Ghana’s Corruption Solutions?

Dr Freda Owusu

In the wake of the Anas revelations about corruption in various sectors of Ghanaian society,

there is discomfort and lack of trust in the ‘system’, and this is not a good place to be.

However, there is hope. Hope that in identifying the roots of corruption, we can take steps,

first to reduce, and eventually to eradicate it. There are laws on bribery and corruption, but

it still goes on, which suggests that the law alone does not work in this instance. So what

indeed is corruption, and how can we begin to root it out?

Corruption in this regard is the misuse of power and/or public resources for personal gain.

Defined in this way, I submit that corruption is endemic in our society partly because it is

overlooked at key levels, from the personal through to ‘top’ levels. Its seeds are innocent

enough, and are wrapped up in some of our social practices and traditions. Corruption can

be addressed at three levels: personal, traditional and formal or official.

First, the personal: one of the findings of my research (conducted among Ghanaians and

Nigerians in Britain who send money home) suggests that at the personal level, from the

extended family unit upwards, it is becoming increasingly difficult to show that you care

about someone without some form of material giving or ‘gifting’ to that person. When your

capacity or willingness to continue to give disappears, so can the relationship. Personal

gifting can take the form of giving or being expected to give in future, time, service and

other resources. Such practices are not unique to Ghanaians or bad in themselves, but hear

me out. The flip side of this practice is that without money, time or other resources it is

difficult, sometimes impossible, to show that you care about someone or that someone is

important to you, or even important, period. And without demonstrating that you care,

there is often no obligation for the other person to do anything for you, listen to you, obey

or even acknowledge you. It is therefore possible to lose legitimacy and power in that

relationship if you are unable or unwilling to ‘gift.’ It is difficult to build a healthy and

transparent society on this “hand go, hand come” basis, because when gifting is transferred

to the formal or official arena, it is called corruption.

Secondly, many of our traditional practices reflect this ‘gifting’ through life events. Gifting

starts from the birth of a baby, signified through increasingly elaborate naming ceremonies

or ‘outdoorings’, engagements and big weddings, to ridiculously expensive funerals at the

other end. In many cases gifts may also be announced, making it difficult for the gift to be

small without causing shame for the giver. Again these practices are neither unique to

Ghana nor bad in themselves, except in the ways in which these events have become

commercialised, often putting pressure on both the families concerned (to spend in

anticipation of donations) and event attendees (to give impressively). The social importance

of traditional events such as funerals means that they also act as a gateway between the

informal and the formal economy. For example, the funeral of the mother of a judge,

government official or bank manager is sure to attract both colleagues and clients in a

setting where receipted donations (“nsaa”) are the norm. It is also considered proper for the

family of the celebrant, in this example the judge, official or bank manager, to call or

personally visit donors to express the family’s thanks for donations given. Although social

norms also dictate that ‘business’ is not discussed under such circumstances, it is reasonable

to expect a person to remember a large donation when considering a case, tender or loan

application. Thus non-anonymous giving associated with traditional institutions such as

funerals can act as a gateway or link for blurring the lines between formal and informal

activities, which can have a corrupting influence upon economic transactions.

Thirdly, these gifting links bubble upwards and outwards from personal level, through

traditional and religious practices to business, and to government institutions at different

levels. It is mainly called bribery and corruption when ‘gifts’ are given to an official doing his

or her job, and is caught. Corruption in officialdom is well documented, and so will not be

discussed here. It is important to note however, that successive governments in general not

paying living wages and salaries, not paying employees regularly and on time adds to

corruption in terms of providing a kind of justification.

But how do we root out corruption? It is essential that this notion of ‘gifting’ that starts

from family life through to traditional practices and formal institutions, be questioned and

addressed, if we are serious about rooting out corruption. Each key aspect of our lives

needs to be considered – personal and family relationships, traditional and religious

practices, and formal institutions. Here are a few suggestions that can be considered – I am

sure there are many others. What is important is for us to look in the mirror and determine

what has to change at each level in order for us to move forward.

From the top down government now and in future needs to set a good example by paying

its employees well, paying them regularly and paying on time. Having done that, hard

decisions may need to be made in terms of physical office design – by moving towards open

offices, considering systems such as ‘hot desking’, and removing the need for stamped and

signed documentation, unless critical. It is important to ask here what type of economy

would emerge if we made it easy for people to interact with government without an official

somewhere stamping or signing a form. Making complete ‘mini-government’ offices

available in each town will also reduce the need for people to travel to Accra and other

major cities for documentation, which is inefficient and can contribute to corruption.

Traditional and religious leaders can play their part by ensuring that social events such as

out-doorings or naming ceremonies, weddings and funerals are conducted with the original

intended meanings, and not the commercialised versions that are currently in vogue. For

example, the chieftaincy can determine the types of funerals that can be held in their local

areas, ensuring that costs are kept low, including early burials. There are already good

examples in some places where funerals are held jointly, or where food and drinks are

discouraged, except water. In the key area of funeral donations, perhaps if a fixed, modest

amount was set, the excessive monies spent by some families on funerals would reduce

accordingly. There are key questions that need to be asked here: if there were no donations,

would we have the same kinds of social events? Would the nature of traditional religions

and of chieftaincy change if ‘gifts’ were limited to eggs, yams and cola nuts, and not sheep,

schnapps and money? What kind of religious institutions would we have if most of the

monies collected were distributed back to the faithful in need?

Change also has to come from us as individuals considering our attitudes and behaviour in

terms of our expectations of ‘gifting’ as a way of showing that we care about or appreciate

others. Such change will not come easily, and may be contested every step of the way,

because there is so much investment in the status quo. But the alternative is equally

frightening: do we want to continue in a society where no one can be trusted, where

nothing is at it seems (because without “gifting” there are often no results), and where

hidden transaction costs continue to rise, and eventually nothing works? The choices are

there for us to make. What do you think?

Dr F Owusu

Freda.infoplus@gmail.com