Corruption: Hitting High and Wide, Hard and Soft

As South Africa moves towards its first-ever national anti-corruption summit, the question in many minds is whether something concrete and effective will emerge from the meeting and the concurrent process of developing and implementing an adequate strategy. All indications are that the managers of the process are intent on bringing about concrete and practical results. Without attempting to be exhaustive, this article is intended as a contribution in furthering this endeavour.

A first step towards this practical goal would be to ask the question, what is corruption? If a problem is understood in a limited way the solution or policy and strategy will as a consequence also be limited.

Corruption is generally understood to be a problem specific to the public sector, with particular emphasis on well-known forms such as bribery and extortion. This understanding of the problem is prevalent and dominant both in South Africa and internationally.

Corruption as a societal problem

This popular understanding of corruption is being challenged by suggesting that corruption should be viewed and addressed as a much more complex societal problem.

Generally speaking, corruption is a problem situated in areas of power and power relations, particularly in the area of public power and public power relations. Public power should not, however, only refer to the power exercised in the public sector by politicians, public officials, political parties, structures and policies. Publics can range from a small family unit to the global community, future generations and the environment. Public power and responsibility is implemented by individuals, groups or systems towards different publics. The dynamics of public power range from the attitudes and actions of individuals to the aims and effects of global systems. Public power is exercised in the public sector, the private sector, civil society at large and organs of civil society. Public power should ultimately be exercised for the well-being of the relevant public.

Corruption is generally understood to be the abuse of public power for private or sectional gain. It is implied that public power is abused (by design or by default) at the expense of the relevant public or area of responsibility. As such, the relevant public becomes the victim of corruption (an aspect often neglected in the development of anti-corruption policy and strategy).

Viewed from this perspective, corruption must be understood and addressed as a complex societal problem. If not, zones of comfort for the abuse of public power are being created. Anti-corruption strategies which do not take into account the complex nature of the problem must be viewed with suspicion. South Africa, with its history and legacy of colonialism and apartheid and being newly situated in a context of globalisation, will justifiably be regarded as myopic and suffering from collective amnesia if we continue narrowly to understand and address corruption.

Combating corruption collectively

The next practical question is: How should corruption be approached, as viewed from this perspective?

It is suggested that a broad and interactive (long, medium and short term) strategy of integrity be developed. Such a strategy could be implemented and maintained through the functioning and management of a system of integrity. An integrity system would affect the exercising of public power in different sectors (i.e. public and private sectors and in civil society) and on different levels such as personal, community, provincial, national and beyond.

A system of integrity would have three main components:

Regulatory frameworks establishing or promoting integrity (personal and societal values) and good governance in the different sectors and applicable to different levels as indicated (e.g. constitution, laws, regulations, policies, procedures, codes of conduct).



Institutional/statutory mechanisms ensuring decision making, monitoring and implementation, evaluation/revision of regulatory frameworks (e.g. parliaments, councils, independent statutory bodies, departments, the judicial system). Such mechanisms are established to ensure that care is taken for the proper management of integrity and good governance within organisations, but also in society at large.



Informal (non-statutory) bodies and networks consisting of a variety of role players and actors in the public and private sector and organs of civil society (e.g. individuals, political parties, media, sports bodies, watchdog bodies, NGOs, CBOs, forums, research institutions).

It should be clear that within these theoretical parameters and strategic frameworks there is a place and role for a wide variety of role players and mechanisms to each make its contribution towards addressing the abuse of public power. No single role player can address the problem sufficiently and adequately on his own. Combating corruption is a collective and sustained effort.

Theoretically, the mode of managing this strategy could range from being very formal (e.g. a formally appointed anti-corruption body with a variety of powers and functions) or semi-formal (e.g. a structure such as a forum where different interests, sectors and role players meet to ensure co-operation and improvement of an integrity strategy) to informal (i.e. whereby different role players are acting out their respective responsibilities with or without consultation with others). Obviously, some combination of these options is also possible.

It is hoped that the National Anti-Corruption Summit will be one deciding moment in a process of developing an integrity strategy against corruption which will effectively hit high, wide and deep, both hard and soft. The nature and extent of the problem requires it and the victims of corruption should expect nothing less.

Stiaan van der Merwe,
Transparency International
South Africa