Corruption and African
Leadership
In a book titled “Taking Sides” issue
18 - “Is Corruption the Result of Poor African Leadership” by William G.
Moseley. The author expresses two people’s views on this matter. Robert I.
Rotberg the author of the “Yes side” argues
that African leaders and their citizens believe that the people are there to
serve their rulers, rather than the other way around. On the contrary, Arthur
A. Goldsmith, the author of the “No side”
argues that African leaders are not naturally corrupt, but they are responding
rationally to incentives created by their environment. He further argues that
high levels of risk encourage leaders to pursue short-term, economically
destructive policies.
Rotberg argues that patrimonial
leaders such as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe are responsible for giving Africa a
bad name, creating poverty and despair, and provoking civil wars and ethnic
conflict. He attributed these problems to a couple of factors such as, a weak
civil society which expects little from their political leaders and lack of
hegemonic bourgeoisie that is independent of government to check on the
government activities. He claims that a country experiencing poverty within a
context of abundant resources indicates inadequate leadership.
Rotberg also argues that if corrupt
African leaders followed the good examples of Nelson Mandela of South Africa
who became his country’s president in 1994, and Seretse Khama of Botswana, they
can all govern with integrity and dignity. Mandela and Khama led their nations
democratically when they could have seized personal power like their fellow
African leaders. Mandela strengthened the rule of law while maintaining the
existing economic structures like transportation, communication networks and
slowly shifted from the dominant command economy toward one that was more
market driven.
On the other hand, Goldsmith argues
that African leaders are not naturally corrupt, but they are responding
rationally to incentives created by their environment. He also claimed that high
levels of risk encourage leaders to pursue short-term, economically destructive
policies. He suggests that the risk of governing could be reduced by the spread
of a multi-party democracy, a form of government that will make transitions in
power more orderly and reduce the chances of execution or imprisonment for
leaders upon departure from office.
Goldsmith claimed that no African
leader would prefer to perpetuate mass poverty and economic stagnation in his
country, which would only make governing difficult. The political situation
presents a cogent theory for why African leaders act the way they do.
Short-term policy making and political corruption are rational ways of trying
to manage the risks associated with governing in an unsettled political system,
such as in Africa. In this case, corrupt leaders may just be attempting to
maximize utility under conditions of personal and political uncertainty. He
also claimed that dangerous political environments encourage leaders to become
corrupt.
At
this point, it is essential to look especially into colonial exploitation and
slavery. What are the financial implications of them? What are the
psychological scars and how can they be measured? In this
category, it is necessary also to look at foreign investors. Are they investing in
Africa or exploiting her? Or both? It seems pretty clear that war makes most
people poorer, although, of course, some people benefit from it. But conflicts
of all sorts might come in here; bad leadership and corruption are a form of
conflict imposed by one set of people on others. Corruption generates poverty
and turns resource-rich countries into low-income, backward societies. Many
African countries are trapped in this cycle of corruption, poverty and
underdevelopment.
Colonialism played a huge
role in fueling corruption in Africa. Consider the direct and indirect rule system.
Practically and economically in those colonial days, working for the colonizers
was more rewarding than laboring without outcome or incentives. People who were intermediaries between the
Africans and colonizers were mostly tax officials, interpreters and other less
formal functionaries. These were the jobs available for them. They were able to
extract money and resources from common people and gave some returns to their
colonizers and the rest went into their personal pockets. Of
course, at the time, it was well known that the colonial masters were using the
colonies to provide for their countries. These intermediaries, who had
lost social respect from their people due to the kind of jobs they did, took
the opportunity that was available to them “corruption or embezzlement of
public funds” to better their own futures and those of their children. In this
way, colonialism gave birth to corruption.
It
is obvious that corruption is the root of poor African leadership. It is not so much the wicked effects of
colonialism that keep Africa poor, but the African leaders who made empty
promises before they were elected or forced themselves into offices and do
nothing to ensure a good standard of living. Rather, misguided
leadership, systemic corruption, economic mismanagement, senseless civil wars,
political tyranny, and deliberate violations of human rights and military
vandalism, among others, torment the lives of their subjects. Almost every past
and current African leader can be accused of economic mismanagement.
Corruption
plays the most important rule in the politics of Africa. Poor and weak
leadership raises all forms of unethical techniques to strengthen their
leadership and to gain a political advantage. Bribery and embezzlement of state
and private funds have also led to the buildup of poor leadership.
It is easy for developed nations to
comment on African corruption, but it is difficult to see where and how they
have contributed to and/or are still taking part in it. International
corporations, especially from developed countries, contributed to the problem
of corruption in their dealings with African governments. For instance, giving
incentives to the government officials in order to win contracts obtain permits
or gain certain rights. Most often, African government officials are the ones
accused of corruption while no one talks about these international corporations’
role in the process.
The kind of research that was used
in this book is anthropology. Data collected could include statistics of
different happenings in various countries in Africa since 1960s. This would
consist of political, civic and social facts and/or opinions about Africa. The
strength of this kind of research could be critical analyses of the root causes
of poor leadership in Africa leading to poverty and backward societies. One of
the weaknesses of this kind of research is that the researchers may not
consider other options if they were in the shoes of African leaders. Also the
writers are not Africans; therefore it is easy for them to see where things
were wrong or could have been done differently. Additionally, there were no
concrete solutions mentioned to the corruption problem after all their
arguments.
