Background/Context
In last week’s commentary, I shared my displeasure regarding the rising perception of corruption in Saint Lucia and my concern about the damage this can cause if it is not addressed.
Corruption is a serious matter and must be treated as such. We seem content to trade allegations of corruption, blithely unaware of the damage this can cause to individual and nations alike. The absence of corruption ought to be a core component of development as well as the rule of law. When we wittingly or unwittingly create the perception that corrupt practices persist in our beloved country, things can only go downhill. Public trust in government and the private sector is undermined; the flow of critical resources is disrupted; and people suffer. I contend that perceptions of corruption can have equally damaging consequences especially when allegations of corruption are not proven and if/when proven are not prosecuted in a court-of-law.
Combatting corruption is not a matter for Governments alone. The private sector often gets a pass in discussions on corruption, but as I will show later, there is a strong public perception that it too is corrupt. The worst thing that can happen is for perceptions of corruption to become so strong that they provide the context for real corruption to be normalized. At that point, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to turn things around.
The Corruption in the Caribbean Report
This report is the trigger for my recent commentaries on this subject. Prepared by the World Justice Project (WJP) it relied on question-level data drawn from a General Population Poll (GPP) designed specifically to measure the perceptions and experiences of ordinary people regarding a variety of corruption-related themes in 14 Caribbean countries. The poll was done between June and August 2022, using face-to-face interviews among nationally representative samples of 500 to 1,000 households.
Key Regional Findings
The key findings in this Report are quite startling and disturbing. The report clearly shows the degree to which corruption is becoming normalized in the Caribbean. For example, one out of every seven people believe it’s acceptable to recruit a public officer based on family ties and friendship networks. It gets worse! Nearly seven out of every 10 people in the Caribbean believe that all or most people working in political parties are engaged in corrupt practices; and five out every 10 people believe the same about members of national Parliaments. Nine percent of people say they have given bribes for car registrations and drivers licenses; and eight percent say they have offered a bribe to a police officer.
Perceptions of nepotism in the region’s private sector are also widespread. On average, 75% of respondents in the Caribbean believe private sector employees “frequently or very frequently” exercise influence over the hiring of friends and relatives. About six out of every 10 respondents believe requesting money or gifts for private benefit instead of corporate benefit is very frequent in the private sector.
As for vote buying, voters in select countries see substantially more solicitations for their votes.
Social Norms and Acceptability of Corruption
Distressingly, 16% of survey respondents in Saint Lucia believe it’s acceptable for a public officer to be recruited based on family ties/friendship. In Guyana, 36% of respondents feel the same way. In Saint Lucia 8% of respondents believe it’s acceptable for a public officer to ask for a bribe to speed up an administrative matter. The highest response from the region on this issue is Haiti at 34% followed by Guyana at 24%.
Nearly nine out of every 10 respondents in Saint Lucia believe influencing the hiring of friends or relatives in the public sector and the influencing of the award of government contracts to family/friends is very frequent. About eight out of 10 respondents believe requesting money or gifts for public services that should have been provided free of charge is also very frequent.
Perceptions of Corruption Among Elected Politicians
Those politicians who believe they are clean or are perceived to be “clean” will be discomfited by the following findings in the report. Nearly nine out of every 10 respondents believe politicians influence the career advancement of their friends and family based on patronage instead of merit and that they influence the award of contracts to individuals and companies close to them. A similar number of respondents (82%) believe politicians accept bribes to influence public contracts or public decisions. Nearly seven out of every 10 respondents believe politicians manipulate government records and/or public accounts. The key takeaway here for me is that all politicians are perceived to be corrupt, even though some may not be.
Perceptions of corruption among public officers
About half of respondents in Saint Lucia (51%) believe public officers are corrupt. Less than half (44%) think the same of parliamentarians. This response contrasts sharply with those who say they have interacted over the past year with public officials who have requested a gift, favour, or money from them. The highest responses are for teachers (5%) and customs officers (4%). About half of those surveyed (51%) admit they have given bribes to speed up or finalize a procedure and 28 % say they have done so to avoid paying a fine. Most Saint Lucian respondents (53%) who had contact with any public official in the last 12 months, say the bribe was requested by a public official or that they had offered the bribe to a public official ((including through an intermediary).
Observations
While this was a perception survey the results are quite disturbing. The report suggests that corruption is perceived to be becoming the norm rather than the exception in Saint Lucia. Most troubling of all is that the populace does not believe public sector officials are acting in the public interest. Moreover, the number of Saint Lucians who believe corruption is OK is a clear signal that urgent corrective action is needed.
Corrective Action
An appropriate starting point would be for society to coalesce around a clear definition of corruption. I favour the UNDP’s definition which says corruption is “the misuse of public power, office or authority for private benefit—through bribery, extortion, influence peddling, nepotism, fraud, speed money or embezzlement.” This definition encompasses the many ways in which corruption is practiced as well as its application to the public and private sectors.
Singapore’s Powerful Example
In my opinion, any country wishing to tackle corruption must seriously consider Singapore Corruption Control Framework (SCCF). The SCCF, which is credited to former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, has four key pillars: (1) laws, (2) adjudication, (3) enforcement and (4) public administration, which are underpinned by political will and leadership. Let’s examine these pillars in turn.
Laws
The main legal planks of the SCCF are the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) which applies to persons in both the public and private sector who give or receive bribes; and the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (CDSA). Together, these laws ensure that corruption remains an activity with high-risk, but low rewards. The CDSA confiscates ill-gotten gains by corrupt offenders.
Adjudication
Laws are only effective if they are adjudicated upon by an independent, transparent, and objective judiciary that is seen as operating free from political interference. It also helps Singapore’s judiciary recognise the seriousness of corruption and adopts a strong stance of deterrence by imposing the stiffest legal penalties on offenders.
Enforcement
Unlike in many jurisdictions where allegations of corruption are investigated either by the police or a Director of Public Prosecutions, in Singapore, this responsibility falls solely to the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB), which functions under the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and reports directly to the Prime Minister. Upon the conclusion of investigations by the CPIB, all alleged corruption cases are handed over to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), to obtain the necessary consent to take a corruption case to Court. Over its 60-plus years of operation, the CPIB has always performed its functions swiftly and without fear or favour. Consequently, it is both feared and respected.
Public Administration
Singapore’s Public Service is guided by a Code of Conduct, which sets out the high standards of behaviour expected of public officers, based on principles of integrity, incorruptibility, and transparency. Over decades a culture of meritocracy has consciously become entrenched in the country’s public service. Critically, administrative rules and processes are regularly reviewed to improve efficiency and reduce the opportunities for corruption. In this regard, the CPIB conducts procedural reviews for government agencies which may have work procedures that can be exploited for corrupt intent.
Conclusion
Corruption is not a joke! It’s patently unfair for a person to accuse another of being corrupt without rock-solid proof. People have been known to lose their lives for making unsubstantiated or untrue claims about others being corrupt. And often, some of those who are innocent of such claims but do not have the means to refute them, have taken their own lives. We must crush corruption. Otherwise, corruption will crush us.