Is corruption a cultural phenomenon?

Nick Mangwana View from the Diasapora
SOME people say there is a cultural relativism when it comes to corruption. In short, what is being called corruption should not be given a one-size-fits-all definition. The definition should have a cultural context rather than have one culture’s definition imposed upon everyone else. They argue that not every country can use the Western ideals as a standard because it will be difficult to apply to the way they have lived their lives since time immemorial.

Some who hear this type of argument contend that it is an apologia for corruption. To try to see from both sides of the argument, this instalment will try to look at what is advanced by both sides of the divide.

Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president, is a very popular figure in many developing countries football confederations. He overwhelmingly won elections because of votes from Africa, Asia and the Carribeans. This happened because he is one head of international football that gave a lot of developmental money to these confederations. So in spite of every allegation against him, this was their man. They did not want him to go. Were these payments inducements for future votes? Was this corruption?

Zanu-PF recognises and very much values the cultural role of chiefs in the Zimbabwean community. This is unlike other parties that tried so much to have the office of a chief totally abrogated during the constitution-making process.

They cited examples of Kenya which abolished this office in their constitution and Mozambique which also banned traditional authority in 1978. Now, because the chiefs themselves were very much involved in the constitution-making process they know who advocated for them and who did not want their office to see another light of day.

Naturally they are very much likely to have more sympathy towards those they felt were on their side. Further, those that were on their side if they remain in office are likely to continue to respect their office and give them stipends and other perks that go with the value they attach to that office? So there is no price for guessing where their undeclared political sympathy would lie. Could this also be said to be corruption? Of course not.

If this was corruption then all those parties who get part of their funding from trade union contributions and therefore unions vote would be said to be involved in corruption.

If any other country builds a political culture like the US corporate lobbying system then make no mistake that in any other context this would be considered high-end bribery and therefore upmarket corruption. Lobbying is clearly bribery of politicians and bureaucrats but in the American system it is the normal course of business. Removed from that cultural context it becomes pure corruption.

If corruption is defined as an inducement to impair integrity then maybe we are onto something here. Then in that case we have to address the issue of gifts to politicians.

The Bible is full of the phrase “gifts blind”. Traditionally one does not visit a senior member of the community and gets there empty handed. One has to have a token in their hands. That is all cultural. But then if gifts blind, does it not mean that those who carry more valuable and desired gifts would be able to pervert the judgment of this influential person?

Should African people then do away with this type of deference that they have practised over the years to bring themselves in tandem with the accepted Western standard.

The Western powers have managed to arm-twist certain African countries with aid. If, for example, they embrace gay rights or other such reforms which they would normally be disinclined towards accepting they would get this or that aid. Can this be said to be bribery and therefore corruption?

After all, there is an element of inducement, which should always be present in cases of corruption. It has also been witnessed in geo political circles. Countries have been made to vote a certain way in the Security Council after promises of this or that financial inducements (bribery) or removal of this or that aid if they don’t (blackmail). All this meets the definition of corrup- tion.

Now most of the above Western cases of corruption cited are for the advancement of a national cause and not a personal one. What makes the development world to be said to be very corrupt is that its corruption advances only personal causes. People are not employed on the basis of their skill and ability but on the basis of familial relationships. Some of these people perform very poorly therefore retarding progress and development. Civil servants are paid to do their job, and they should do it without expecting an extra payment outside what they are entitled to for the performance of that function.

The power of an office should not be used illegitimately for self-advancement and the negation of all else. In any case there is no evidence that poverty is the one that causes corruption. Rather greed is the primary cause. There is enough empirical evidence to prove that corruption does not occur spontaneously. It is nurtured. Such an environment is cultured slowly and left alone to thrive. The African leadership are wholly responsible for the corruption within their borders. If they wanted to get rid of that corruption they would have strengthened and empowered institutions to do enable this.

We cannot allow ourselves to be desensitised to corruption and take it to as a normal way of doing business or a lifestyle. There should be no cultural relativism when it comes to this decay. Yes we cannot judge our own culture from the perspective of another. That would not make sense but we cannot claim that corruption is our culture.

If it is then we have to change that culture because there aspects of our culture we have already managed to change because they were not in sync with the aspirations of a modern society. And Zimbabwe aspires to be a modern society. We tend to only invoke “our culture” when we feel our vices are being challenged.

It is corruption that causes an inequitable distribution of scarce resources, inefficiencies and wastages. This should not be allowed to continue. The land barons scandal reeks to high heaven. Kudos should be given to Minster Kasukuwere for asking the police to arrest all those involved. We laud such a noble deed. But doesn’t that expose a problem? Did it have to take a minister to ask the police to do their job? Should prejudiced citizens look for an effective and combative minster whenever they want to assert their rights and access justice? The system is there for a reason and it should work for all citizens. If the system works selectively then the system is failing. Not enforcing the law creates a negative stimulus and that negates on development.

They say that corruption increases wherever there is a power distance. Maybe the issue of power distance should be left to be dealt with comprehensively in a different instalment. For now it should be sufficient to say that our nation is rationalising and therefore reinforcing corruption. By so doing corruption gets more and more embedded. Turning a blind eye or not having a negative feedback to corrupt activities tend to perpetuate those activities.

This turns into a culture and challenging it would be considered as eccentric behaviour and yet actually it should be mainstream behaviour. Zimbabwe should never be allowed to degenerate to those depths.

Those who have the power to fight corruption and are not doing it are facilitating it. Public positions should not be used for personal benefits. That is corruption. If not fighting corruption helps the office bearers’ position, then that is not only complicit in corruption but it is corruption itself.

When a certain individual or group uses their political positions to plunder that which belongs to the public, it is called “rent seeking behaviour”. In a normal society interests are always in competition. Personal (parochial) and the common good. There is always an attempt to corrupt the system to serve parochial rather than generic interests. When this is done then a cultural excuse for this behaviour is sought. The greedy few should not be allowed to violate the common good. That is shameful.

There is no positive outcome of corruption. It turns the poor into destitute. Even those who benefit in the short term will suffer in the long term because of the inefficiencies they are creating. The West is very bad, They are also very corrupt. But that is their problem.

Our problem is to give better lives to our people in spite of our detractors. Yes, they are unfair and serve their own interests. But who stopped us from serving our own national interests as they do theirs? Let’s take a little more of the blame and a little less of the credit. That’s what a responsible people do.

Nick Mangwana is chairman Zanu-PF UK Branch