Many of us think we know what corruption is or looks like; such as for instance, a cabinet minister digging his dirty fingers in the treasury and amassing ill-gotten wealth, an illicit deal carried out by politician(s) or purchasing a P46 000.00 fridge and P300 000.00 furniture, a government official or civil servants taking a cut in a deal, a policeman harassing and or conspiring with perpetrators or non perpetrators demanding and soliciting bribes by one way or the other.
In Botswana corruption has existed since the last four decades, however, much has not been written about it. This has thus earned Botswana’s government a reputation for “clean” governance of public resources and is often seen as a haven of prosperity and stability in a region full of economic and political misery. A survey on the literature of the corruption tsunami that swept across the country in the 1980s ÔÇô 1990s, during Masire and Mogae’s administration, however, portrays as an illusion the many accolades the country has received.
The volcanic eruption of the corruption scandals that rocked the country in the 1990s marked the beginning of the cancerous pandemic (corruption) that is often labeled as the “Aids of democracy’. The deported Professor of Political Science at the University of Botswana (UB), Kenneth Good chronicled these systemic corruption scandals that rocked the country.
Corruption has however, continued to raise its ugly head even under President Ian Khama’s leadership. This dramatic rise in corruption under Ian Khama is however, ironic since he came to power largely on anti corruption campaign platform.
It is on the basis of the foregoing that I would want to focus on Professor Prempeh’s analysis on what motivates corruption and what mechanisms can be put in place to curb it. In his previous offering on corruption, Prempeh alleged that politics is now business and has thus indirectly sidelined persons with intelligence and ability to govern and replaced with substandard leaders. Prempeh explained that, persons who are appointed into positions should have contributed financially or through unscrupulous means. As to whether, this holds in the case of Botswana especially with the emergence of tenderpreneurs, is something that calls for thorough examination and analysis.
In his latest offering, Prempeh presents a very useful tool / analogy and one that can be used and tested in the design of effective methods of curbing corruption. In providing a simple way of looking at corruption, Prempeh reduces it to an equation: It is this equation presented by Prempeh that I would want to examine and make an assessment as to whether the recent wave of alleged corruption scandalous can be equated to the corruption tsunami of the 80s and 90s (part 2, of this article will un pack this)
Prempeh’s equation on what motivates corruption:
“C = (M x O)/S, where C = magnitude of corruption, M = “motive” for corruption, O = “opportunity” for corruption, and S = magnitude and certainty of sanctions against corruption.
So, M represents the factors that drive, motivate, push, or cause us to want to engage in a corrupt act. Prempeh’s premise is that being human, in of itself, ensures that M will never be zero, but the actual size of M is affected by other things like personal and social values, pressure of financial responsibility, lifestyle demands, etc. In other words, M is the demand side of corruption: what might cause A to be corrupt but not B. “O” or opportunity represents the supply side of corruption; what conditions and factors serve as the enablers of corruption; the factors that make it possible or enable a corrupt act to be done with ease or with little difficulty. Prempeh counts within O such factors as the amount of discretionary power vested in a decision-maker, how much transparency or openness surrounds the making of a decision, whether the decision-maker is a sole decision-maker or one of many with the same responsibility, how much controls or checks and balances are there, the avenues for holding the decision-maker accountable etc. In sum, M represents the pressures or motivations within and around the individual that might “push” them to do a corrupt act; while O represents the workplace conditions, institutional arrangements, and other job-related factors that serve as a “pull” or external enabler of corruption.
Prempeh’s basic proposition is that corruption, C, is caused by the interaction of both M and O; corruption cannot occur unless both M and O are present. Prempeh believes that while a certain amount of M is inevitable in any human society, it is the level of O that, more so than the M, explains the magnitude of C or the different magnitudes of C between two different societies. Prempeh states that too much O in a given society will, in the end, start to drive the M up; in a sense, the supply of corruption opportunities, if not contained, will, over time, cause the demand for corruption to go up. In other words, when it becomes so easy to do a corrupt act, even those who may not be personally inclined to be corrupt may end up joining the game.
Prempeh further stated that part of the problem with corruption in Africa is that, while we definitely have problems with M, the O is way too much: too much opportunity for corruption (too much power and discretion in the hands of individuals in responsible positions, too little transparency and little to no accountability), which in the end comes back to drive up the M, creating a vicious circle of corruption.
The divisor S in Prempeh’s equation represents sanctions, both the degree and the certainty of it. The level of S determines whether the person contemplating a corrupt act would consider it worth the risk; in order words, S affects the cost/benefit analysis of the corrupt official. If S is low (if the penalties for corruption or the risk of such penalties being applied are low or minimal), then S will have little effect on the magnitude of C. Conversely, if S is high, then C will be correspondingly lower than otherwise.
In Prempeh’s view, O and S are the places we must focus if we are to have any chance of reducing corruption. Reducing O and raising S should be where we must focus policy attention.. It would be great, too, to get M down, but M is the toughest to change directly by policy because it concerns matters often personal to the individual or societal or cultural. The only factor affecting M that governments can do something about is levels of real incomes, but that too depends on a strong and growing economy that creates decent paying jobs for most citizens–not easy things to do in a poor country.
Prempeh concluded , by stating that corruption is high in Africa not because we are inherently less moral people than any other, though poverty and other cultural factors do push M up in our parts, but, above all, it is the levels of O (high) and S (low) that are simply too favorable to corruption. This is why he thinks attacking corruption through moral crusades — which at best affect only a part of M — is bound to be futile, as long as O and S remain where they are
Food for thought!!!
