By
strengthening civil society — through legal rights and long-term economic
development — and instituting clear rules to ensure accountability,
political despotism and corruption will be brought under control. We should
be uncompromising, therefore, in our defence of civil liberties
culled from PAKISTAN DAILY TIMES, December 25, 2005
Corruption undermines the quality
of life for people around the world, not only in poor countries. The US is
currently witnessing several corruption scandals. Even America’s Federal
Emergency Management Agency, responsible for providing relief after natural
disasters and man-made catastrophes, was in the hands of inept political
cronies rather than professionals. When hurricane Katrina struck America’s
Gulf Coast, that incompetence proved fatal.
All societies require an effective government that can provide vital and
irreplaceable public services and infrastructure. Thus, governments are
invested with unique powers, especially the powers of policing and judicial
control. But these powers are also readily abused. How, then, to ensure that
governments are law-abiding as well as strong?
The best answer, both in theory and practice, is to find ways to hold
governments accountable to the people that they serve. Elections are
obviously one method, though campaign financing can be a source of
corruption. Politicians around the world trade favours for cash needed to
win elections, and they often use that cash to buy the votes of desperately
poor people.
Clear electoral rules and procedures can help ensure transparency, but
accountability also comes from the broad society in between elections.
Privately owned newspapers, independent radio and television networks, trade
unions, churches, professional societies, and other groups within civil
society provide a bulwark against despotism.
In the poorest countries, where illiteracy is high, desperate people are
subject to government manipulation, and there is a lack of independent
control through the media and professional organisations, governments face
only weak control by society. They tend to be the most despotic and corrupt,
not because poor people care less about good governance — on the contrary,
their very lives depend on it — but because they lack the means to keep
their government disciplined and law abiding.
The result is a trap in which poverty causes bad governance and bad
governance causes poverty — a two-way spiral downward that can lead to such
extreme deprivation that the government, lacking computers, telephones,
information systems, and trained civil servants, couldn’t function honestly
even if it wanted to. The end result can be collapse into a kind of anarchy,
as in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Somalia.
One measure of the quality of governance in over 150 countries is provided
by Transparency International, an organisation dedicated to strengthening
civil society in the fight against government corruption. Transparency
International produces an annual ranking of “corruption perceptions”
measuring the public’s view of the extent of corruption in a country.
In the 2005 rankings, Iceland scored as the least corrupt country, with the
Scandinavian countries, New Zealand, and Singapore close behind. The US
ranked seventeenth from the top, a not-so-glorious position for the world’s
leading power. In general, the poorer the country, the lower the ranking:
tied for last place are Chad and Bangladesh.
A bit of statistical analysis reveals further important patterns. First,
sub-Saharan African countries are less corrupt on average than countries at
the same income level in other parts of the world. For example, Burkina
Faso, Ghana, Mali, and Rwanda rank much higher than Bangladesh, Indonesia,
Pakistan, and Vietnam. Yet the Asian countries’ economies have tended to
grow much faster over the past generation. Corruption therefore cannot be
the unique factor that holds Africa back. Africa’s problems have more to do
with droughts, malaria, AIDS, and lack of infrastructure.
Poor countries achieve lower levels of corruption when civil rights are
protected. When people have the freedom to assemble, to speak, and to
publish their views, society benefits not only by increasing the range of
ideas that are debated, but also by keeping corruption in check. It is no
surprise that corrupt regimes routinely clamp down on the press, trade
unions, and on professional associations. In Africa, less corrupt countries
like Ghana also have much better protection of civil liberties than more
corruption-prone countries like Chad and Ethiopia, which are also poorer.
Finally, the data show that corruption is highest in oil and gas-producing
countries. In general, natural resources like oil, gas, diamonds, and other
precious minerals breed corruption, because governments can live off of
their export earnings without having to “compromise” with their own
societies. The natural resources are therefore not only a target of
corruption but also an instrument of holding power. Many foreign companies,
intent on cashing in, fuel the pathology of corrupt regimes by peddling in
bribes and political protection.
The implications for action are clear. By strengthening civil society —
through legal rights and long-term economic development — and instituting
clear rules to ensure accountability, political despotism and corruption
will be brought under control. We should be uncompromising, therefore, in
our defence of civil liberties.
The rich world should offer impoverished regions like sub-Saharan Africa
more economic support to break out of poverty. Of course, aid should be
directed to specific needs — for example, malaria control, food production,
safe drinking water, and sanitation — whose fulfilment can be measured and
monitored to resist corruption. By raising living standards, we would also
be empowering both civil society and impoverished governments to defend the
rule of law. — DT-PS
Jeffrey Sachs is professor of economics and director of the Earth
Institute at Columbia University
