For
much of the week, apart from the dirges on Africa’s preeminent
statesman, Nelson Mandela, corruption, on both the social and mainstream
media, occupied prime place. There was last week’s poor showing of
Nigeria on the Transparency International Report for 2013. The global
civil society organisation which has published corruption perception
indices for countries around the world since 1995, rated Nigeria in the
bottom league position of 144 out of 177 countries researched, a
regression from last year’s ranking when Nigeria was 124th out of 177
countries examined. TI buttressed its score by commenting that only a
very small elite appropriates the benefits of Nigeria’s oil resources.
Following on the heels of that
international indictment were the comments made by the Speaker of the
House of Representatives, Aminu Tambuwal, on Monday at an event
organised by the Nigerian Bar Association to mark the 2013 International
Anti-Corruption Day. Tambuwal came down hard on President Goodluck
Jonathan whom he accused of encouraging corruption by his body
language. Taking the reference to “body language” too literally,
presidential spokesman, Dr. Reuben Abati, sought to carpet Tambuwal by
wondering whether he had become a sorcerer who is adept at decoding
other people’s body languages.
There is of course a bit of politics
mirroring the ongoing shenanigans around 2015 in all of these
sharp-tenored exchanges. Tambuwal, if we apply his framework and read
his body language, although he belongs to the ruling People’s Democratic
Party openly hobnobs with the All Progressives Congress and may
eventually emerge in a prime position within that party in the
foreseeable future. Even if he does not join the opposition, he has
increased the bargaining ante by his posture and may simply dictate his
terms should he decide to remain within the PDP.
On another note, Tambuwal’s open rebuke
of Jonathan is an expression of the fractious circumstance within the
PDP, in part conveying regionalist resentment of Jonathan’s second term
bid; in part manifesting impatience with Jonathan’s slow pace of
governance and his irresolution in dealing with political corruption,
except in instances where his political opponents are fingered.
We need to clear the political
underbrush so that the real issue, governmental corruption can come into
full focus. But just before zeroing on that, let us put the discussion
in global context by recalling that, as TI noted, the fact that
two-thirds of the countries rated have a score below 50 out of possible
100 is a telling reminder that “abuse of power, secret dealing and
bribery continue to ravage societies around the world.” In the same
breath, while suggesting that transparency of governmental conduct and
processes account for the high scores of impressive performers, TI
correctly noted that even in these countries, there are challenges
around campaign financing, the oversight of big public contracts and
state capture. The increasing globalisation of corruption, arising, in
my opinion, from the unleashing of neoliberal tendencies, as well as the
recession of purposeful leadership suggest that there are no magic
therapies for the major public sector virus of the 21st century.
Having said that however, both TI and
Tambuwal’s remarks on Nigeria suggest that we are losing the war, if
ever there was a war under Jonathan, against corruption. It is
appropriate therefore that we should ask questions of our leaders as to
why they have done little or nothing to roll back the surging tide of
public sector corruption. To be sure, Jonathan did not invent
corruption; but it is not just his body language as Tambuwal complained
but even his utterances that indicate that he does not appear to see it
as a problem.
For example, on one occasion, he went on
record as saying that what Nigeria required was not a war on corruption
but a “change of attitude.” Jonathan went on to say, rather
confusingly, that most of what Nigerians call corruption are not in fact
corruption. If the President still harbours doubts as to what
constitutes corruption, the rule of thumb definition of corruption by TI
as “abuse of entrusted power for private gain which eventually hurts
everyone who depends on the integrity of people” should suffice for
purposes of his much-awaited war on corruption.
To return to the concept of body
language, it should be clear that since TI arrives at its rankings by
collating perceptions, there must be a relationship between some of
Jonathan’s actions, like the state pardon of Diepreye Alameiyeseigha, a
former Bayelsa State governor, an action widely condemned in the
international media and the evaluation of Nigeria as a criminalised
political space. The other concrete instances cited by Tambuwal such as
the tactical dumping of probes on the oil subsidy; the Security
Exchange Commission scams; as well as the recent Oduahgate also
tend to suggest that at the rate we are going, Nigeria may cascade
further down the bottom league in its corruption rating next year and
beyond.
Worse still, our position as continental
leader will be increasingly mocked by the emergence of morally superior
and relatively free corruption destinations such as Botswana, Cape
Verde, Rwanda and Ghana among others. These are countries which are
increasingly perceived by several global ratings as possessing moral
stamina which is a form of soft power in contrast to Nigeria’s squalour.
This needs not be the case however. The
story of Hong Kong’s ascendancy from one of the most corrupt countries
in the world into an investment hub perceived as one of the most
corruption-free countries on the globe is a metaphor of what can happen
should Jonathan and the political leadership including Tambuwal decide
to part ways with our reprobate political culture and begin a
sanitisation of the system in earnest.
Hong Kong’s miracle which places it
ahead of countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom on
the Corruption Perception Index did not happen without mass street
protests, the setting up of an independent commission against corruption
with wide powers of investigation as well as what has been described as
“tough and decisive enforcement to restore public confidence”. This is a
far cry from what we have in Nigeria today where the Economic and
Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and
other related offences Commission exist only as ceremonial institutions
and where, as Tambuwal observed, high profile protection rackets of the
manifestly guilty are fast becoming the order of the day.
As this columnist argued on a previous
occasion, it is not enough for anti-corruption politicians to castigate
the Presidency; they must demonstrate by their deeds that they are truly
against corruption. The issues raised by Tambuwal germane as they are
also come back to haunt him since the National Assembly, especially the
House of Representatives he presides magisterially, is often perceived
as a theatre of bribery and scams of every stripe. Tambuwal to be
consistent should begin his reformism at that level in order to lend
more credibility to his criticisms of Jonathan. The same logic ought to
apply to the states and local governments where corruption and the fight
against it do not even feature in their political vocabulary.
Finally, civil society organisations and
the media should increase their surveillance on the conduct of our
elected officials and demand real reforms as opposed to the current
pretended struggle against corruption.Culled from Punch Editorial Page
No comments:
Post a Comment