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
