Abstract
Despite various strategies that have been applied to limit and control the pervasive impacts of corruption across the world, corruption continues to be a global menace. Sub-Saharan Africa has been the hardest affected by corruption which has led to serious underdevelopment in the region. South Sudan, the world’s newest State, has fallen in the trap of the preceding sub-Saharan African Countries which have been largely plagued by corrupt practices and serious deficit in governance. Since the region got a semi-autonomous status in 2005 and subsequently gained independence in 2011 as a result of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), the country has been fraught with numerous challenges of governance. As recent as August this year, the President of South Sudan wrote a letter to 75 government officials accusing them of embezzling money in the order of $4 billion; money which was meant to be used for providing social services to the impoverished population. Today, South Sudan is receiving pressure, both from its citizens and international donors, to ensure that the right measures are put in place to combat the scourge of corruption.
Introduction
This article discusses two main issues: first, the measures that have been applied to fight corruption in developing countries, particularly, countries which have similar features of governance to South Sudan and second, how those measures can be applied to control corruption in South Sudan. The article will take the anti-corruption strategies and practices applied in Rwanda to put forward arguments for South Sudan’s anti-corruption strategies. The reason for the case selection is straightforward: the devastation Rwanda went through during the genocide and how resiliently the country bounced back to be a leading example of post-conflict reconstruction in Africa and the world at large.
Theoretical Framework
Corruption is a pandemic that has plagued mankind for time immemorial (Choo & Kukutschka, 2012, p. 2). In an effort to understand the underlying drivers of corruption, scholars have conducted extensive research over the years and the results show that corruption is a complex social, political and economic phenomenon which prevails in all countries across the world and in varying degrees (Rohwer, 2009, p. 42). Corruption impedes development, creates instability and at times can lead to the collapse of a State. Research shows that bad governance, which corruption is a facet of, is a major deterrent to investment and economic growth as well as the cause of poverty and underdevelopment (Shrabani, 2009). For instance, in sub-Sahara Africa, the problem has become so endemic that core government institutions such as the police, judiciary, executive and other political institutions are pawns for corrupt practices (Mungiu-Pippidi et al., 2011, pp. 1–166). Research has evinced, such activities undermine the State and can have destabilising effects (Hussmann & Tisne, 2009, p. 10). Destabilising effects may include the undermining of the legitimacy of government where its members are seen to be self-serving as well as leading to government being seen to be at odds with the national agenda (O’Donnell, 2009). Corruption contributes to inequalities among citizens and it creates serious economic disparities leading to stratification among citizens (Di John, 2008).
Despite a growing body of scholarship, there is no consensus on the meaning of corruption. Werlin (1973, pp. 71–85) defines corruption as the diversion of public resources for purposes that do not benefit the public. Blackburn et al. (2004) view corruption as the “illegal, or unauthorised, profiteering by officials who exploit their positions for personal gains.” Schleifer (1993, pp. 1–24) define corruption as “the sale by government officials of government property for personal gain” – an effort to emphasize the role of government in encouraging or discouraging corruption. The World Bank views corruption as the misuse of public power for private benefit (Lambsdorff, 2007), but the definition that has generated a broad acceptance is the Transparency International’s one which views corruption as the “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain” (Transparency International, 2007). Although this definition has been widely accepted across the spectrum, others view it as culturally biased and excessively narrow (UNDP, 2008).
This article will adopt the definition of Transparency International as it creates an understanding of corruption based on “ethical universalism” or in lay terms, an ideal social norm of integrity (Mungu-Pippidi, 2006, pp. 86–99). Those nations that are founded on the ideal of “ethical universalism” believe that all citizens have the right to equal access to public resources and goods (Mungu-Pippidi, 2006). Relatively, this article will contextualize corruption in South Sudan on the country’s failure to observe ethical universalism which has grossly denied the citizens of South Sudan the right to equally access public resources and instead established a state where resources are distributed in accordance with status, privileges and connections. This idea of ideal social norm of integrity is also befitting in this context because South Sudan fought for a very long time for the right to equally share in citizenship and natural resources. It was the reason for the eventual partitioning of the country. The country’s leadership absolutely failed to adhere to this initial mantra of equal citizenship.
There is no agreement in the current literature of what constitutes corruption. As a result, it is not easy to measure corruption. Part of this problem has been the way corruption, as a subset of bad governance, cannot be disentangled from the grand narrative. In order to achieve a certain degree of particularity in this discourse, corruption needs to be viewed as a separate entity separate from bad governance. In other words, corruption must be viewed as a separate malaise from the discussion of bad governance; this will give it more nuance and be institutionally recognized as a subject of different grandeur. Traditionally, the term governance has been understood as a subset of government where restraints rest on authority and where authority was viewed in the paradigmatic definition of social relationship where one person is the authority and the other is a subordinate who must obey orders (Kahler & Lake, 2004, p. 410). This is flawed – governance is not government (Oran, 1999).
Methodology and Case Selection
This article tackles the proposed research question through a comparative analysis of two countries: South Sudan and Rwanda. South Sudan has only been a country for a period of one year and relatively autonomous for a period of six years. The country has little to no infrastructure at all. South Sudan’s population is mainly rural and it has little to no understanding of the complexity of corruption apart from practices perceived to be corrupt. Most of all, South Sudan is dominated by the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) with its military wing, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA). The other political parties are weak and are often suppressed into not speaking about issues of governance in the country. The civil society is weak and its members are often coerced and tortured to refrain from talking about corruption in the country. In this regard, measuring the perceptions of the people in the streets is the only possible way to getting some sense of the prevalence of corruption in the country. The CPI, therefore, becomes an important and appropriate tool to use to argue the contents of the article.
The CPI is suitable because it is useful for the identification of general drivers of corruption. It assumes that the public’s perception of corruption is well and evenly distributed across the different sections and institutions in a country (Weber, 2007, pp. 1–60). Proponents claim that perceptions of corruption are usually good and reliable proxies for determining the actual phenomenon of corruption occurring in a society (Weber, 2007). However, critics have criticized the perceptions approach of measuring corruption using household and personal experience of bribery as not a good indicator of perceptions held about corruption among the general population (Andvig, 2004). Despite this and other criticisms labeled against the use of perceptions as predictor of corruption, it is claimed that “perceptions are commonly a good indicator of the real level of corruption” (Lambsdorff, 2004). Generally, perceptions are mostly good predictors of other perceptions, not only in relation to corruption but also to other unrelated issues (Lambsdorff, 2004). Therefore, for a country as new as South Sudan and which has scant research analysis done on its governance structures, and in particular, corruption, perceptions will be important for this article as it will give some indications on the prevalence and levels of corruption in the country.
Based on the enormity of the question of this research topic, it is not possible to sufficiently address all the issues within the scope of this article. As a result, the arguments will be limited to Choo and Kukutschka’s (2012) categorizations of corruption. In this model, there are three types of corruption: Political, Bureaucratic and Judicial. Political corruption refers to “corrupt acts of political leaders and activities by which they exploit their discretionary power to make national policies serve their own interests” (Choo, 2012). With this type of corruption, public resources are diverted to those sectors where gains of corruption are the greatest and the needs of the people are not prioritized (Della Porta, 1999). Political corruption takes place at the highest echelons of authority where politicians, policy-makers, key decision makers use their positions to extract bribes from national and transnational corporations, embezzle large amounts of money from public coffers and use tailor legislations during formulation for their own benefits (Amundsen & Sissener, 2000).
Bureaucratic corruption, on the other hand, refers to acts of bureaucrats in dealing with their superiors or with the public (Jain, 2001). In most circumstances, the public is required to bribe the bureaucrats for services which they are supposed to offer for free in their capacity as public servants or in some cases, bureaucrats ask for bribes for services which are not supposed to be offered (Bardhan, 2005). The third type of corruption is the judicial corruption. It extends from pre-trial activities right through to the trial proceedings to the ultimate time of sentencing. Transparency International views judicial corruption as “pertaining to acts or behaviour or attempts that impair either the search for or the submission of the truth in the delivery of justice” (Transparency International, 2007). Corruption in a justice system distorts the proper administration of judicial duties, which is to protect civil liberties and rights of citizens and to ensure fair, impartial and competent trials (Teorell, 2007, pp. 1–24).
Corruption and Anti-corruption Strategies in South Sudan 1
South Sudan emerged a few years ago from the longest and bloodiest war in Africa. The war killed more than 2 million and displaced another 4 million. It left the country with little and no infrastructure at all and institutions were decimated to the point that when the country signed peace with North Sudan in 2005, the country had to put up its officials in dilapidated buildings. The region is extremely poor, despite the fact that it is endowed with abundant natural resources (Goss website,
At least in theory, South Sudan aims to build a democratic, transparent and accountable Government, managed by a professional and committed bureaucracy with an effective Executive, Legislature and Judiciary (GOSS, 2011). The Government realizes that South Sudan will need to establish good governance practices and improve capacity. The Government often says that it is committed to ensuring independent legislature to hold the Executive to account and an independent Judiciary to uphold the rule of law and protect the rights of citizens (Kameir, 2011, p. 33). South Sudan undertakes to strengthen good governance by ensuring that the Audit Chamber is well resourced and empowered to process timely audits and report to the Parliament and make their reports freely available to the public (Khalid, 2011).
In financial management, the Government implemented measures such as enacting the Public Financial Management Act (PFMA), Procurement law, Audit Act, and the Central Bank Act; undertaking a Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Assessment (PEFA), strengthening expenditure monitoring and management systems and rolling out the Financial Management Information System (FMIS) to the States (Khalid, 2011, p. 35). There is also an Anti-Corruption Commission which only has investigative powers only. The Corruption Agency does not have prosecutorial powers and can refer cases to the Ministry of Justice for prosecution. So far, no official has been prosecuted despite the fact that the Government as well as donors has concrete evidence of millions of dollars stashed away in foreign banks by South Sudan’s Government officials.
In a focus-group interview conducted by the National Democratic Alliance in 2010, it was revealed that people associated corruption with political leaders, party leaders and commanders in the army holding positions of influence. In their view, accountability and transparency are almost non-existent due to lack of systems and absence of check and balances throughout government structures (Khalid, 2011, p. 33). The Government of South Sudan’s procurement offices as well as the military supplies and services are viewed as the major corruption points. Generally, the Government of South Sudan lacks the confidence of the people as a government as it is still being viewed as a movement (Khalid, 2011, p. 33). The public service is highly politicized along ethnic and tribal lines and it is a playground for corruption, nepotism and cronyism (Kameir, 2010). Even within the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), the ruling party, most of them believe that ethnicization pervades at all levels of the administration, with Ministers and senior bureaucrats given carte blanche in filling the positions in their dockets with people from their tribes (NDI, 2010).
In 2011, Gallup International in conjunction with Transparency International (CPI) polled 1,019 people in the South Sudan’s capital, Juba for their perceptions on corruption in the country. A massive 67 percent perceived that corruption increased in the country against the 16 percent that perceived the reduction of corruption (Transparency International, 2011). South Sudanese perceived the police, military, judiciary and public service to be the most corrupt institutions in the country averaging over three points out of five (Transparency International, 2011). Forty eight percent have paid bribes to police, judiciary, licensing authorities to receive a service they are entitled to, avoid problems with authorities or to accelerate the provision of free services (Transparency International, 2011). Despite strong people’s perception of corruption within the government institutions, almost 60 percent believe and trust the Government as the body more able to fight corruption. These statistics show that, although, South Sudan Government is seen to be at odds with its national agenda, the citizens still believe that the Government can still put in the right measures to control and eventually weed out corruption. So, what lessons can South Sudan learn from Rwanda as a post-conflict nation that is now viewed as a model for other countries in the region?
Corruption and Anti-corruption Strategies in Rwanda
Rwanda’s experience with the genocide is well known and highly documented. There is no need to repeat that in this discussion. However, what needs to be discussed is how corruption and bad governance contributed to the occurrence of genocide. Perhaps, Rwanda’s problems can be traced back to 1960s when a popular discontent with the government corrupt practices culminated in the coup orchestrated by Juvenal Habyarimana in 1973 (Newbury, 1992, pp. 193–219). In the periods between 1980s and 1990s, there was an in-flow of foreign aid which became a disposable cache and catalyst for large-scale mismanagement which stimulated corruption within patronage networks (Newbury, 1992). Habyarimana’s leadership did not change corruption in Rwanda but rather cemented the roots of corruption and tribal brood of nepotism which virtually became the State policy at the time and sowed social disorder among the Rwanda’s population – leading to the breakdown of effective government and contributed to the 1994 genocide (Bolongaita, 2005, p. 5). Even after the genocide, there were allegations of wide-scale corruption (Reyntjens, 2006, p. 1110). In 2000, President Pasteur Bizimungu resigned following allegations of corruption (Reyntjens, 2004, p. 189).
However, Rwanda, today as it is, under the leadership of President Paul Kagame is viewed as a model for post-conflict countries and developing world at large. President Kagame has significantly prioritized good governance which has really galvanized Rwanda’s place as an emerging democracy. In a poverty reduction report commissioned in 2010, Rwanda was declared to be the world’s top performer of business regulation in the Doing Business; Rwanda, thus, became the first country in Sub-Sahara Africa to ever hold that accolade (IMF, 2011). This was supplemented by the report of the World Economic Forum which ranked Rwanda as the 6th most competitive market in Sub-Saharan Africa and the world’s best in female participation in governance. These are important indicators to mention as they relate in a lot ways with issues of corruption. Rwanda has also received impressive outcomes on the Indicator on improved fiscal planning, expenditure, policy and budgeting, timeliness and quality of annual financial statements, audit reports, percentage of Government expenditure audited, and percentage of public enterprises submitting fiscal reports and proportion of the value of procurement tendered competitively (IMF, 2011). These impressive outcomes show a responsible and accountable financial management.
In 2008, 75 percent out of 159 cases of corruption were processed by the prosecutor, exceeding the 60 percent set target and in 2009/2010, 81 percent were processed which exceeded the set target of 80 per cent (IMF 2011). With regards to legislations on corruption and accountability, the Government initiated a sensitization project, working with the media, civil society organizations to educate the public on the zero tolerance programs on corruption (IMF, 2011). In the recent report by the African Development Bank, Rwanda topped the East African region in the fight against corruption (AFB, 2010).
Rwanda has ratified the UN Convention against Corruption and the African Union Convention on the Prevention of Combating Corruption. It improved its ranking from 141st to 67th position in the last Transparency International’s CPI (Transparency International, 2008). In the East African region Rwanda averages 59 percent in the control of corruption against an average of 29.6 percent in East Africa and 33 percent continent-wide (Transparency International, 2008). This strong resolve is supplemented by strong rhetoric by government officials who are tasked with the control of corruption. Recently, the Ombudsman, Rutaremara, said that a “corrupt country cannot break free from poverty as the money trickles out. And when corruption becomes a way of life, it discourages hard work – that’s why it’s dangerous” (Bachorz, 2009).
Additionally, in the 2011 Corruption Perception Index (CPI), 1000 people were surveyed by Gallup International. A substantial proportion of 54 percent responded that corruption had decreased in the last three years since prior to the survey compared to 21 percent which polled in favor of increment. Three-quarters of the pollsters value government’s action as critical to combating corruption and 75 percent trusted government’s action to ridding corruption. This is a significant registration of confidence in the role of the government. It illustrates that the Rwandan people confide in their government. This is substantiated by the general willingness of the people to get involved in helping the government to control corruption. Numbers in the order of 63 percent and 55 percent respectively indicated their willingness to participate and report corrupt activities when they come across them.
Comparative Analysis: What Lessons Can South Sudan Learn from Rwanda?
Corruption is undoubtedly the most challenging problem that impedes development in Africa today. The debilitating and corrosive effects of corruption have stifled progress in the continent and diminished growth in foreign investments; created distortion in resource allocation and competitive markets, and have increased the cost of doing business in the continent (Governance and Public Administration Division (GPAD), UNECA, 2011, pp. 1–3). Whilst it is acknowledged that corruption is a global phenomenon, its impact is felt more in developing countries, particularly, in the African countries. According to the 2005 African Governance Report (AGR I), corruption is perceived as the most serious challenge next to poverty and unemployment. The 2009 Report (AGR II) reiterated the similar finding positing that the major State institutions: the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary are perceived to be the most corrupt institutions in the continent and ones susceptible to bad governance. These findings were supported by the Transparency International’s 2009 Corruption Perception Index which documented only three countries in Africa: Botswana, Cape Verde and Mauritius to have passed the minimum threshold of five points which is the cut-off point for tolerable corruption in any country. The 2007 Global Corruption Barometer also confirmed that Africa is considered to have been affected the most by public corruption.
For any country to experience genuine reforms in governance there needs to be a genuine willingness amongst the national political elites to make reforms happen. Whilst establishing institutions and enacting laws provides the framework for controlling corruption, ultimately it is the politicians who have the task of implementing reforms in letter and spirit (Transparency International UK, 2011). Free speech and the involvement of citizens, media and the civil society to keep government accountable with regards to anti-corruption practices are vital (Transparency International, 2011). Any government interested in reforms needs to ensure that freedom of expression remains a cornerstone of their society (Transparency). South Sudan badly needs these reforms. This is what Rwanda has done. President Kagame has shown great statesmanship in the fight against corruption. The President’s will to declare and implement zero tolerance on corruption in Rwanda has produced significant results in the fight against this phenomenon. South Sudan’s President has declared zero tolerance against corruption but there is general lack of implementation. If genuine reforms are to be seen, the President needs to be taken the lead followed by the rest of political leaders, religious leaders, military and the general public.
It is said that in order to develop integrity within the process of state-building, those tasked with anti-corruption activities could benefit from adopting a state-building lens (Galtung & Tisne, 2009). A state-building lens enables policymakers to better understand “which reforms and risks of corruption to prioritise, and when; which reforms to prioritise and how; how to approach trade-offs between corruption and stability; and how best to mitigate the unintended consequences of anti-corruption interventions” (Hussmann & Tisne, 2009, p. 24). Applying state-building lens approach allows policy makers to assess the impact of corruption and anti-corruption reforms upon state-building agenda (Hussmann & Tisne, 2009). Rwanda has applied this state-building lens when the government applied anti-corruption strategies that were tailored to the political situation in the country. If South Sudan hopes to control corruption in the country, policymakers must prioritize reduction of poverty and find avenues to encourage the participation of citizens in the design and implementation of anti-corruption strategies. The current policies in the country are crafted and hand delivered for civil obedience.
Equally important is the role of civil society and the media. According to Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, media and civil society organizations play an important role in strengthening civic participation in decision making and engaging policymakers in on national development issues (Warren, 1999). Civil and the media play an oversight role by opening policy discourse on important national matters, including corruption. South Sudan’s media and civil society are constantly under threat. Just a month ago, a lawyer associated with a civil society organization was kidnapped and severely tortured and left to fight for his life. 3 Shortly before that, the head of that civil society organization was kidnapped by the security forces and severely tortured. The famous South Sudan peace activist was also stopped at night and beaten. Anyone else who talks about corruption in the country faces threats on his or her life. If South Sudan hopes to overcome the challenges of corruption, it must ensure that the media and civil organizations are given the right to participate in the formulation and debate of national agenda.
Conclusion
Corruption is recognized as the biggest impediment to development. Although there is no agreed meaning of corruption, there is increasing evidence of the detrimental impact of corruption on economic and social well-being today. Unless States are willing and able to establish solid and robust institutions of governance, there is a real risk that corruption will continue to grow and inflict a lot of harm on many societies. African countries, particularly, the Sub-Saharan nations, will continue to face the debilitating and corrosive effects of corruption unless immediate initiatives are taken to overcome this challenge. South Sudan as a new nation with fledgling institutions, risks even more, the collapse of the fabrics of its society if current anti-corruption structures are not strengthened and duly implemented. South Sudan has the benefit of learning from the experiences of the other African countries especially Rwanda which has become a model for post-conflict States in establishing governance structures. South Sudan needs to involve the media, civil society and the citizenry in the design and implementation of anti-corruption strategies.