from the court on bail, has not been finally decided. However, he has returned to active politics. In the past, Nepali Congress leader Khum Bahadur Khadka was elected a central member even after being proven guilty by the court.

The political activities of Nepali Congress leader Mohan Bahadur Basnet, who was filed a case in the special court by the CIAA, have not stopped. On the contrary, the relevant parties and some leaders and activists have stood as a 'shield' to defend the case against these and other leaders.

The situation of UML is also similar. The wide-body aircraft procurement case is a strong example of this. The investigation subcommittee formed by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament had studied and submitted a report in the third week of 2075 Paush, stating that there were irregularities in the aircraft procurement process. Immediately after this, the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli objected to the report and said, 'The parliamentary subcommittee is not omnipotent.'

He also rejected the report saying that there was no irregularity in the aircraft purchase case. Amid political pressure and controversy, the CIAA conducted a detailed investigation into the case and filed a case in the Special Court on Chaitra 12, 2080. After this, the Special Court found that more than 1.47 billion rupees had been corrupted in the case on Mangsir 20, 2081. Even after this verdict, there was no serious debate about the moral responsibility of the political leadership.

A similar situation was seen in the Pokhara International Airport construction case. On Mangsir 21, the CIAA filed a case in the Special Court against five former ministers, saying that there were 'irregularities in the construction of Pokhara Airport'.

The CIAA had said that more than 8.36 billion rupees had been corrupted. Regarding the case that has entered the judicial process, CPN-UML Chairman KP Sharma Oli publicly defended his party leader and former minister Bhim Prasad Acharya on Mangsir 25, stating that the filing of a case against him was a 'gross injustice'. 

There are various laws and institutions in Nepal in terms of corruption control. The political leadership must create the necessary environment for the organization to implement the law independently and effectively. However, the political will of the leadership is very weak.

When political party leaders come to the defense of their party leaders and cadres in corruption cases, the law cannot be effectively implemented. It weakens the citizens' faith in justice. This lack of political will has become the biggest obstacle to controlling corruption in Nepal. 

Political will and corruption 

In Nepal, political parties have used power and authority as a means to protect their leaders and cadres. This has contributed to making corruption a common practice from an exceptional case. Lack of political will increases corruption in various ways. 

First, political protection fuels corruption. When corruption cases involving political leadership become public, the parties concerned protect such leaders instead of taking action. As soon as the investigation begins, they create a narrative of 'political revenge', 'conspiracy' or 'gross injustice'. On the one hand, this weakens the investigative body, while on the other hand, it makes those who commit corruption feel safe. 

Second, political patronage institutionalizes the nexus between power and money. In Nepal, the source of funds needed to win elections and run parties is not transparent. Donors who invest in an opaque manner pressure parties and leaders to ‘return their investments’. And the entire process of contracting, appointment, policy formulation, and budget allocation gets caught in a serious vicious circle. 

Third, it leads to political interference in constitutional and regulatory bodies. It has become common for partisan comments and pressure to act in their favor on the Authority, CIB, Money Laundering Department, Revenue Investigation Department, and in some cases even the courts. When powerful leaders of political parties openly violate or raise questions about the judicial process, it encourages corruption. 

Fourth, weak political will expands impunity. Impunity spreads the dangerous message that ‘nothing happens even if you commit corruption’ in society, which increases the social acceptability of corruption. 

Fifth, it increases the lack of internal democracy in political parties. The voices of leaders who raise their voices against corruption, criticize it, and seek transparency within the party are suppressed. In the context of Nepal, in some cases, there is a history of those who raise their voices against corruption within the party being judged as ‘undisciplined’. 

Sixth, it develops a mentality that considers corruption to be a ‘political necessity’. In politics, there is a growing tendency to consider corruption as a ‘necessary task to run the system’ rather than a social crime. The idea that financial irregularities are inevitable to win elections or balance power within the party seems to be tacitly accepted at the political level. Such thinking weakens the political will necessary to control corruption.

The table presented shows that there is less corruption in countries such as Scandinavia and Singapore, which have high political will. In these countries, even if ordinary mistakes are seen, officials in public positions have the practice of resigning for investigation, demonstrating high ethics. However, in countries with low scores on the index like Nepal, there is political pressure on the investigation process. This shows that political will is weak. 

What can be done to increase political will? 

Political will does not increase through any speeches or slogans. It is built through the style of using power, the courage to make decisions, and the morality shown in times of crisis. The first test of showing political will against corruption is the behavior adopted towards leaders and workers of one's own party who are involved in irregularities.

Therefore, to increase political will, moral leadership should be developed from within one's own party. For this, every political party should make arrangements to prevent people accused of irregularities from holding office and responsibility until the final verdict of the court. Political parties should reject the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty by the court' and adopt the principle of 'morality above the law' in politics. 

Second, the independence of investigation-prosecution and judicial bodies should be ensured. Bodies like the authority, police, revenue investigation, government attorney, and money laundering should be made practically independent and free from partisan interference. The tendency to share political interests and choose one's own people should end in the appointment of such bodies. Qualification, professional honesty, and integrity should be made the main basis. In addition, the tendency to publicly protect one's party leaders and cadres after an investigation or case is filed, to put pressure on the judicial process, or to defend the accused should be stopped. 

Third, effective institutional arrangements for political financial transparency should be made. Political financial transparency is a difficult and essential task to strengthen political will in controlling corruption. Corruption control is not possible without practical implementation of a system that makes political parties' income and expenditure, election expenses, donations, and sources of support transparent.

As politics becomes more expensive, corruption becomes the fuel for running politics. Therefore, a system of strictly monitoring election expenses, strictly implementing spending limits, and having the Auditor General conduct the final audit of political parties should be implemented. 

Fourth, one should have the courage to set an example from the highest level. The most effective way to increase political will is for the leadership to set an example. When ministers, MPs or top leaders are accused of corruption and irregularities, they should voluntarily step down from their positions. Even if they are not required by law, if the political leadership shows ethics and paves the way, it will establish the belief that ‘politics is not a shield against irregularities’. 

Fifth, an effective monitoring mechanism should be established within the parliament and the relevant political parties. A system for monitoring corruption cases that arise within the party should be developed through such mechanisms established in political parties. Similarly, parliamentary committees need to be developed as independent places for fact-based monitoring. When those in power and authority are ready to accept questions that come to them, a high level of political will is evident. 

Sixth, civil society should exert regular pressure. The continuous pressure from the mass media and civil society forces the leadership to be honest. Developing a culture of listening to and self-criticizing citizens about oneself or one's party is the foundation for strong political will. 

How did less corrupt countries increase political will? 

Studies show that corruption control is possible only in countries where law is placed above power and morality is placed even above that. In countries like Denmark, Finland, and Norway, there is an established tradition of leaving office even if a minor moral question arises about political leadership. For example, in 2018, a high-ranking government official in Norway immediately left office after it was discovered that government spending had been misused.

In Finland, there is an ethical practice of immediately leaving office if any minister violates general rules. In Singapore, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew began the practice of immediately sending ministers and high-ranking officials to judicial proceedings if they are accused of corruption. In 1987, Singapore's then defense minister was sentenced to prison for misappropriation of government assets. 

Studies say that countries with less corruption around the world seem to have adopted three basic strategies to increase political will. First, there seems to be a policy of not interfering in any political investigation of high-ranking officials. Second, the top leadership sets an example in demonstrating ethics and following the law.

When questions arise about those in high positions, they tend to resign from their positions on ethical grounds. This also seems to have contributed to increasing discipline among lower-level officials and employees. Third, there seems to be constant monitoring and pressure from citizens. Being under constant monitoring from citizens, media, and civil society, the leadership is forced to exercise political will.