Could corruption be good?

Corrupt. Adj. 1. willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. ~ Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 12th Ed.

“corruption” means—

(a) an offence under any of the provisions of sections 39 to 44, 46 and 47;

(b) bribery;

(c) fraud;

(d) embezzlement or misappropriation of public funds;

(e) abuse of office;

(f) breach of trust; or

(g) an offence involving dishonesty—

     (i) in connection with any tax, rate or impost levied under any Act; or

    (ii) under any written law relating to the elections of persons to public office. ~ section 2, Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act, 2003.

I

Those two are the popular definitions for "corrupt" and "corruption." But do they cover more than they reveal? Is there a hidden benefit to society from corrupt acts or in the corruption of a government? I do not know. That lack of knowledge might be a handicap; after all, if I am unable to see the argument for corruption or corrupt acts, how can I honestly say that corruption is wrong or the corrupt act wrongfully?

Kenya has had statutes against corruption for as long as it has had the Penal Code, but corruption has defined every single government since the Colonial Secretary appointed the first Governor of the Colony in 1922. The corruption of the colonial government is yet to be detailed in full, but the racial segregationist policies pursued for the establishment of a home for the settler community will surely be a highlight of that dossier. The less said of the corruption of the post-Independence governments, the better.

However, the effects of the corruption of all of Kenya's governments on the peoples of Kenya cannot be wished away. Death, environmental degradation, impoverishment, unlawful expropriation of property, mass industrial actions, human rights abuses...the list of things that corruption has done to Kenya and Kenyans is profound. If there was any benefit derived from all this, perhaps, it would be possible to say that a little bit of corruption never hurt anyone.

It is possible that there might be short term benefits. For example, if local hospitals lose their allocation of essential medicines because they have been expropriated by the hospital staff for private sale, the residents living near that hospital might choose to live healthier lifestyles or buy medical insurance for them and their families. These benefits, however, can only last for so long. If the corruption in the hospital supply chain persists, not only will the people lose faith in the public healthcare system, but they will see nothing wrong in they themselves engaging in fast practices regarding the health facilities available to them, whether public or private, increasing the schisms among the people, fostering mistrust and eventually greater disregard for the rule of law.

II

There is a temptation to compare Kenya today with Singapore in the 1970s or the United States in the 1870s. The comparisons usually fail to account for the inherent corruption of those nations at those periods in history. Take the United States as an example. The US constitution might have been amended for the fourteenth time in 1868, but the inherently racist policies of both the federal and state governments would contrive to deny Black Americans the vote until the Lyndon Johnson administration enacted the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s. The United States economy may have profited from the disenfranchisement of its Black population due to the suppression of wages engendered by the civil rights violations, but no one should deny that this disenfranchisement was inherently wrong, or corrupt.

Kenya's economy has not benefitted too much from the corrupt acts of those in and out of government. It has not had a corruption dividend the way the US or the Tiger Economies have. In fact, over the past three years, industrial production has had an uneven performance. Steel and cement production has gone up; but manufacturers of some consumer goods have either shut shop and moved away or have been forced to change the products they manufacture because of the unfair competition they face from corrupt manufacturers or importers of the goods they produce.

What is notable is that despite a decade of economic growth, during which time we have been sold a happy tale of great performance, unemployment among the youth aged 18 to 35 has stagnated and labour unrest in the public sector has gotten worse.  The political turmoil witnessed over the past ten years has also been because of the corruption in the government to a great extent. When the political elite have disagreed on the sharing of the spoils, there have been political crises for which few solutions have been found. The paralysis in the national Executive after 2005 and the violence after the 2007 general election have largely been a reflection of the consequences of not addressing the corruption in the government.

Look at Singapore. A quasi-dictatorship in which the benevolent dictator rode roughshod over the people has bequeathed on the city state an economy that is the envy of the world. This is the rare case where corruption did not sink the state. Singaporeans are no more free today than they were twenty five years ago, but many of them are wealthier than they were twenty five years ago. The unseen parts of Singapore still suffer great privation; the poor are the dirty little secret of the Great Singapore Miracle. Kenya does not have the wealth nor the tools to hide its poor; they are simply too many poor people to hide from the eyes of the world.

III

Before we can hold a rational discussion about the possible benefits if corruption for Kenya, we must acknowledge that corruption exists and that it has metastasized throughout the firmament of government. It is not enough to snigger at the base desires of the county government leadership; these are but a confirmation that the public service we have is not the public service we deserve. When critical-care patients die because they cannot be admitted to hospitals because the funds for expansion have been spent on boondoggles of little value, that cannot in any way be described as a benefit even if one of its outcomes is that private entrepreneurs will now offer critical care for the same patients at a price that the people can afford. That price is a second tax on the people for they have already paid taxes for the provision of those same services.

The pernicious effects of corruption are a loosening of the values and morals of the people.  A simple thought experiment should suffice. A public hospital in an ideal situation should provide basic care for the people living around the hospital. It must be served by a doctor, a nurse, pharmacist and other healthcare workers. The doctor and his staff should have undergone training to the highest standards possible under the circumstances. The facilities should be in good repair and, based on the statistical analysis of the Ministry of Health, should be adequate for the population around the hospital. The public health policy near the hospital when implemented properly should ensure that the population avoids risks that would endanger their health and practice things that would enhance their health, thereby leaving the hospital facilities for those in need.

In a corrupt environment, the chances of the healthcare workers in the hospital would not be trained to the highest standards, the public policy implementation would not de-escalate health risks, the facilities would be in poor repair, and the funds for expanding the services with the growth in the population would be missing. The health problems in the population would spike and the public hospital would be unable to cope, engendering misery and a deep mistrust for the government. Bribes, for example, would see to it that some patients are treated and many are not. Extrapolate this throughout the public service and things get more and more dire. Rich/poor schisms will widen and support for public policies will remain low. Political instability will be built into the political system. The outcome is likely what we are experiencing today: poverty, unemployment, violent crime, despondency.

By all means, let us have a debate on the pros and cons of corruption, but that debate must acknowledge first that corruption is inherently bad and two, that any positive effects are short-lived and only for the few, never for the many.