We don’t as nations and continents have to own corruption. It means we don’t have to go out of the way to claim ownership of corruption and corrupt ways of life by sticking the corruption label to ourselves, as if it is a necessary accessory.
African leaders have become aware of this. They say corruption is not an African problem. They are going beyond this pigeon-holing and the delegitimisation of an entire continent with the label corrupt.
The stigma of corruption can have a number of negative consequences. It can discourage foreign investment, make it difficult to attract skilled workers, and undermine public trust in Government. It can also make it more difficult to attract tourists and promote the continent’s culture and heritage because corruption is a stereotype, and it caricatures an entire people.
Changing the narrative about corruption is not easy. It will require African leaders to continue to speak out against the problem, take steps to reduce corruption in their own countries, and highlight the progress that has been made. However, enlightened leaders in the continent know it is an important task that will benefit the entire continent.
SCANDALS
In Kenya they know about the self-deprecating label too well and are closing down loss-making state institutions. President Uhuru Kenyatta closed down several loss-making state institutions and privatised others. They know it’s not corruption but unproductive state entities that keep the economy ailing.
In Malaysia, in Asia, short duration Prime Minister Ismail Sabri Yaakob trying to live down his party’s corruption label announced plans to close down several loss-making State institutions and privatise others. This was part of the Malaysian government’s plan to reduce its budget deficit.
The point is that the West is often complicit in African or Asian corruption.
Western companies and governments have often been involved in corrupt practices in Africa, and in parts of Asia, and there have been scandals such as the one that rocked the former Rajiv Gandhi Government. (For those who forget, it was referred to by the Company name Bofors.)
For example, Western companies have almost routinely bribed African officials to win contracts, and Western governments have turned a blind eye to corruption in Africa in order to protect their own interests.
In a 2018 interview, Rwandan President Paul Kagame said: “Corruption is a problem in all countries. It’s not just an African problem. But the West likes to talk about corruption in Africa as if it’s unique to our continent. This is not true. And it’s not fair.”
But despite all this the dominant narrative wants to make the corruption label stick to African and Asian leaders. Sometimes the levels of corruption in certain developing countries are bad and that’s self-evident. But western countries were as or more corrupt when they were going through that phase of development.
Corruption stuck out like a sore thumb in the United States throughout the 19th century. The Tammany Hall political machine in New York City was notorious for its corruption and graft, and malpractice thrived with a swagger. This machine controlled the city Government for decades, and its leaders used their power to enrich themselves and their cronies.
“As early as 1806–07, revelations of widespread corruption of Tammany city officials resulted in the removal of the controller, the superintendent of the almshouse, the inspector of bread, and other officeholders. Despite such proven charges, many of the removed individuals, including the society’s founder, remained powerful Tammany sachems”, deadpans encyclopaedia Brittanica.
It was not until the early 20th century that the United States began to make serious efforts to address corruption.
The Progressive Era saw the passage of a number of laws and reforms aimed at curbing corruption, such as the Pendleton Civil Service Act and the Interstate Commerce Act. These reforms helped to reduce corruption, but it remains a problem in the United States to this day.
In South Korea the corruption was almost legendary and even though it’s not an African country the West used to document South Korean corruption quite feverishly those days.
The Reader’s Digest ran articles, and the conclusion seemed to be that corruption was endemic in that country, which was portrayed as being beyond redemption.
But as South Korea developed, the country also shed it image of being chronically corrupt.
Even so, corruption rears it’s head in South Korea even today but the country is now developed enough to give the west a good run for its money economically speaking, so nobody dares call the nation corrupt the way they stigmatise African countries. Corruption under the chaebols of South Korea in the 1970s was widespread and deeply ingrained in the country’s economy and society.
Conglomerates
The chaebols were family-controlled conglomerates that enjoyed close ties to the Government of Park Chung-hee, the benign but authoritarian dictator who ruled South Korea from 1961 to 1979.
Park’s economic development policies favored the chaebols, giving them preferential access to Government loans, tax breaks, and contracts. In return, the chaebols provided financial support to Government cronies. This close relationship between the Government and the big family-run companies created a breeding ground for corruption.
The chaebols used their political influence to gain advantage over their competitors and to suppress dissent. They also engaged in a variety of corrupt practices, such as bribery, kickbacks, and embezzlement.
Here are some specific examples of corruption under the chaebols of South Korea in the 1970s: Chaebols or family run businesses almost routinely bribed Government officials to secure contracts and favors.
For example, in 1977, the Samsung Group was caught bribing Government officials to win a contract to build a new steel mill.
The chaebols often demanded kickbacks from their suppliers and customers. For example, in 1978, the Hyundai Group was caught demanding a 10 percent kickback from a Japanese company that had won a contract to supply equipment for Hyundai’s new shipyard.
But South Korea made spectacularly gains and the corruption was by the way.
In Japan, the other Asian giant, there was the curious case of Carlos Ghosn who took over Mazda.
When he improved the fortunes of Mazda, it seemed parts of the Japanese establishment, meaning its corporate establishment, was stunned how an outsider of Lebanese descent could transform a company and make it a high profile profit making institution after years of terrible, serial losses.
In the end, Ghosn was sent packing after they seemed to pro actively embroil him in a corruption scandal. That’s ironical because before he took up the job, Mazda was a write off.
But Ghosn’s legend was celebrated in movies not least for the way in which he escaped Japan in a piano case. Certainly, his case didn’t attract the corruption label the way it attracts that appellation in African countries. Perhaps if a country is rich, corruption is seen as par for the course?
Voters in African and Asian countries are sometimes too quick to buy the corruption label that has been stuck on their leaders and though in specific cases it maybe legitimate, in others the label is not, because most of the economic malaise in developing countries is due to loss making state institutions that are not necessarily corrupt and are badly managed.
Debt of course keeps countries in a state of penury, but encouraging debt has been a scandal in which many major powers have always been involved.
It’s one way the narrative is controlled — the constant stereotyping of countries as being corrupt and incapable of progress. Those who buy into this narrative seem to be readily accepting a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. If countries label themselves as corrupt they would end up being so, as their leaders would have nothing to lose in the image department.
It’s a Kipling type of tack. People were convinced by that type of literature that Kipling made famous which posits that the heathens in the non-Christian lands had to be rescued.
Modern day Kiplings use the corruption label and casts all African and Asian leaders as venal, at least until they bend over backwards and prove otherwise. Thankfully, Africa particularly is waking up to the cunning and self-fulfilling nature of this cynically manufactured narrative.
