Sipho Seepe
no blows barred
Corruption takes many forms, but a common thread that runs through all of them
is the misuse of power and/or resources for private benefit or advantage. The
benefit can take the form of protection, special treatment, commendation, promotion, or the favours of women or men. Broadening our view of corruption to
include non-monetary benefits enables us to explore its wider political implications and the moral and social issues at stake.
Corruption, says Michael Johnston, a Colgate University political scientist, is
born out of deep-rooted conflicts between the power of those who rule and the
claims of those who do not. The conflicts help define the powers, privileges and
limits attendant upon various roles in politics and society. Consider an absolute autocrat. Absolute autocrats cannot commit a corrupt act in any contemporary sense since there are no limits to their power. If ”the King can do no wrong” he is accountable only to himself. The notion of corruption requires
the emergence of countervailing or ”intermediary groups” beyond the sovereign’s
personal influence that can make politically meaningful demands. Without these
groups, there can be no effective limit to the sovereign’s personal power.
From media reports, it is evident that South Africa has not been spared the scourge of corruption. Week in and week out we are confronted with news implicating former revo-lutionaries in one scandal after the other. The looting
of public funds by government officials with struggle credentials is becoming
commonplace. These developments provoked former president Nelson Mandela to comment that ”little did we suspect that our own people, when they got the chance, would be as corrupt as the apartheid regime. Nothing in our struggle for
liberation entitles an individual to think that he has a right to rob the public. We fought in the struggle because we believed it was necessary for us to do so. Corruption cannot be excused because somebody is poor.”
This invites the question, how do we explain this disturbing development? It is
especially worrying as it relates to the very section that was victim to the
worst form of oppression and had paid the supreme sacrifice in the course of the
struggle against apartheid colonialism. While many explanations can be advanced,
the obvious ones relate to the dominance of a single political party, the African National Congress, to material self-interest and the centralisation of
power.
An examination of the past 10 years would reveal, even for the unsophisticated
observer, that South Africa’s political landscape has undergone a dramatic metamorphosis. The 1994 and 1999 national democratic elections, extending the
franchise to all citizens, also consolidated the hegemony and dominance of the
ANC alliance. The dismal performance of black opposition parties effectively
signalled a death knell for pluralism in black politics.
With its alliance thus entrenched, cadres found new opportunities and possibilities for ascending positions of power and influence. The trappings of
power, accompanied by tangible material benefits, ushered in an unhealthy period
characterised by a dog-eat-dog syndrome. Comrades vied, lobbied, jockeyed, and
back-stabbed each other for leadership positions. Political idealism, the spirit
of altruism and democratic principles and values were sacrificed, to be replaced
by the politics of self-interest and narrow ambition, as they scrambled for political office. Comrades began to ingratiate themselves with those in the leadership, and loyalty was rewarded handsomely.
Thabo Mbeki’s ascendancy to power ushered in the process of consolidation and
centralisation of power. This and other developments conspired against many popular leaders within the ANC. The intellectually gifted and those considered
to be pretenders to the throne found themselves biting the political dust.
These developments have sent a chill down the spine of many comrades. A normally
robust civil society has been paralysed with disbelief, as an impression has
been created that those who speak out against government policies or the leadership will be dealt with harshly.
The confluence of the above factors and developments has produced conditions in
which the ruling party can afford to disregard the electorate’s concerns about
corruption. Despite the impressive legislative framework and instruments at its
disposal, where highly placed individuals are concerned, it has allowed political patronage to prevail over the obvious need to deal harshly with those
who betray the public trust. Its failure to censure Mpumalanga Premier Ndaweni
Mahlangu following his infamous lie saga, Minister of Justice Penuell Maduna
with regard to his attack on the probity of then auditor general Henry Kleuver,
and its apparent reluctance to deal decisively with Chief whip Tony Yengeni make
nonsense of its commitment to stamp out corruption.
While the trend is to focus on the material costs of corruption, the political
and economic costs are no less important. In his treatment of corruption, Johnston identifies some of these.
First, corruption undermines political trust, and can destroy it. Citizens may
conclude that it is futile to deal with government through official political
and bureaucratic channels. They may also fear that to approach an official or an agency without engaging in corruption is to enter into an unequal contest. Before long, citizens come to distrust each other and politics gives way to outright theft and exploitation.
Secondly, corruption weakens society’s ability to reform itself, and to build
more open, responsive, credible and legitimate political institutions.
In business, corruption warps competition to the point of stultification. In
such an environment small businesses and the poor are encouraged to try their
luck in the outlaw zone of the shadow economy, surviving only by greasing the
palms of the servants of the state. In a climate of corruption it is not the
quality and competitive prices of products and services that determine market
success, but rather how much bribe-money changes hands. In the long term the
economic, social, and political life of society is undermined.
Without concrete political action, a commitment to good governance and a vibrant
civil society to act as a countervailing force, the problem of corruption will
remain unsolvable. A legislative framework and impressive instruments are inadequate on their own. It is up to the government to ensure that effective,
speedy and justly enforced disciplinary and punitive measures are taken against
corrupt officials and employees.
The primary arena for the public scrutiny of corruption is the media. These debates contribute to the evolution of a set of ground rules for what citizens
can expect from the government. The way in which political leaders respond to
this public discourse shapes the rules of subsequent engagements. For example,
the Yengeni affair represents a public exploration of what is not considered to
be acceptable conduct by a political representative. The outcome of these public
debates is more durable than talk-show tapes, columns and letters to the editor,
but lingers in the diminished expectations we have in the moral leadership of
our government.
This is an edited version of a paper delivered as part of the CDE Debate series,
entitled Corruption: Is Government’s Approach Good Enough?