Chapter 5

Government Responses to Corruption

What is government doing to fight corruption? How effective are government responses in the fight against corruption? How can effectiveness be measured, particularly when the magnitude of the problem is not known? These are just some of the questions emerging in an attempt to evaluate the responses of governments to corruption.

Corruption has long been a characteristic of the South African public service. However, there is a widespread perception that corruption has increased during the period of political and economical transition which commenced in 1994. Particularly in the last three years, numerous anti-corruption programmes and projects have been put in place by the government, in line with international policies, where addressing corruption focuses on:

promoting accountability, transparency and the rule of law;



the practice of good governance;



a free press to report forcefully to the public on corrupt practices; and



the establishment of government watchdog agencies to identify corrupt practices and bring them to the public attention.

In South Africa, a number of initiatives to fight corruption, lead by the government, have been established. In his first state of the nation address in June 1999, President Mbeki spoke extensively about the issue of corruption and reiterated the commitment of the South African government to honesty, transparency and accountability and its determination to act against anybody who transgresses these norms. He highlighted the importance of enacting the Protected Disclosures Act, which provides for the protection of whistle blowers, and the coming into force of the Public Finance Management Act to ensure the proper control of and accountability with regard to public finances. Steps were also taken to enforce the code of conduct in the public service, as well as to implement the proposals that emerged from the anti-corruption conferences held in November 1998, April 1999 and October 1999.

It is within this context that the expert respondents were questioned about the government’s responses to corruption. In particular, perceptions were explored of the government’s handling of corruption, what was being done right and wrong, and specific opinions on the government’s seriousness in committing itself to fight corruption. In addition, resource allocation for the fight against corruption, as well as the appropriate sentencing of perpetrators were also analysed.

Perceptions of government effectiveness

Recognising that a number of initiatives have been put in place recently by the government to fight corruption, experts were asked how well they thought the government was handling the matter of corruption.

More than a half (53%) of the experts believed that the government was handling the fight against corruption fairly well, while a third (34%) felt that it was not doing very well (table 12). A mere 6% of experts felt that it was either doing very well or not well at all. More blacks (59%) than whites (48%) thought the government was handling corruption fairly well. Whites (41%) were more likely than blacks (26%) to think that the government was not handling the fight against corruption very well.

Of those who thought that the government was doing well, the majority (67%) were employed in the public sector, followed by the NGO or civil society sector. Conversely, of those who thought that the government was not faring well at all, almost half (44%) were employed in the NGO or civil society sector, and a third (33%) in the private sector.

Other relevant research findings

During the Opinion ’99 Project, two items related to corruption were placed among a larger set of questions that asked people how well the government was performing on a wide range of activities. In April 1999, 44% of respondents felt that the government was doing its job well or very well to control official corruption (a substantial increase from the 26% who had said so in September 1998). By the end of the election campaign, 55% approved of the job the government had done in maintaining democratic transparency and accountability (compared to 31% in September 1998). The degree to which these responses were a reflection of actual government performance, or the result of a very successful ANC election campaign, is uncertain.

Analysis

It is encouraging that the majority of experts (almost 60%) believed that the government was doing very to fairly well in terms of fighting corruption. Interestingly, public sector officials and black respondents were the most likely to hold this opinion. It could be argued that representatives from the public sector at the various anti-corruption conferences from whom the sample was drawn, have a particular interest and stake in government policies to fight corruption and are therefore likely to defend them. Almost 40% of the experts thought that the government was not doing very or well in fighting corruption, with whites significantly more likely to hold this view. This may be a reflection of expectations of how the government should be responding to corruption. The questionnaire attempted to probe these opinions by asking what the government was doing right and wrong in its responses to corruption. It is thought that these responses may be particularly useful for policy makers.

What government is doing right

Experts were asked, in their opinion, what the government was doing right in the fight against corruption.

There were just over 50 types of responses to this question. These have been clustered into several main areas for purposes of analysis:

greater awareness of and transparency about the problem;

strengthening anti-corruption bodies and the criminal justice system;

putting anti-corruption strategies in place;

demonstrable political commitment to tackle the problem;

improving checks and controls within the public sector; and

adopting a cross-sectoral participatory approach to corruption.

The responses within each of these main categories are detailed in figure 13.

Greater awareness and transparency: According to the experts, the government was creating more awareness, openness, accessibility and transparency around issues of corruption. This includes changing people’s mindsets through positive steps such as exposing corruption when it occurs, publicising and highlighting the problem, including making public announcements, undertaking public campaigns and hosting anti-corruption forums and conferences.



Strengthening anti-corruption bodies and the criminal justice system: The experts perceived that the government was taking steps to strengthen anti-corruption bodies, the criminal justice system and the rule of law. Experts cited the establishment of anti-corruption organisations and watchdog bodies. Particular examples included the Special Investigating Unit, other Special Investigating Units, the Scorpions and the Public Protector’s Office as positive developments in this regard. Establishing commissions of enquiry, empowering the office investigating serious economic offences, and overhauling the police were also seen as positive steps. Improving legislation to fight corruption in order to secure high level prosecutions and the proper follow-up of corrupt officials (n-5), as well as fighting organised crime were highlighted as positive responses in the fight against corruption.



Anti-corruption strategies: Respondents indicated that the formulation of anti-corruption strategies is seen as a positive step in the fight against corruption, including the transformation of government policies and the prioritisation of areas for strategic intervention. Experts recognised that more is required than conference resolutions, although these are being used as a basis for devising national anti-corruption strategies that are effective, cost-efficient and measurable.



Political commitment: Political commitment was cited by respondents as an important positive development in the fight against corruption. In particular, presidential engagement with the problem was highlighted as crucial. Involving senior management and stigmatising the problem were seen as part of political will.



Improving checks and controls: The government was seen by respondents to be improving checks and controls in order to fight corruption more effectively. These include decreasing incentives, more transparency in tenders, improving governance systems, financial controls and procedures. Also, putting codes of conduct in place and toll free numbers to encourage whistle blowers were singled out.



Cross-sectoral participation: According to the experts a strength in the government’s actions to fight corruption is that of cross-sector participation involving NGOs, the youth, business and civil society and other relevant stakeholders.

Analysis

Each of the factors identified by the group of experts are important strengths around which to build a national anti-corruption strategy and are in line with accepted international practice in fighting corruption. In particular, the government’s commitment to address the problem openly is to be welcomed, as well as the participatory approach with which it has embraced all stakeholders and roleplayers. Strengthening the criminal justice system to respond to allegations of corruption in order to conduct both credible investigations and prosecutions is seen as very positive, surpassed only by the open and transparent attitude and approach that have characterised the way in which the government has responded to corruption.

What government is doing wrong

The experts were also asked what they thought the government was doing wrong in fighting corruption. A range of possible answers were provided, including some actual constraints facing the government. For the purposes of analysis, these have been categorised into the following broad responses (figure 14):

ineffective criminal justice responses;



lack of political will;



lack of management expertise and skill;



lack of resources;



absence of cross-sectoral or strategic co-ordination; and



other.



Ineffective criminal justice responses: Experts felt that the government was neither tough nor fast enough, and that there should be less talk and more action when fighting corruption. "Too little too late", was one response. Anti-corruption methods, including existing criminal sanctions, were thought to be ineffective and there were inadequate legal mechanisms. There seemed to be inconsistency in uprooting corruption and insufficient follow-up, as well as preventive methods, which might include publishing prosecutions widely. The inadequate monitoring of agencies was identified as a further weakness in the criminal justice response to corruption.



Lack of political will: This category included responses by experts such as not enough political will demonstrated by the alleged protection of corrupt persons and by sweeping cases under the carpet. This sets a bad example and sends mixed messages. Insufficient attention was paid to corruption as an issue by not highlighting its seriousness, and by not providing enough support to anti-corruption strategies. On the other hand, too much publicity was also cited as something that the government was doing wrong in the fight against corruption.



Lack of management expertise and skills: Poor management systems, and the lack of co-ordination and transformation were seen as problems in the fight against corruption. Uneducated, unqualified people, expertise that was lost to affirmative action and an inexperienced government were also cited as reasons. Not enough research and insufficient financial controls and training compounded the problem, as did a lack of discipline. The absence of whistleblowing mechanisms and the lack of emphasis on training in ethics were also considered to constrain the government in the fight against corruption.



Lack of resources: The inadequate resource allocation in terms of actual resources, as well as the lack of people to fight corruption were cited as shortcomings in the government’s fight against corruption. In particular, the lack of assistance to the commercial branch of the police was cited. The government was also not allocating resources to address the root causes of corruption and there was poor implementation of policies.



Lack of cross-sectoral and strategic co-ordination: Experts felt that there was not enough interaction with civil society. The government was also not listening to the people, and should include NGOs and other sectors in the fight against corruption. Effective strategies to fight corruption were absent, and insufficient prioritisation took place. There was no clear guidance on the public-private interface where much corruption occurred.

Analysis

It can be argued that all the weaknesses in the government’s response to corruption are interlinked to an extent. Ineffective criminal justice responses, for example, are underpinned by a lack of expertise and resource constraints — which are linked, in turn, to political will in terms of the commitment to prioritise this area in the budget. These are all further linked to the general lack of management expertise to tackle the complicated phenomenon of corruption control as an underlying problem.

Two areas, political will and resource allocation, were probed further in the survey. These two factors were identified in the literature as potentially making or breaking anti-corruption efforts. While weaknesses in the criminal justice system may prevent a case from getting to court in the first place, the appropriateness of sanctions should someone be convicted for corruption, was also explored in the survey.

Political will and commitment

Anti-corruption literature confirms that political will and commitment are crucial to any serious attempt to fight corruption. Political will refers to the demonstrated, credible intent of political actors to address an issue seriously. Obviously, political will is a critical starting point for sustainable and effective anti-corruption strategies and programmes. Without this, the government’s statements that it will reform the public service, strengthen transparency and accountability, and reinvent the relationship between government and the private sector, remain mere rhetoric. Does the articulation of a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to corruption demonstrate genuine political will to tackle the problem seriously? Talk of ‘zero tolerance’ towards corrupt practice, if not followed through by concrete action to deal with wrong-doers, may further disillusion those already cynical about the high profile anti-corruption debate.

Experts were asked how committed they thought the government was to fight corruption.

Almost half (49%) of the experts felt that the government was committed to fight corruption, with more than one-third (34%) saying that the government was very committed (table 13). While slightly more than a tenth (12%) of the black respondents felt that the government was not at all, or not very committed to fight corruption, more than a fifth (21%) of the white respondents felt this way. A larger percentage of black respondents also felt that the government was committed or very committed to fight corruption.