Can corruption in South Africa be curbed?

Amid the on-going publicity about the scourge of corruption there are some positive signs of an increasing intolerance of corrupt practices. This was manifest in the marches that took place in Pretoria, Cape Town, Durban and other major metros in September. In October at the ANC’s National General Council conference President Jacob Zuma called on ANC delegates to take a hard line in the fight against rampant corruption, stating that “The ANC needs to reverse the notion that it is soft on corruption, and that it is a corrupt organisation.” While this focus on corruption and the government’s stated intention are to be welcomed, the key question is whether this is enough to curb corruption - or does it take more?

That action against corruption is needed is not in question. The costs and negative consequences make a compelling case. The claim that South Africa has lost R700 billion to corruption since 1994 has been questioned and shown not necessarily to have a sound foundation, but it is still likely to a huge amount - certainly much more than the country can afford.

The negative consequences of corruption are widely recognised relative to the impact on the country, its institutions and its people. Adding to the potential damage is the view expressed by Judge Dennis Davis, who heads the Davis Tax Committee appointed to re-examine the country’s tax system. Speaking at the annual international economic law update at Wits University in November, he stated that SA faces a ‘tax revolt’ if government does not address corruption and spend taxpayers’ money more wisely: “The greater the level of corruption, the less we will have tax integrity and the greater the possibility of a tax revolt.”

In order to assess if more needs to be done to curb corruption, it is fair to start by taking into account what is currently being done and what anti-corruption mechanisms are already in place.

In general South Africa has all the necessary legislation to address corruption, and this is mostly backed up by adequate codes of conduct and policies in public and private sector organisations. Institutions like the Public Protector warrant being recognised for their excellent contribution to investigating and addressing misconduct in the public sector. In theory, based on sources such as media announcements and interviews, organisational goals and strategy, and espoused workplace values (such as the public sectors’ Batho Pele principles), all leaders across the public and private sectors strongly support the fight against corruption. There are also numerous ethics hotlines to report wrong-doing. Adding to hotlines operated within businesses, there are many others - the National Anti-Corruption Forum hotline for the public service, SARS Fraud and Anti-Corruption Hotline, SAPS Crime Stop, National Health System Ethics Line, Crime Line and Corruption Watch Online Reporting. However, although ethics reporting should be an effective way to surface and thereby address misconduct, it should be noted that the fear of retribution generally makes this less effective in practice.

Much as these factors all act against corruption to some extent, the pertinent question is whether this is enough. The answer, unfortunately, is no: more needs to be done to curb corruption effectively. The following proposals represent key issues that need to be addressed.

Moving from rhetoric to zero tolerance supported by genuine political and leadership will

The government as the primary authority in the country occupies a role relative to corruption which eclipses that of the private sector, mainly because of the far greater impact of its actions and decisions. It is therefore crucial that the government moves beyond rhetoric. The proverb that ‘actions speak louder than words’ may be clichéd, but it is nonetheless very apt as regards corruption.

This entails that all cases of misconduct or suspected unethical behaviour are properly and promptly investigated with fear or favour. It means that the poor enforcement of laws, rules, regulations and disciplinary measures cannot continue, and that laws and rules are consistently applied to all transgressors, irrespective of their ranks, status or political connections. When found guilty, the sentence needs to be served. The dictum that ‘not only must justice be done; it must also be seen to be done’ is especially relevant to correct the perception that powerful friends can make one impervious to the law and its consequences. Using a ‘name and shame’ system can also strengthen this message and provide clear evidence to stakeholders about the organisation’s commitment to ethics.

What this amounts to is a zero tolerance approach to all facets of corruption and unethical behaviour.

But in order for this to be effective, it requires that we give all the necessary support to those leaders, departments and institutions that are effectively acting against corruption. Again the Public Protector comes to mind. Crucially, effectiveness also requires the consistent and unqualified support of all leaders. Without political and leadership will and the accompanying courage to make (and live with) tough decisions, this will remain a mere goal and not an achievement.

Valuing honesty above loyalty

A challenge that needs to be overcome to give effect to a zero tolerance approach involves placing the value of honesty above loyalty. Both are good and desirable values and therefore having to choose between the two can appear to be a real dilemma. The ethical challenge arises when there are strong bonds of loyalty among individuals or colleagues as this can lead to someone looking the other way when misconduct occurs, rather than speaking up as honesty would demand. Such bonds of loyalty are often built when people have shared a profound or difficult experience, a pertinent example being those who were part of the struggle for freedom in South Africa. This can present a choice between supporting (and covering up for) a long-standing comrade who is guilty of misconduct in the name of loyalty, and reporting him/her to the authorities for a breach of ethics in the name of honesty. While the choice of loyalty may be understandable, it nonetheless erodes honesty and condones unethical behaviour, especially when it involves senior public officials or corporate executives.

Another facet of the honesty versus loyalty dilemma would be to argue that nepotism or cronyism is acceptable because they simply place loyalty to family or friends first. But this too can erode ethics when, for example, appointing a family member or friend to a job is done regardless of the qualifications associated with the position or contrary to fair and correct recruitment procedures.

In order to deal with this problem, organisations should ensure that their leaders not only understand this dilemma, but that they also recognise that honesty is non-negotiable, irrespective of the weight of loyalty-based relationships, and that they have a far greater responsibility to the organisation and its stakeholders.

Leaders who lead for others and stand up as ethics activists

It would arguably be naïve to add curbing the pursuit of personal gain as an important step to reduce corruption. It is likely that there will always be those who are only interested in what benefits them most. But what can be addressed is to pursue the development, recognition and advancement of ethical leaders. Being an ethical leader encompasses all the obvious behaviours like living the organisation’s values and complying with laws and rules.

The crucial added element is whether the leader’s primary focus is on self or on others. Does he/she concentrate on personal benefit and advancement or on the upliftment and empowerment of others? The latter echoes the key tenets of ubuntu and is an approach that is very necessary for the further development of our people. But it represents a profound shift - to utilise the power and influence which accompanies the leadership role to benefit others. Nelson Mandela was lauded as a world icon, and one of the reasons was his unequivocal commitment to the betterment of others.

The other leadership requirement stems from the fact that we need more ethical role models. This entails not merely advocating ethics for public consumption or demonstrating a commitment to ethics or an intolerance of misconduct when in the spotlight. We need more than that from our leaders. South Africa’s transition to a democracy was successful driven by deeply committed social activists who proactively, loudly and visibly stood up for and promoted that goal to everyone at every single opportunity. That is what ethics now needs: ethics activists who stand in prominent opposition to corruption and who clearly promote and support ethics at all times.

If just these three proposals were fully acted upon could it make a difference? It will not eradicate corruption and it might take a while to have a significant effect, but the answer is definitely yes. Significantly reducing corruption can make the world of difference, creating not only ethical organisations but also a more ethical nation. The economic benefits were well articulated by President Obama in his speech to the African Union in Addis Ababa in July this year: “Nothing will unlock Africa’s economic potential more than ending the cancer of corruption.” It can also make us once again proud of our country and what it stands for. When we consider all that has been achieved in South Africa, corruption really should not be our legacy.