Tackling Corruption: Towards A Citizens' Covenant (1)

PSD to HTML Developer Helps You Create Your Website in a Highly Designed Way. PSD to HTML - find out a company for yourself which can provide you with the service.

When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.- Thomas Jefferson

When I speak of a citizens' covenant against corruption, I refer to a renewed determination, a promise or commitment by Nigerians to do something about the rampant infamy of official corruption that holds our nation hostage. It would seem that up till now, every prognosis proceeds from the assumption that nothing can be done by anyone about the problem except government; and that only a government with the political will and clear understanding and perspective to the problem can actually address it. Well, our story is that from time immemorial, we have awaited such a government without luck. Therefore, I think it's time for us to begin to seek the solution from amongst ourselves, because if Nigeria, by the implication of Transparency International's Reports since 1996 at least, can be regarded as having one of the most predatory elites of our times; the people themselves must also qualify as some of the most complacent in history. It is so easy to get into the groove of regarding the ordinary Nigerian as a 'victim' of corruption, but a more circumspect look would reveal that he/she is more likely to turn out an unstinting participant or a bastion of encouragement, advertently or inadvertently.

Of course, sometimes we get fooled by the perceived public reactions that greet some of the more high profile cases of the often half-hearted ventilations wafting into public space now and again as part of the inevitable fallouts when dishonourable thieves knock heads, as for instance being witnessed with the hoopla attending the latest episode pitting the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Mallam Nasir el-Rufai against Senators Jonathan Zwingina and Ibrahim Mantu. Yet, when the clamour came that he should name names, I couldn't banish the sneaky feeling from within me that it wasn't exactly out of a pure sense of revulsion and determination for resolution of the matter on the people's part, but rather another of those eternal Nigerian crave for drama. People wanted Nasir el-Rufai to name names only as part of their gist resume, not because they've got an action plan to deal with the matter judiciously and conclusively thereafter. Once Nigerians get their fix with the sight of 'big men' washing their dirty linen in public - some form of mass voyeurism, I suppose - they hobble along gleefully to face their self-cursed future. If you're alien, you may not understand it; but it's just another beautiful day in the life of the Happy Nigerian!

We certainly can justify the above view with the way things are going (or more appropriately, not going) regarding the matter right now. The man has named two senators as people who demanded bribe from him before confirmation, he produced no evidence, the two senators have denied it and denounced him, the senate has come out to declare its men free of all charges, a few tepid threats of going to the ICPC here and going to the court there and the PDP and the presidency barge in, gagging every dramatis personae and declaring the matter closed! The Nigerian people have had their momentary fix, but the corrupt leadership must have its way. So, if you expect some groundswell of protest for the matter to be thoroughly investigated or for the slumbering ICPC or police to act when indeed no one has made any report to them (another convenient excuse), you'll have to import new citizens from Mars to do so. After all, who does not know that Nigerians are notorious forgive-and-forget, sweep-under-the-carpet, let-sleeping-dogs-lie and let's-move-on kind of people? Most do not have the conscience, patience or the time to confront their most telling national problem; they would rather glide along in that hazy world of 'wetin we fit do now?' and 'God dey' until some new drama comes along on the political plane to get their tongues wagging again and to keep the accursed cycle turning.

I certainly wouldn't be saying anything new if I begin now to reel out the individual corruption cases that adorn our gallery of shame, even if only limited to the period of today's supposed democratic rule. Nobody, I think, is still under the illusion that the problem of corruption in public service is now less than it was at any time during the preceding military or civilian rules. If anything, it's grown worse and more brazen. And this is under the watch of an administration that rode to power with a mandate to tame the monster and with so much goodwill from within and without that just very few were cynical enough to think it won't make a dent on the problem. Now, after four years of physical and psychological terrorism on the people, including very vicious attacks on what remains of the nation's moral fibre, those cynics of yesterday are today's prophets - the same government in a most wanton display of electoral rigging ever witnessed in Nigeria, returned itself to power for another term; while the people, being the loyal patrons of corruption that they are, accept this with notorious equanimity - yelping along like hapless poodles, jolly, as any complacent bunch can be.

Sometime last month, Chief Kanu Agabi, in his new incarnation as Senior Special Assistant to the President on Ethics and Good Governance, did try to propose a not-so-curious theory (I say "not-so-curious" because it is a theory that has been over-flogged by the failed post-colonial African politician in all guises). In a one-day public lecture titled: "The Anti-Corruption Crusade, the Cultural Perspective" (organised by the National Institute for Cultural Orientation), the man blamed corruption in Nigeria on the adoption of colonial laws which are inconsistent with the culture and experience of our people.

Yes, this is the same Godwin Kanu Agabi who until very, very recently was a two-time Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of the Federation, a position that empowered him to propose changes to the law and fashion the direction of legal development in the country. Throughout that period he didn't find it necessary to propose one single change to the supposedly euro-centric common law rules and those legal traditions steeped in colonialism that largely govern our legal system. I mean, here he is, blaming the adoption of colonial laws for corruption and yet, when he had the chance, just up to a few months ago, he couldn't propose one thing - just one thing - to change anything within the law! All we remember him for as an Attorney-General and Minister of Justice were his collaborating with Obasanjo to foist a forged Electoral Act on an unsuspecting populace and his blowing hot and cold over the adoption of unconstitutional Sharia. The Anti-Corruption Act, which he would possibly want to claim credit for is nothing but another document well steeped in colonial law, and which, as events have since proven, is observed more in its wanton breach right under his nose! And yet he hangs around the place as some "Senior Special Assistant on Ethics and Good Governance" - a position that itself is a corrupt contraption, created as a means to give jobs to the boys after being dropped as ministers to pave way to some new termites! Ask him what his job really entails and I'm sure he'd find it tasking enough to exhaust half a page of A4 trying to explain it!

Well, back to his argument. On the surface, it seems genuine; but on closer scrutiny, it is vacuous - it is of the genre that begins by hanging everything on the neck of the white man, proposing to paint us all as victims of some colonial legacy, even where it is obvious that we should be standing up to take responsibility for ourselves. Today, when I look at Transparency International's corruption index, I find this theory inadequate to explain the progress being made in tackling or controlling corruption in some of those countries that have similar or worse experience than Nigeria in terms of colonialism, neo-colonialism or cultural imperialism.

Now, I am by no means saying colonialism did not play its role in fostering corruption. In as much as colonialism itself is roguery rather than a civilizing mission, it would be preposterous to assume some saintly posture for its effects. The white man came to loot and plunder; he found willing tools in collaborating 'natives', who, recognizing the colonialists' superior military strength and criminal determination, found it convenient and exceedingly profitable to join him against their people. The white man bought those he could buy to his side, conquered those he couldn't buy and went on to establish an administration that depended on subterfuge and behind-the-curtain manoeuvres to succeed in the continued exploitation of the people he administers. While the image of the ramrod butter-will-never-melt-in-his-mouth colonial official was being projected to the home audience by colonial propaganda, the Colonial Office understood what the bottom line was. Think of Joyce Cary's Mr Johnson and the corrupt Harry Rudbeck driving on with his road-building project by hook or by crook, while allowing poor Mr Johnson to carry the can and you'll understand how cruelly single-minded the conception of the colonial project was even in the minds of its servants. Think of Ezeulu in Achebe's Arrow of God refusing to be bribed with the position of Warrant Chief, in spite of his helplessness before Tony Clarke the colonial Assistant District Officer, and you can begin to imagine how traditional society became overran by corrupt puppetry and the huge shock it underwent before realigning to the reality of thieves and scoundrels becoming the new law givers. Consider another Achebean character, Obi Okonkwo in No Longer At Ease struggling to meet up with the new materialist demands of colonial society and you'll understand the new pressures put on the individual to meet the same age old social obligations with new and alien tools and outside the natural communal environment. Yes, colonialism has done its bit, but how long are we to hang on to that excuse for the failures of today?

Perhaps, if there's something to learn from colonial corruption, it is the way the white man conceived and used it. Of course, anyone who's read history properly knows that there was no idyllic corrupt-free Africa before the white man came and that though he may have introduced a new wave of and indeed dimension to materialism, his gifts of mirrors, guns and gin to the mercenary chieftains did not suddenly open up a new unknown evil in these people. They were more like water on the seeds and plants already there. Understanding that corruption is only a means to build wealth and sustain his own home economy in the very competitive world of his time, the white man made sure he didn't transfer the habit back home. While it was alright for Westminster and Whitehall to cover up those undesirable aspects of the colonial enterprise, everyday British governance was still organised on the same principles of accountability and the rule of law. It was one thing to use savage means, including corruption, to control the "savages" abroad and another to import such habits home. Yes, those in colonial outposts were in service of king and country, but never was it conceived that their practices should become a benchmark for governance at home!

So, the point I'm making here really is that there's nothing absolutely wrong in our laws; there's nothing debilitating in having to live under a "new culture" supposedly foisted on us by colonialism. As far as no one is sticking a gun up our nostril to wear shirt and tie, practice common law, eat with fork and knife or speak Queen's English, it's all well and good. Culture is dynamic and the fact that we stick with what we've got today is largely because it's convenient; it is the surer and better way to relate to the world we live in. We cannot rewrite history or continue crying over spilt milk. Botswana, third poorest country in the world by the time of its independence did not have to run back to the caves to find ideas to master modern governance or keep it amongst the top 30 of nations with less corruption in public service as it is today. Coincidentally, it was also a British colony, inheriting the same traditions of the common law as Nigeria and yes, there was no resort to Tswana pre-colonial traditions to make meaning of their future. They simply took to the business of building a modern nation and got on with it. What matters from all one can genuinely see is how a particular people perceive governance and the role and responsibility of individuals in public service and a general but strong commitment to abide by the rule of law. And that is where we as a people must start from before we can begin to set things right.

Therefore, the first question we must address before declaring a people's covenant against corruption is: how does the Nigerian perceive public service? What does he/she expect from the public servant and how much does society depend on the public servant to function? More importantly, what rules govern the relationship between the public servant and the people vis-Ã -vis his/her duties and responsibilities to his/her office? In the Nigerian experience, it is fair to say that public service is perceived as a rich but helpless orphan under the claws of greedy and manic relatives. No one wants the responsibility to nurture him or attend to his needs, but everyone wants his money. And if it means shooting each other down in broad daylight in the middle of the street to get to that wealth or to control that orphan, the evidence is that you cannot seem to have a shortage of bloodthirsty volunteers! And why is this so? Because those the public services are meant to serve have never been made to understand the real purpose; they have never been made to realise the depth of relationship between public policy and their everyday life. Rather, they've become, wittingly or unwittingly, recruits in the sectional wars waged to corner the orphan's wealth; they grow up fed on a diet of negative ethnicity, real and imagined marginalization, suspicion and senseless acquisitions, without anything by way of contribution and civic responsibility. A mono-cultural economy largely dependent on oil only helps to ossify this vampire ideology, which, taken from the bottom upwards becomes the face of political leadership and the basic realities of society which over time has conveniently assumed the bogus term, "Nigerian factor".

Thus, it isn't surprising that when a government proceeds to appoint ministers of government or anyone with enough clout to influence government policy, the overriding consideration can never be merit or service, but rather how each appointment would serve to capture or reflect the loyalty of one or more warring faction(s), expressed in ethnic groupings, power caucuses, professional groupings (especially military), business connections and plain friendships. And of course, each of these groups themselves are necessarily hostages to cliques of gun wielders and thieves that have been at it since the first day Nigeria opened her eyes. The implication of this is that the wrong people find themselves in charge of public policy and in order to retain that position have through a combination of violence, threats, subterfuge and inaction ensured from the beginning that the threshold of expectation remains very low.

Their most potent weapon of control and continuation is lawlessness (and the attendant impunity). This they've done by perpetuating a culture that seems to accept that they, the sacred cows, need not obey the law. Such disdain for law is open and verbalized and eventually it's also become expressed in the intimidation and strangulation of the judiciary and the justice system. The idea of an independent judiciary gradually becomes an anathema as justice becomes only available to the highest bidder. That a democratic dispensation has now produced what is a separate arm of the legislature makes no difference. The over-centralisation of power at the centre and the equally considerable influence of governors in the states have ensured that prebendal dependence and the politics of patronage survive with visible arrowheads. Invariably, what we've got is a system that is hugely unaccountable at all levels, a system open to impunity, operated as favours and political racketeering and therefore gravely repressive and unproductive.

To an extent, yes, the people are victims, not least because they pay the taxes and thus should have some form of legitimate expectations from those who rule over them; but, like a people suffering from a severe case of collective amnesia (considering their experience), they inexplicably continue to hand over their lives and paycheques to the thieves that have taken over their family home! When people pick up the gun to overrun a government in their name, the Nigerian asks no question, but gets out the drums and cymbals to celebrate the new messiahs; and when some other persons come in the name of democracy, all the Nigerian has to do again is do the same dancing and singing routine. Yes, we are constantly celebrating the death and birth of 'new' governments, but never graduating from the class of hanging expectations because each past regime seems always to be worse than the previous one and all we get to live for is hope - hope that dares not speak its name, a shameful and burdened hope.

But perpetuation of lawlessness has not only been the forte of the criminal elite; the people themselves have imbibed the odious lessons. How many times do you hear Nigerians proclaim disdain for the law? How many Nigerians do really care about the provisions of the Constitution? How many are conversant with the various provisions of our laws dealing with official corruption? In Nigeria, it is normal to hear otherwise informed persons accuse you of being too legalistic if you as much as quote a provision of the law we are all supposed to keep. Ironically, their disdain for the law is justified on the grounds that the political leadership cares less about it! Yet, history and experience has proven time and time again that no society progresses by abandoning the rule of law; no society progresses by leaving the question of accountability and political responsibility solely in the hands of their rulers. It is the responsibility of the people to keep their leaders on their toes and nowhere has this been done successfully in history without the aid of the law and without a basic understanding by all stakeholders that it is the final arbiter.

So, it is worth pointing out here and now that this project of establishing a citizens' covenant against corruption must begin with our own attitudinal change towards the law. But let me confess that like most Nigerians, I suppose, I am sometimes very weary of solutions that proceed from recommending 'a change of attitude' on people's part. What does it need to change attitude? Who will begin the process of change? How long will it last if ever it gets started? And, what purpose will it serve if those in authority simply refuse to change while the rest of us are at it? Yes, I also ask these questions; but I also realize that most times these are mere expressions of frustration that take us nowhere. In this particular case, we simply cannot proceed on a path of national rejuvenation and desired change without a considerable change of attitude by a considerable number of citizens - considerable enough to pull their weight together to effect that change needed by all. It is not important that the law is imposed or that it is not an expression of the people's will as it is today; what is important is that we hold all citizens to it on the same basis as those who make the law. In other words, our duty as citizens first is to obey the law, and, more crucially, to ensure that those we've elected to public office and those appointed to implement public policy are held to those same standards as the rest of us. This is the only way we can begin to appreciate the rule of law and to also begin the process of changing those rules that do not conform to it, but which nonetheless are parts of the law as it is today. The first real revolution begins in the mind - in the minds of a few who can see the big picture, but are not intimidated by it.

Once we get the above perspective right, we can then begin to use that new attitude and understanding to address the myriad of problems that are bedevilling our nation, including corruption. As a people, we must realize that we cannot address corruption, no matter the solutions anyone were to now propose, until we begin to understand what democracy really means and the power it gives to every citizen. Once it is understood that democracy cannot operate outside the rule of law, we will begin to want to know what laws apply to what and what to do when there's a breach. Real development cannot proceed until the law is adopted as a partner, rather than being seen as an inconvenience to avoid. The result of this new attitude will therefore be that people are now more likely to question the calibre of people they put in public office at any level, with a clear understanding of what Jefferson meant when he spoke of those assuming public trust being public property.

What a citizens' covenant against corruption should represent is an attempt by citizens themselves to begin to address this problem without having to wait for the government or those in authority to first address the matter. We know they are not ready and won't likely be ready forever if we let things continue as they are, since they themselves are largely the perpetrators of the problem. So, addressing the problem ourselves and getting those in authority to toe the line should be our focus. And the specifics of that shall be the subject of the concluding part of this piece.

Kennedy Emetulu,

London.

See: Tackling Corruption: Towards A Citizens' Covenant (2)

the village square

The Village Square

Features & Articles

Wednesday, October 22, 2003