The Politics of Corruption or the Corruption of Politics is Helping Nobody in Ghana
By Samwin J Banienuba
Corruption is not peculiar to Africa but the extent to which it seems crudely deadly to many societies and economies in the continent is what horrifies and gives it the headlines. The mention of Mobutu Sese Seko of former Zaire now DR Congo, Jean Bedél Bokassa of Central African Republic and Sani Abacha of Nigeria alone puts African corruption in perspective but, sadly, not in the past. African countries continue to dominate the bottom pile of corruption surveys with incalculable damages to societies and economies. The willingness to bribe and be bribed is a ball game that raises few eyebrows and fewer punitive actions. It is underlined by this obscene sense of entitlement from persons in authority complemented by a lewd mindset of everyone else to meet that entitlement. While some have blamed poverty or poor remunerations for corruption; others have blamed corruption for poverty and poor remunerations.
Africa has obviously moved on from the age and scars of the likes of Mobutu, Bokassa and Abacha, and in comparative terms Ghana has never really fared that badly in corruption or indices of corruption. Even though it has undoubtedly suffered its fair share of the canker the loud talk of corruption today in the country is one of the most frightening albeit encouraging piece of discourse. It is frightening because of the sense, if not panic, it creates that politics is one big fat milk cow and the powers that be are milkmen and women in it for graft and greed. Nothing else matters as long as individual pockets are lined for funding personal tastes and interests. Alarmingly, the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, the national institution mandated for keeping corruption in check, has itself come under public indictment for abuse of the public purse and for which the boss is under investigations.
In a country that prides itself on armed forces ‘revolutions’ where the blood of the ‘corrupt’ once flowed, it is worrying that incumbent accountability still appears painfully missing in the character of public office. It becomes all the more frightening with suggestions that the Chief Executive Officer of the country looks the other way whilst the pillage continues almost deliberately. ‘You don’t care’ are the vexed words in which the Secretary General of one opposition party is said to have recently summed up the attitude of the Executive. And yet the antecedent of the governing party is better remembered by its twin principles of probity and accountability, accolades that are supposed to anchor the social-democratic ideology of the successor party.
The encouraging bit is the high levels of consciousness the discourse indicates. There could be no better institution for holding public officers accountable than the very public they are meant to serve. For such public to be able to exercise normative or credible constraint on officers, consciousness is a good starting point especially when bereft of the politicisation that has often interfered with debates in the country. This is the real difficulty with the politics of corruption in Ghana where the political elite and their ‘foot soldiers’ like to massage every piece of information for propaganda and equalisation rather than for genuine fight in the national interest. It becomes the corruption of politics when they begin promising to restore integrity to governance as if they have never been contributory to the loss of that integrity.
As Mother Teresa is reported to have once said, the beautiful thing about poverty is that it is discussed by men in expensive suits and ties. I trust Mother Teresa never for once doubted the role and importance of ordinary people like her humble self doing extraordinary things to alleviate poverty. Neither do I have any reason to believe that she doubted the integrity of all men in expensive suits and ties caught up in the search for panacea to poverty. Still, I can imagine Mother Teresa thinking then, knowing, as we all do, of the conference type discussions where the crème de la crème of society often converge, all rich in ideas, as they are in wealth, chatting away animated concerns of poverty and how to alleviate or eradicate it amidst the not too all non-typical scenery of deluxe coffee from golden mugs, exclusive wines from the finest vintages and expensive caviar of the beluga sturgeon type.
The irony of Mother Teresa’s statement and the possible sanctimony it connotes cannot be lost in discussions of corruption where the corrupt and corruptible also happen to be the political elite most vocal in public discourse against it. If they applied half the same zeal and resolve to dealing with corruption in governance as they do from opposition platforms the politics of corruption could very easily cease corrupting politics. Not too long ago for instance we heard of ‘zero tolerance to corruption’, a campaign mantra that possibly contributed to the Midas touch of sweeping the then opposition National Patriotic Party (NPP) to power in 2000, brushing the ruling National Democratic Congress (NDC) aside and consigning them to a taste of eight years of opposition.
Under the zero tolerance policy Ministers of State and other public officers under the previous NDC regime were very quickly and controversially hounded and arraigned before novel fast track courts for causing financial loss to the state, a Ghanaian euphemism for gargantuan corruption. When one of the accused memorably challenged the legality of these new courts and won, the new Chief Executive Officer and Commander-in-Chief of the country stepped in and also memorably packed the Supreme Court with judges ideologically aligned to his conservative politics and zero tolerance agenda. With the new permutation thus created the earlier verdict was reversed and the accused jailed to the relief of the NPP and the angst of the NDC.
If Ghanaians thought they were going to witness a civilian version of the military house cleaning exercise of the late ‘70s or early ‘80s they were right. The shock of it was colossal with little or no therapy. It did not take too long before stories and allegations began to emerge of kickbacks in the highest echelons of the ruling party, of the renovation of the private house of the President in not too transparent circumstances, of a hotel next door acquired by his family under equally murky circumstances, of billions of cedis diverted from HIPC and TOR debt recovery funds into paying for the communication strategy of the party, of Ministers of State grabbing and sharing state lands and estates like toys at Christmas, of an outgoing Speaker of Parliament looting his official residence ‘well well’ in the full glare of institutions meant to gate keep national assets, and of listless many others that combined to dim the light on the credibility of zero tolerance.
Within a spell, it became a bit too difficult even for the government to locate the folder in which they filed their own policy of zero tolerance. Instead they appeared befuddled as the President helplessly suggested inability to investigate and fight corruption. He challenged the public to do the job for him and repeatedly called on anyone with evidence to speak up or shut up. His eventual famous or infamous admission that corruption is as old as Adam and that his government was helpless in the face of daily temptations finally nailed public confidence in the coffin of zero tolerance. Or, at least, the President, by so saying, had thrown in the towel and turned off whatever remained of the light on the policy. If corruption fatigue was a contributory factor to crowning of the NPP in 2000, corruption ‘wahala’ helped dethrone them in 2008.
Perception of corruption very often focuses on the public sector and rightly so. The civil service, the security services (the Police in particular), the health sector, the judiciary, revenue and customs departments and almost all those who draw incomes from the public kitty naturally come under the scrutinising radar of tax payers, civil society organisations, investigative journalism and advocacy professionals amongst many others. Professionals within public sector institutions all command levels of varying influence by virtue of their positions and stations in society. The abuse of those positions for private gain is what amounts to corruption while the degree of perception of such abuse determines the corruption index of a country or for that matter a society.
Ultimately, however, it is the people entrusted with political office that are generally answerable for making corruption an attractive or unattractive prospect. Maybe, the Executive will be seen to care when he cracks the whip on the corrupt, but the history of Ghana also suggests punitive measures alone have never sufficed in any fight against corruption. It will take lots of education to make it dishonourable and that education must begin early at homes, in schools, in the churches and in the mosques. A combination of the punitive with the preventive could then add up to making corruption unattractive.
For that to happen those elected to the high offices of homeland Ghana do not have to die poor like Kwame Nkrumah, Hilla Limann or Atta Mills in more recent times but living up to their incorruptible character is a serious call to duty that only serious men and women should dare to answer. After all, corruption does not have to be our cross or the label of those in public office. Politicians across board have to put Ghana first and elevate anti-corruption beyond the usual propaganda and equalisation. Until then, the politics of corruption will continue to corrupt our politics and leave us the poorer for it as a nation.
The Writer is Freelance International Relations Analyst and Political Commentator
