In the space of a year, three notable strikes have affected the interests of the South African public
Corruption is one of the greatest obstacles to South Africa’s growth and development.
Corruption erodes the trust that the public has in the public sector to act in their best interests. It is a waste of taxpayers’ funds, which could have been used for service delivery, and leads to financial loss, damage to employee morale and institutions’ reputations and leads to increased scrutiny, oversight and regulation.
The South African government has said it is trying to combat corruption in various ways. Among the steps taken are the Zondo commission of inquiry into state capture, which exposed institutional weaknesses. Task teams have been set up in a number of provinces to deal with extortion and violence at construction sites. The Financial Intelligence Centre’s Fusion Centre was established to act on fraud and corruption in the procurement of Covid-related goods and services. The National Anti-Corruption Strategy has been adopted and the Political Party Funding Act will help to regulate public and private funding of political parties.
However, the impact of corruption goes beyond the institutional weaknesses, it heavily hinges on corrupt individuals. South Africa does not have effective systems in place to deal with individuals who are corrupt, hence, they continue to be in positions of power, are not prosecuted for their corrupt actions and it becomes difficult to track and recover funds that have been stolen.
First, an overlooked, but possibly the most important, reason why South Africa’s politicians and leaders are corrupt is that most encountered socio-political trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of apartheid. Most leaders that occupy positions of power in South Africa participated in the struggle to attain democracy, which means that they were exposed to severe social and economic shocks, stress and exclusion.
As a coping mechanism, these leaders may engage in rent-seeking practices as ways of building personal reserve funds against economic uncertainties, especially in light of South Africa’s bad economic conditions. It may also be an ill-conceived means of improving personal sense of security and resilience against future economic shocks and stresses they once were exposed to.
According to Norman and Aviisah, political economies that appear to be in a constant state of agitation and upheaval can be a traumatising ecosystem that may produce psychosis similar to PTSD, although such conditions are modifiable over time.
Considering the systemic challenges and pressures on South Africa’s national economy, the prospects of modifying these behaviours is very low. If such is the case, then rent-seeking behaviours and corrupt practices in South Africa are poised to get worse.
Secondly, any South African politician or leader who engages in some kind of corrupt activity does so because they think they can get away with it. If they knew that they would be exposed, found out or caught and made to face the consequences of their criminal actions, they would probably think twice before trying anything corrupt.
This speaks to the systems, checks and balances, and law enforcement not being effective to deal with these kinds of issues, making it open season for all those wishing to get their hands on piles of cash to which they are not entitled.
The government needs to look at their systems and procedures to ensure that loopholes are closed and that transparency, from local to national level, is achieved. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and other technological innovations could assist the country in closing these loopholes.
Thirdly, South African politicians and leaders engage in financial crime, fraud and corruption because of personal greed. They want more and they don’t care how they get it.
Acquiring more in an honest way requires a lot of hard work, risk-taking, dedication and time. For greedy people, that is too much to ask for, so they find ways to make piles of money quickly and easily, in dishonest ways.
This speaks to the values of the country’s leaders — their level of honesty, sense of right and wrong, their sense of fairness, their work ethic and their moral compass.
Those who lack such and other positive values are prime candidates for corrupt activities. With corruption running rampant through so many institutions, it’s critical to put in place a means to identify and eliminate people during internal political party elections and voting processes. If political parties are not careful in their deployment and internal elections, they will lose public support.
Fourthly, the reality of “if you can’t beat them, join them” is something the country does not speak enough about. Leaders engage in corruption because others are doing it and getting away with it. When ethical leaders see that it’s easy to do dodgy deals and get away with it, they’re encouraged to try their luck too because ethics are difficult to maintain in a rotten system.
This speaks to the culture the country has nurtured, or allowed, in the public sector. The lack of public accountability is missing to ensure that leaders uphold some form of ethics for public interest.
Lastly, there are thoughts regarding the impact of power on our leaders. A simple distinction can be made between two forms of power. On the one hand, leaders use their power to get things done. Socialised power is power used to benefit others. We hope that our elected officials have this sort of power in mind and are primarily concerned with the best interests of their constituents. The other form of power is personalised power, and it entails using power for personal gain.
Notably, these two forms of power are not mutually exclusive, a leader can use his or her power to benefit others, but can also gain personally. The obvious problem is when personalised power dominates and the leader’s gains are gregarious and often at the expense of those they serve.
Robert Caro outlines that “power doesn’t always corrupt … power always reveals. When you have enough power to do what you always wanted to do, then you see what the person always wanted to do”. In other words, it is about how South African leaders use authority that reveals their character — selfish leaders hoard power for personal gain, while servant leaders share power for social good. The ultimate test of character for people in power is how they treat people who lack it.
South African leaders do not utilise the power and influence that they have for the greater good of the country. Corrupt individuals need to be dealt with, as opposed to generalising corruption and blaming it solely on institutional weaknesses.
Karabo Mokgonyana is an award-winning legal and development practitioner and programme director for the Sesi Fellowship and Skill Hub, a womxn- and youth-led organisation that provides young womxn with mentorship and skills development.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Mail & Guardian.