Lala Camerer
a SECOND LOOK
This week sees the signing of a joint endeavour between the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention and the government in support of South Africa’s anti-corruption programme.
As part of the UN Global Programme Against Corruption, the government will be assisted in its efforts to ”prevent, detect and fight corruption” as well as ”promote integrity, transparency, accountability and the rule of law”.
However, the UN programme, should it receive international donor support, could, to use President Thabo Mbeki’s words, help ”limit this unacceptable practice”.
Last year more than 150 ”experts” were interviewed as part of an Institute for Security Studies survey on the causes of, as well as controls for, fighting corruption in South Africa. This article presents some initial findings of the survey which was based on a comprehensive questionnaire administered telephonically by Markinor and funded by the European Union.
Who are these ”experts” and why should we bother about their opinions?
Firstly, they are people who attended major anti-corruption conferences over the past two years. It can be assumed that people attending such conferences are at least professionally interested in the subject of corruption and at best in a position to influence policy debate around the issue.
Secondly, they are a highly educated group, with more than half of the 154 experts interviewed holding post-graduate qualifications (42 masters and 12 doctorates among them). Slightly left of centre ideologically, and representing all races and sectors, one can assume their opinions on corruption might be useful and suggest priority areas for policy intervention.
Understanding the nature of corruption as well as what causes it should provide clarity on how best to control it.
When asked to define corruption, issues of abuse whether of power, position, public funds, resources, authority and office for personal benefit, stand out as the underlying understanding of corruption.
Bribery and payment for services including kickbacks in contracts and tender procedures are the most readily given examples of corrupt practice. Unsurprisingly, experts rank greater transparency around the government’s tendering procedures at 3,63 on a scale where four is most effective and one is least effective.
Experts rank weak checks and balances as the primary cause of corruption in government, suggesting a differentiated response to control measures against corruption in society and that in government.
Greater financial controls and audits of government spending score 3,53 on the effectiveness scale.
Low salaries are often cited as an excuse for corrupt behaviour. Seventy-eight per cent of experts, however, disagree with the statement that government officials are so poorly paid that they have no choice but to ask for extra payments. Improving the moral fibre of the nation by tackling declining morals and ethics is a priority. But how does one begin to address individual moral failings such as greed?
With 95% of experts convinced that corruption is a serious problem in areas of society other than government, a cross-sectoral approach seems desirable and may be a cause that the newly formed National Anti-Corruption Forum could champion.
While there may be a lot of corruption, the majority of experts (64%) agree that South Africa is confronted by other more serious problems, namely crime and security followed closely by job creation findings similar to public opinion research conducted by the Institute for Democracy in South Africa.
Thirty-seven per cent of respondents believe government today is less corrupt than under apartheid, while 34% believe it to be about the same.
The good news is that most experts (51%) feel that corruption levels in the next few years will decrease with 31% seeing it as likely to increase.
When asked whether they or anyone known to them had, in the past year, been asked or expected to pay a bribe, 33% said yes. Forty per cent of experts agree with the statement: paying bribes to government officials or doing favours for them makes it easier to get things done.
About 83% of experts believe the government is ”very committed” or ”committed” to fighting corruption. Political commitment is recognised in anti-corruption literature as the crucial ingredient in an anti-corruption strategy.
While nearly 60% of experts believe the government is handling the matter of corruption, ”very” to ”fairly well”, 40% are less positive.
Lack of resources are seen as the main problem with the government’s fight against corruption, with 73% of experts holding the opinion that the government does not have sufficient resources to fight corruption.
Asked to rank the effectiveness of anti-corruption agencies, Judge Willem Heath would be glad to know that experts view the special investigating unit as the most effective with 84,5% holding this view. This is followed by the Office of the Auditor General (74,1%), the Office of the Public Protector (61,7%) the Special Investigating Directorate on Corruption within the National Directorate of Public Prosecutions (47,4%) and the Public Service Commission (33,8%).
With moves afoot to disband the most effective anti-corruption agency, the question is: does expert opinion count when it comes to policymaking?
Lala Camerer is senior researcher in the organised crime and corruption programme at the Institute for Security Studies in Cape Town