Are African Leaders Naturally Corrupt?

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.