Recently in The Economist, another article about corruption in Kenya surfaced, again focusing on Sir Edward Clay's (former UK ambassador to Kenya) condemnation of continual corruption (The Economist, "The Corruption is Sickening", 11 August 2005). When will it end? How will it end? Are Africans destined to suffer from poor leadership motivated by personal aggrandizement? Below is a reprinted article on corruption I wrote in 2004 -- it's still relevant and still problematic. Also featured below is guest blogger Matt C's analysis of corruption in Africa.
"African corruption is a crime against humanity" (Reprinted from Chrisitian Science Monitor, August 9, 2004)
By Susan Dicklitch LANCASTER, PENN.
You'd have to be living in a cave not to know that Martha Stewart got a "five and five" sentence a few weeks ago for lying about her stocks. Chances are, you're not living in a cave, but you still don't know about one of the biggest con jobs of our time: The misuse of foreign aid to Africa.
Perhaps this is because it's not as sexy as Ms. Stewart's trial or as gut-wrenching as the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. Or perhaps, it is because it has been such an embarrassment to Western governments and private organizations who keep on believing that foreign aid will help Africa.
As long as corruption exists at its current levels in Africa, and as long as donors continue to look the other way, foreign aid will simply serve to keep African kleptocrats in power.
Consider this: Sub-Saharan Africa has received an estimated $114 billion in bilateral and multilateral aid from 1995-2002. Yet African countries have consistently ended up at the bottom of the United Nations Development Program's Human Development report, which measures life expectancy, gross domestic product per person, and literacy.
So you may ask the billion-dollar question: Where did the money go? Perhaps the British high commissioner to Kenya, Edward Clay, was asking the same question about official graft last month when - suggesting donor aid to Kenya could be suspended - he publicly accused unnamed Kenyan officials of behaving so gluttonously at the aid trough that they are now "vomiting on the shoes" of donors.
And sub-Saharan Africa has seen the likes of many gluttons. Some of the most infamous include Mobutu Sese Seko, the former president of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) who allegedly stole $5 billion, and Sani Abacha, former president of Nigeria, who allegedly looted more than $2 billion. Both former leaders are dead, but their legacy of corruption continues to afflict their nations.
Corruption may not be as bad as genocide, but it is also a crime against humanity. Corruption is a killer of initiative and trust. It drives away foreign investment and undermines the development of the rule of law.
But most callously, corruption robs African children of a better future. Just ask the students in Kenya who could have had 15,000 new classrooms with the $188 million that Mr. Clay alleged has gone missing under President Mwai Kibaki's so-called anticorruption administration.
Transparency International, a Berlin-based nongovernmental organization (NGO) that tracks global corruption, ranks most African countries at the bottom of its list. Even some of the purported African success stories, such as Uganda, are at the bottom of that list.
But is there hope for the future? Much hope has been placed in the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), an Africa-wide initiative that calls for good governance, accountability, and a peer-review mechanism as part of its monitoring process.
The African Union (AU) - the successor of the Organization for African Unity - even adopted a Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption last year, and 30 countries have signed it. But only three countries have ratified it - and it requires 15 ratifications to take force.
The UN has also initiated a UN Convention Against Corruption that has been signed by more than 100 countries, including Kenya which has also ratified it.
But why should America care? While many Americans are debating whether Martha Stewart should have gotten more or less than the five months in prison and five months house arrest she got for lying about her stocks, African bureaucrats are literally getting away with millions. For donor agencies and nations, as well as African societies themselves, not to make political and civil leaders accountable for aid money is to be complicit in the perpetuation of corruption.
Congress is poised to increase foreign development assistance to the world's poorest nations by nearly $2 billion, with most of that money going to combat HIV and AIDS. But HIV and AIDS spending is not free from corruption either. Fly-by-night briefcase NGOs have sprung up everywhere, even with AIDS funds and even in countries that have a great track record like Uganda.
Some donors have taken a hard line against corruption, such as DANIDA (Danish International Development Agency) which cut off aid to Malawi and Kenya as a consequence of blatant corruption. The IMF and the World Bank have also instituted the HIPC Initiative (Highly Indebted Poor Country), which provides debt reduction tocountries that have developed transparency, accountability, and a poverty reduction strategy. To date, 23 of the 27 countries under the HIPC initiative are African.
The US Millennium Challenge Account - which disburses aid to recipient countries on the basis of their good governance, health and education initiatives, and free market economic policies - is a step in the right direction.
Ultimately the only real security against corruption is if Africans make their leaders accountable and demand transparency. The international community has an obligation to help eradicate poverty, but the international community also has the right and the obligation to demand accountability and transparency as well. Donors should work more closely with each other to ensure that African governments that turn a blind eye to corruption get cut off from foreign aid.
Kudos, not criticism, should go to Edward Clay for having the courage to speak bluntly against corruption in Africa.
Susan Dicklitch is associate professor of government at Franklin & Marshall College and has conducted research in Uganda, Cameroon, and Ghana. She wrote 'The Elusive Promise of NGOs in Africa: Lessons from Uganda.'
Corruption is defined as the dishonest exploitation of power for personal gain. In my opinion, this term can be applied to any situation where a human being, typically a male, due to their increased probability of breaking moral standard, is put in a position where „bending‰ the rules allow for enormous personal financial gain. Corruption exists in all parts of the world for different reasons. The rich want to get richer, as seen in the Enron scandal where „Arthur Andersen's Chicago-based lawyer Nancy Temple, who, according to the legalese, played the "corrupt persuader" who led others astray‰IV, or the starving want to feed their families and survive, as in many African countries today. Let‚s set aside corruption as a lingering issue in all parts of the world, and focus on Africa. I think that corruption is not the heart of Africa‚s problem, but an expressed consequence of their situation.
Having traveled to Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda, the three major countries of East Africa, I‚ve seen corruption take place first hand. Imagine sitting on a bus traveling with other honest paying customers from one end of Tanzania to the other. Suddenly, the bus stops at the simple flick of a traffic police officer‚s hand standing ahead of the bus, the driver gets out and speaks with the police officer about the „problem‰, he says he needs to check the luggage compartment for its security and proceeds to open the compartment with a suggestive look towards the driver. The police officer fakes a visual inspection of the compartment while taking a bribe from the driver, out of the pot of money the honest paying customers paid to travel on the bus, to simply be allowed to proceed down the road. This is an example or how blatant corruption can get in Africa and an experience I witnessed many times last summer in Tanzania.
Why does corruption exist? I found myself asking the same question as I sat there watching it occur. Later in my travels I spoke with many Tanzanian citizens about the issue of corruption and found that most people, regardless of their financial status, hate the reality of it. This was striking to me. I was expecting them to justify it because of their poor situation and have it be more spread out among everyday citizens. After talking with people, I found that it was mostly government employees that exercised corruption as a means of income, border patrol, traffic police and even hospital workers, not regular citizens. This is consistent with a proper study done concluding „that there is less corruption where there are fewer trade restrictions; where governments do not engage in favoritist industrial policies; and perhaps where natural resources are more abundant; and that there is somewhat less corruption where civil servants are paid better, compared with similarly qualified workers in the private sector.‰ (Van Rijckeghem and Weder, 1997)I
I believe that corruption is not the root of Africa‚s problem, but a problem that is allowed to occur as a result of other problematic situations such as poverty and lack of government infrastructure. It is difficult to „show conclusively that the cause of the problem is corruption alone, rather than the institutional weaknesses that are closely associated with it.‰II I think if poverty and civil services could be fixed than corruption would not be as big of an issue. Corruption is slowing economic progress but not completely inhibiting it. One solution to the problem of corruption among African government officials calls for the international community to monitor their individual assets. „It proposes that all public officials should declare their assets when they take office, that governments should take powers to seize bank documents where necessary, and that those convicted should have their assets confiscated.‰III
The fact is that corruption is everywhere. It is so visible in Africa because there is not a solid infrastructure set up to reliably find or punish those guilty. If a better system where present as a deterrent, like in the United States, corruption would not be as widespread. It‚s a function of the situation not the people. Fix the system and you minimize the problem. It‚s going to take a little faith from the Western world to aid Africa against this very problematic rut, but eventually I think it will work itself out. People can‚t be fooled and taken advantage of forever.
What are your opinions? Please enlighten me.
IV http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,263006,00.html (10/5/2005).
I http://www.worldbank.org/fandd/english/0398/articles/010398.htm (10/5/2005).
II ibid. (10/5/2005)
III http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2265387.stm (10/5/2005).
For more information, please see the above websites.
Matt C.
More than half of the countries in the world are democracies. But what does that really mean? Is democracy still the best system of governance in the world? Some suggest that democracy is in decline. That we are watching its twilight. Do you agree? Join our avid bloggers to find out what democracy means to them and how best to measure it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Featured Post
Turkey's Ban on Insults against Erdogan
Since 2005 Turkey has had a law against insults against Erdogan known as Article 299. The article declares that citizens can be imprisoned ...
-
Great news! Now you can sit back in the comfort of your own home and actually see (provided you have access to high-speed internet) the phys...
-
From 600,000 to 1 million souls slaughtered in just 100 days in Rwanda. Thousands killed, raped and mutilated in Darfur, Sudan. On-going civ...
-
Darfur Sudan. Many Americans don't even know where that is. For many in Darfur, it is hell on earth. An estimated 2.6 million people ha...
11 comments:
Rosalyn,
I agree with your idea of creating a democratic system based on African values. This is a difficult question, but I'm curious as to what values you consider to be "African" and how, if the economic and social inhibiting corruption is ususally at the top of the political chain, you would suggest to intiate this new form of democracy? Would you give the leaders financial incentives to motify their governements, since money is what they personally want anyway or force them out through international intervention? What are your thoughts...?
Matt,
you argue that corruption isn't the heart of the problem in africa, and that its africa's lack of stable law enforcement and regulation that causes africa to suffer. I agree that if African nations were to build a stronger infrastructure that corruption may be limited, but I still feel that its corruption that is causing an African breakdown. Africa has made attempts at re-organizing governments, and foreign aid has been sent Africa's way to improve conditions, but because of corrupted leaders and organizations these plans have been faltered. Therefore, the way i see it, infrastructure is weak because of corruption, as opposed to corruption being present because strong African governmental presense is lacking.
J. Lawrence,
The issue could be argued both ways. I argue my point with the belief that we all would participate in some sort of corruption if given the opportunity for huge personal gain. The reason WE don't is because we have the unique ability to make significant personal gains "legally" in our country. Now, imagine being put in a situation where no matter how hard you worked, you didn't recieve any pay or benefit, and your entire life was a such. Now, all of a sudden you're put in a position because of your public speaking ability and ethnic background where, if you bend the rules, and know that no one will catch you, could make a fortune. Chances are, you'll take the risk. However, if there was a good chance of being caught, like there is in the US and elsewhere and a significant punishment for your wrong doing, you would think otherwise. Putting people into power that come from poor backgrounds causes them to see the position of power as opportunity for personal gain. I think that if the international community monitored the actions of African leaders and "forced" them to "do the right thing" rather than feeding the probem of corruption, not only would the potential leaders that saw power as nothing but opportunity for personal finanancial gain not excel to power, but the internatinoal community would ensure that stability and legitimacy grew in Afican governments. When I say international involvement, I mean on a scale that's infinitely more involved than we ever have previously been in. Corruption is nearly fundamental in all of us because greed is fundamental in all of us. It's only the system for which we live that keeps us in-line.
Matt,
I really like your point. I think that the best way to battle corruption is through the reform of governmental systems and finding ways that will increase a government's legitimacy. I feel that your recommendation for international involvement could become an effective way to discourage corruption, but I'm curious as to how you would recommend the international system do that? I know you said that the African countries should be "forced to do the right thing," but what would you suggest the international system do and how? I don't have an answer to that question, but I am curious as to what you think the best ways are for the international system to hinder corruption and how you think Africa would respond to it.
Stacey,
Somehow I knew this question was going to come my way eventually. Well, it's a difficult solution. For starters, we as the developed world are going to have to adopt the philosophy of helping these countries without profit or tangible national gain. We could gain international praise and admiration from these actions as a sort of national "gain" but in the past that hasn't been very motivating for us. This is the most difficult part of my solution, it adopts a sort of "freely helping others", including ourselves, mentality. Then, the developed world would have to all come together to strategize a solution that equally involved every country that wanted to participate for the same reason. We'd all have to help out for the good of others, not profit or immediate economic gain. Then we'd have to figure out a way to efficiently go about tackling the issue. Someone previously mentioned, I can't remember who, the idea of helping those African nations that have the greatest chance for success first, such as Ghana, to form success models in hopes of drawing more countries in and "getting the ball rolling". I agree with this idea and think that it would be smart approach. Then, with the combined funds from hopefully many developed nations, strategically pay for the necessary projects of the targeted countries such as education, healthcare and setting up outside systems of payment for government workers in return for loyalty to the law and establish a "director of national development" from the outside, to coordinate with the governments of these countries to, not fully direct, but make sure that what's being done is being done fairly and legitimately and mandate detailed biannual progress reports from these appointed directors and the heads of state for comparison and record keeping which would be presented by the heads of state of the developing countries to the leaders of the participating developed world. Then, continue this infrastructure progression gradually over time. I think that once the infrastructure of these countries builds up, the economy, by default, will grow, as the money that, "went to the swiss bank accounts" would now be going back into the economy.
We've been known to tackle and work through seemingly impossible tasks in the past, sending people to the moon and building up missile systems fit to vaporize the Soviet Union during the Cold War. I think Africa is something that needs to be tackled full force at the global scale, anything less won't work, the problem is simply too big.
This is obviously not entirely thought out, but a strategy that might work. It starts with the want from the developed world to honestly help the developing world. The solution is there and it is possible to turn Africa around, all it takes is serious commitment from the nations who have the ability and resource to help.
I hope this provides some understanding as to how I'd approach things. What do you think...?
I agree totally that corruption is one of the main causes for the African continent state of being. The idea to create a new system of democracy to battle this problem is indeed interesting. However, I believe there are a few flaws to the argument that a new form of democracy will solve the continent's problems. Is democracy the best way to govern a nation ? History has shown that past democratic societies and civilizations, e.g. the Athenians, have collapsed as the years have gone by. The United States is a democratic society yet; it is still plagued by some incidents of scandals and corruption. Greed is an unfortunate inherent attribute of human beings.
The solution to the African problem of corruption indeed must come from within, yet must have some degree of international assistance in the initial stages. African countries need to create watchdog organizations that will monitor government expenditure in public sector.
Due to the advent of multi-party politics on the African continent, political are becoming the watchdogs of corruption. The parties in opposition are constantly waging a war against unnecessary government expenditure. The establishment of private media organizations is helping to put a spotlight on the malfeasance of corrupt government officials.
Jon,
Interesting questions. Personally, I feel that if enough pressure is put on someone, even the strongest of politcians, change can be made. So, yes, I think that if enough pressure is put on the corrupt leaders of Africa to change their ways, I think corruption can be controlled. How this pressure will be pushed on them is another question. I tried to suggest large, unprecedented international involvement as a solution. Although maybe not the ultimate solution, I think it's a good place to start. If the international community puts in a serious effort to rid Africa of its corruption, not only would Africa benefit, but the international community would also indirectly recognize its own corruption.
If stability is actually anchieved and backed by the citizens of these African countries, I think that a solid judicial system and government infrastructure can control corruption. It may not completely eliminate it, but it will reduce it. After all, it is impossible to completely rid the world of corruption. Once a human reaches that sort of high power, self interest, on way or another, large scale or small, will have some sort of influence on decisions.
I agree with Matt in that if enough pressure is put on politicians, they will conform to the rules. However, I am not sure if international pressure is the right thing to do because I think that the rest of the world has created too many problems for Africa. From the slave trade- to colonialism- to exploitation from MNCs- to failed Structural Adjustment Programs- the international community should stay out of Africa's problems unless asked for help.
Yes, given a lot of work and effort, the international community probably does have the power to impose some kind of system to prevent corruption. But even then, would Africans find legitimacy in the new system because it was imposed by "foreigners"? I think the only way Africans will ever accept the legitimacy of a system would be if they were the ones to create it.
-Kristy G
Kristy G,
Good point. The West has placed, as you listed, many problems in Africa, and, if we don't modify the way we "give" our help to more African terms, then more problems will arise. Tonight I went and listened to Paul Rusesabagina speak. He wants the West to listen and learn of the problems in Africa and help, not by throwing money at corrupt governments in hopes of it actually doing good, or with the expectation of gaining oil or some other resource, but out of the concern that people are suffering and need help, to help based on the concern for our fellow Man. I still maintain the belief that if the West opened up its eyes to the situation in Africa, then we would be able to help out in such a way, different from the past, that wouldn't lead to the historical problems seen and the reprocutions experienced today.
Matt Colip,
You say that "if the West opened up its eyes to the situation in Africa," we would realize that there is a different way to help. Through your experiences in Africa, what opened your eyes the most about the African situation and how it relates to how you view the West should help Africa?
-Kristy G
Post a Comment