By Assisi Asobie
Still, we can place a more positive interpretation on the data provided on Table 1. Nigeria’s performance in reducing the perceived level of corruption, as measured by the CPI, has been much better under civilian rule than it was under military rule. For sixteen years, 1984-1999, Nigeria was under military rule. In 1999, Nigeria’s score on the CPI was 1.6/10; her rank was 98 out of 99 countries surveyed. Nigeria was, then, perceived as the second most corrupt country in the world. In 2000, when the law establishing the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) was enacted by the Olusegun Obasanjo administration to strengthen the fight against corruption, Nigeria was perceived as the most corrupt country in the world: it scored 1.2/10, and ranked 90th out of 90 surveyed countries, on the CPI. By 2006, the dismal performance had started to improve: Nigeria scored 2.2/10 and ranked 142 out of 163 countries. In 2012, Nigeria scored 27/100 and ranked 139 out of 176 countries surveyed. Her score on the CPI since the establishment of the ICPC, in the year 2000, has improved by 1.5 points, that is, five times, by TI test of significant improvement. Nevertheless, Nigeria can do much better than that.
Let us put all this in proper, overall TI context. Any improved performance that keeps Nigeria’s annual score below 3.0 points, on a 0-10 scale or 30 on a 0-100 scale, is not really meaningful progress. Indeed, generally, countries that score below 5 points on a scale of 0-10 or 50 on a scale of 0-100 are considered “significantly corrupt”. On the 2012 CPI, the African countries that crossed the line of corruption to the zone of cleanness are five in number: Botswana-65 (30th); Cape Verde-60 (39th); Mauritius-57 (43rd); Rwanda-53 (50th) and Seychelles-52 (51st). Three of these African countries have already achieved what Nigeria is aspiring to achieve by 2015, while two have attained the ranking she hopes to attain by 2020. Several other African countries are also ahead of Nigeria in the race. They include Namibia-48 (58th); Ghana-45 (64th); Lesotho-44 (66th); South Africa-43 (69th); Sao Tome and Principe-42 (72nd); Liberia-41 (75th); and Tunisia-41 (75th).
How can the CPI be used to improve Nigeria’s fight against corruption? By carefully studying the CPI, we can deduce not only that the fight against corruption in Nigeria is not as effective as it should be, but also why this is so.
More important, the CPI enables us to identify those nations that have, in comparative terms, succeeded more in fighting corruption or in drastically reducing its level and then to learn from their experiences.
Over a period of (the last) four years, 2008-2011, the five countries (except Finland in one year, 2009) have scored each year, on the CPI, above 9 points, on a scale of 0-10. It is instructive to note how they did it. Let us illustrate with the last two countries on the list; Sweden and Singapore.
First, let’s look at Sweden. According to Bo Rothstein, an expert on Sweden, up until the 19th Century, Sweden was pervasively corrupt. As he put it: the “Swedish State was clientilistic and, to quite an extent, corrupt”. Even though the level of corruption was probably not as high as it is in certain African and Balkan States today, the situation then was pretty bad. The transformation of the Swedish State occurred between 1855 and 1875, a period of roughly twenty years. Significantly, the strategy used to transform the state was “non-incremental and dramatic”. The approach was integral, holistic and revolutionary. Rothsterin describes it as the “Big Bang” strategy. He explains: “almost all major political, social and economic institutions” were transformed at a relatively short period of time.
The transformation of Singapore was equally dramatic. When Singapore attained full internal self-government in 1959, it was an underdeveloped nation. Today, it is described as a “small, stable, highly developed country”. What sets Singapore apart from many other countries that attained self-government at the same time is the extreme seriousness with which issues of rule of law, obedience to laws, and enforcement of laws are treated.
In Singapore, criminal penalties are strict and law enforcement is rigorous. Indeed, in Singapore, you can be arrested and punished for such offences as jaywalking (crossing the road carelessly), littering or spitting. To cite another example, Singapore has a mandatory caning sentence for acts of vandalism; it has mandatory death penalty for many narcotics offences; and if one is caught in Singapore for committing a crime with arms, one could receive a verdict that would result in a maximum penalty of life sentence, with caning added thereto. In that country, the law is no respecter of persons. Consequently, the crime rate in Singapore is generally low.
However, the key to the remarkable development of Singapore was good and strong political leadership. From the start, Singapore was led by democratically-elected politicians who put the nation above self, and national interest above personal wealth.
Complementing this was the fact that Singapore had in place a properly functioning legal system, which ensured that no political leader or civil servant was above the law. Besides, in Singapore, the government was strong in the sense that it had enough popular support to take difficult but rational decisions. The flip side of this situation was that the people themselves had sufficient trust and faith in the government to believe that whatever it decided and did was in the national interest and for the public good, and not out of the personal and selfish interests of individuals. By their actions, successive governments earned the trust and support of the people; and the people, in turn, were loyal and obedient to their government and their nation-state largely because of the people-oriented policies and actions of their political leaders. That was the secret.
The fight against corruption in Nigeria has not been very effective so far for five main reasons. First, contrary to Section 15.5 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the fight against corruption in Nigeria is, largely, a federal (Anti-Corruption Agencies) affair and not a national endeavour. Second, the fight lacks political leadership: it is not led from the top of the Nigerian political mainstream. Third, it is not energized, at all levels, by the force of personal example, which is the hallmark of transformational leadership. Fourth, the constitutional provisions for the fight against corruption are not faithfully enforced; in fact, many of them are breached, often brazenly. Fifth, the approach adopted in the fight is not holistic, reflecting the integral perspective: not surprisingly, there is no approved national strategic plan to combat corruption in Nigeria.
Corruption in Nigeria is being fought ad hoc, and in an uncoordinated manner, primarily by the federal anti-corruption agencies. There is some action; but it is action without a holistic national plan.
Corruption in contemporary Nigeria has assumed the dimension and significance of a national emergency. It is systemic and pervasive, not episodic and partial or sectorally segmented. And its effects-economic, social, political and security – are deep, broad and devastating. What is required to combat it, therefore, is not an incremental, ad hoc uncoordinated approach. It demands the application of the ‘BIG bang’ strategy that was used in Sweden in the 19th Century. Also, the crusade has to be led from the top by the Nigerian political leadership, through the force of personal examples, as happened in Singapore in the 20th Century. But the Nigerian people have to be practically and massively involved in the fight as well. We’ve had enough of rhetoric and effusion of hot air-especially from the top.
(Concluded).
Prof. Asobie is a former President of Transparency in Nigeria.
You May Also Like To Read Part 1:
Get more stuff like this
Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.