Why do many people believe corruption is out of control
despite many prosecutions?
In October, the Anticorruption Court convicted the main
culprits in the theft of pension money. The three men were top officials of the
ministry of public service; including the permanent secretary and the principle
accountants. The story made headlines for two days and died away. Indeed, every
day, there is news of public officials in Uganda being arrested, charged, and
prosecuted or being convicted of corruption. But they don’t make big news. Yet
the media – both traditional and social media – get obsessed with considerably
minor stories and cover them for weeks on end.
Over the last five years, few public officials who have been
embroiled in corruption have not ended in court and better still in prison.
These include a former vice president, top ministers including those closest to
the president, business persons etc. Over this same period about six permanent
secretaries have been indicted and charged in courts of law with corruption. In
fact, if you keep your eye especially on New Vision, there are almost daily
stories of local officials in districts being prosecuted or convicted for
corruption.
Statistically, therefore, it can be seen that the government
of Uganda is fighting corruption. I have not done a statistical audit to
establish how many public officials get charged with corruption, how many are
tried in courts of law, and what percentage gets convicted. But soon I will
assemble comparative data within Uganda over time i.e. comparing the 1990s,
2000s and 2010s and between Uganda and other poor countries.
I suspect there are increasingly more arrests and trials of
the corrupt today than ever before. If my suspicion is right, why do many
people believe that corruption is running out of control at the time when the
Anti-Corruption Court has been most effective in prosecution?
One reason could be that corruption has grown just as its
prosecution has intensified. If this were true, it would suggest that the
returns from corruption are very high and, therefore, many thieves do not mind
spending five years in jail for it.
The other reason is that there is great fatigue with the
Yoweri Museveni administration most especially among the educated strata of
society. Again I do not have scientific data and this is based entirely on my
anecdotal evidence gleaned from reading social media and following traditional
media reports. Anyone who tries to defend Museveni and his government only
invites derision and hostility. I have watched in silent wonderment at why the
Museveni administration does not feel it vital to develop a communications
strategy to improve its public image.
But the most important thing is that Museveni personally
(and his government generally) has treated corruption as a criminal and legal
rather than a political problem. If you follow the President closely, he keeps
saying that he (and his government and political party) first fought extra
judicial killings. He says that was easy to deal with. However, he argues that
corruption is more complicated because now you need more professional people
such as accountants and auditors to detect and prosecute it. And I think the
weakness of the Museveni approach lies here.
The most successful country at fighting corruption in Africa
today is post-genocide Rwanda. There, President Paul Kagame has looked at
corruption not merely as a legal but most critically at a political problem. He
sees it as a threat to the legitimacy of his government, a major stumbling
block to the functioning of the state, especially its ability to deliver public
goods and services to citizens. So he has created a political atmosphere so
hostile to corruption that practically every public official in that country is
scared.
The biggest threat Kagame has created around corruption is
not that when you get caught stealing and/or abusing public funds you will be
arrested, prosecuted and even jailed. That is only a small part of the
punishment. And as we have seen with Uganda, thieves can be content with that
process since they can steal billions, serve a jail term, and return home
comfortably to enjoy their loot. What Kagame has done with corruption is that he
has created an atmosphere of hostility within the society to socially ostracise
the corrupt.
Today, if you are accused of stealing public funds in
Rwanda, you may win the case in a judicial court but the court of public
opinion will punish you more. People will shun you in public. No one will
attend your children’s baptism or your birthday party. You will find few people
willing to visit you at home, leave alone go out to dinner with you.
Practically most people will see you as a dangerous person who tried to cheat
the country. It is like being prosecuted as a child molester in Canada or
Germany. People so prosecuted get socially alienated from the community.
This has been the most important element in Rwanda’s war
against corruption – making those so accused suffer social costs over and above
judicial ones. There is little shame on being corrupt in Uganda. In fact,
public thieves are lionised in our country as it happens in many poor
countries. After serving a jail term and returning to enjoy their billions,
they surround themselves with a large entourage of hangers on, run and win
seats in parliament and continue to enjoy their loot almost as celebrities.
The other lesson is that in Uganda, as in many poor
countries, corruption is the way the system works, not the way it fails. It is
the way governments build an electoral or a governing coalition. It is most
typified by India; perhaps the most successful democracy in a poor country. In
that country, the thieves have a license to rule. It is also the experience of
today’s rich countries when they were still poor. In all these societies,
corruption has been the instrument through which governments are able to
placate the conflicting interests of their often divided, unruly and noisy
elites.
Indeed, democracy tends to reinforce rather than reduce
corruption in poor countries. I must admit even authoritarian governments like
that of Mobutu Sese Seko in former Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo)
acted in similar ways with corruption acting as political currency for regime
maintenance. This almost means that what we see in Rwanda is a unique and
unprecedented experiment i.e. having a government in a poor country basing its
legitimacy on public service as opposed to coopting powerful ethnic and
religious elites using corruption and patronage.
****
amwenda@independent.co.ug
****
editor@independent.co.ug
No comments:
Post a Comment