Corruption is not a moral but a political problem
Nov 08, 2009
I write in response to Denis Byarugaba’s article published in The New Vision on November 4, in which he calls for new laws and standards of proof to combat runaway corruption.
By Michael Baingana
I write in response to Denis Byarugaba’s article published in The New Vision on November 4, in which he calls for new laws and standards of proof to combat runaway corruption.
Byarugaba’s prescriptions are borne out of the common view that corruption is a reflection of the poor moral condition of the Ugandan society. This train of thought originates in European imperialist ideology wherein African society is presumed to be immoral and uncivilised.
As a way of justifying foreign intervention and domination, I disagree fundamentally with this argument. In my view the Ugandan society is moral and the root of corruption lies in the immorality of the state itself. The solution to corruption is to moralise the state through reform.
While corruption is understood by the Ugandan society to be illegal, for some reason it remains morally acceptable, even laudable. The primary question, therefore, is not how better to combat corruption but why corruption is morally acceptable and how we can make it morally unacceptable.
Uganda, like other post-colonial states, did not grow out of society, but the state was imposed on society by force, as a tool to dominate and exploit society in the colonial interest.
The very purpose of the state was to spite society and so the (neo-colonial) state can be fairly described as an immoral state. To date, our state architecture, protocols and ethos still serve foreign interests ahead of society’s interests. Society’s interests are served by default not by design. That Uganda remains captive to foreign interests is well evidenced by our persistent and humiliating dependence on IMF, World Bank policies and on European aid. Ugandan society’s interest in the state remain akin to a “minority shareholderâ€.
As a result of this institutionalised mutual disrespect between society and the state, society lacks a sense of ownership of the state and the state suffers a major legitimacy problem. Some scholars have observed that African states are not held together by internal legitimacy as much as by international recognition. Against this background, civil society does not have a genuine interest in corruption cases and here, we must distinguish between traditional civil society and the donor-funded NGOs which are set up to front for foreign interests.
In order to cope with a state which they do not own and cannot control, the public finds it quite justified to bribe state officials not to implement its laws. Further, the public, lacking a sense of ownership of state funds, perceives them not as being “public†funds but rather as “ownerless†funds which can be appropriated by whosoever is smart enough to do so.
The solution to corruption lies in reconstituting a moral state by getting it to resemble more closely the shape, historicity and interests of society. Most critically, a moral state must be completely delinked from foreign aid and from IMF / World Bank patronage.
This must be the cornerstone, instead of the donor-driven “developmental state†which presumes African society to be uncivilised and immoral (corrupt) and seeks to modernise, moralise and develop us.
A moral state must presume, affirm and respect the morality and historicity of traditional society and build upon that from the bottom upward.
It must be an afro-centric state, not a euro-centric one. By reconstituting a moral African state which respects traditional social norms, the state will gain respect and corruption will cease.
A credible attempt at such reforms in terms of ideology and practice can be found in Rwanda’s effort to reconstitute a moral state in the post-genocide era, although they still have many challenges.
The writer is a member of the Kitara Charter, a public policy discussion group
[Send a topical opinion with your picture to guestwriter@newvision.co.ug. We take 600 words only]
I write in response to Denis Byarugaba’s article published in The New Vision on November 4, in which he calls for new laws and standards of proof to combat runaway corruption.
Byarugaba’s prescriptions are borne out of the common view that corruption is a reflection of the poor moral condition of the Ugandan society. This train of thought originates in European imperialist ideology wherein African society is presumed to be immoral and uncivilised.
As a way of justifying foreign intervention and domination, I disagree fundamentally with this argument. In my view the Ugandan society is moral and the root of corruption lies in the immorality of the state itself. The solution to corruption is to moralise the state through reform.
While corruption is understood by the Ugandan society to be illegal, for some reason it remains morally acceptable, even laudable. The primary question, therefore, is not how better to combat corruption but why corruption is morally acceptable and how we can make it morally unacceptable.
Uganda, like other post-colonial states, did not grow out of society, but the state was imposed on society by force, as a tool to dominate and exploit society in the colonial interest.
The very purpose of the state was to spite society and so the (neo-colonial) state can be fairly described as an immoral state. To date, our state architecture, protocols and ethos still serve foreign interests ahead of society’s interests. Society’s interests are served by default not by design. That Uganda remains captive to foreign interests is well evidenced by our persistent and humiliating dependence on IMF, World Bank policies and on European aid. Ugandan society’s interest in the state remain akin to a “minority shareholderâ€.
As a result of this institutionalised mutual disrespect between society and the state, society lacks a sense of ownership of the state and the state suffers a major legitimacy problem. Some scholars have observed that African states are not held together by internal legitimacy as much as by international recognition. Against this background, civil society does not have a genuine interest in corruption cases and here, we must distinguish between traditional civil society and the donor-funded NGOs which are set up to front for foreign interests.
In order to cope with a state which they do not own and cannot control, the public finds it quite justified to bribe state officials not to implement its laws. Further, the public, lacking a sense of ownership of state funds, perceives them not as being “public†funds but rather as “ownerless†funds which can be appropriated by whosoever is smart enough to do so.
The solution to corruption lies in reconstituting a moral state by getting it to resemble more closely the shape, historicity and interests of society. Most critically, a moral state must be completely delinked from foreign aid and from IMF / World Bank patronage.
This must be the cornerstone, instead of the donor-driven “developmental state†which presumes African society to be uncivilised and immoral (corrupt) and seeks to modernise, moralise and develop us.
A moral state must presume, affirm and respect the morality and historicity of traditional society and build upon that from the bottom upward.
It must be an afro-centric state, not a euro-centric one. By reconstituting a moral African state which respects traditional social norms, the state will gain respect and corruption will cease.
A credible attempt at such reforms in terms of ideology and practice can be found in Rwanda’s effort to reconstitute a moral state in the post-genocide era, although they still have many challenges.
The writer is a member of the Kitara Charter, a public policy discussion group
[Send a topical opinion with your picture to guestwriter@newvision.co.ug. We take 600 words only]