Corruption strangles people, communities and nations. It weakens education and health, undermines electoral processes and reinforces injustices by perverting criminal justice systems and the rule of law. By diverting domestic and foreign funds, corruption wrecks economic and social development and increases poverty. It harms everyone, but the poor and vulnerable suffer most.
…let us reaffirm our commitment to ending deceit and dishonesty that threaten the 2030 Agenda and our efforts to achieve peace and prosperity for all on a healthy planet.
The above statement was issued by former Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon to mark the International Anti-corruption Day on 9 December 2016. Readers will recall that the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) came into being on this same day, 12 years ago. Guyana acceded to the Convention five years later on 16 April 2008.
According to Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary General, if the Convention is fully enforced, it can make a real difference to the quality of life of millions of people around the world, and by removing one of the biggest obstacles to development it can help us achieve the Millennium Development Goals. He gave the assurance that the United Nations would do whatever it could to “support the efforts of States to eliminate the scourge of corruption from the face of the Earth. It is a big challenge, but I think that, together, we can make a difference”.
According to the United Nations, every year $1 trillion is paid in bribes while an estimated $2.6 trillion is stolen annually through corruption, a sum equivalent to more than 5% of the global GDP. Transparency International also estimates that developing countries lose US$1.26 trillion every year through various forms of corruption, including bribery, theft and tax evasion while the United Nations Development Programme considered such loss to be approximately ten times the amount of official development assistance.
Corruption in perspective
Corruption is the abuse or misuse of public office for private gain, and in so doing, the public interest is sacrificed in favour of private interest. Corruption invariably benefits those in positions of authority some of whom, by their very actions, show little or no consideration of the public good and the public interest. It also benefits the rich and powerful with strong political connections, at the expense of the poor, the unemployed, and the disadvantaged youths, women and children.
The latter are deprived of the much-needed resources of the State to enable them to lift themselves out of poverty and to provide them with meaningful opportunities to contribute to the affairs of the State. It is estimated that more than six billion people, or nine out of every ten persons, live in countries where corruption is a serious problem.
Given the opaque nature of corruption, it is not possible to measure actual levels of corruption. It was for this reason that the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) was developed in 1995 to measure perceived levels of corruption in the public sector.
The CPI is calculated based on surveys carried out of the perceptions of knowledgeable people, such as senior businessmen and political country analysts, about perceived levels of corruption. For example, the 2015 CPI was computed using twelve data sources, including the Economist Intelligence Unit, the World Bank and the World Economic Forum.
Most of the countries surveyed regard the CPI as an authoritative pronouncement of the best substitute measure for actual levels of corruption. Those who share a deep concern for good governance, transparency and accountability view the index as an important measure in any fight against corruption. An improvement in the CPI ranking and score is an indicator of a reduction in the level of corruption.
The first step, however, is for a country to accept in good faith the CPI ranking and score; recognize that corruption exists and the extent to which it is perceived to be so; and take appropriate measures to bring about an improvement in its ranking and score.
Overall 2016 CPI results
Last Wednesday, Transparency International released the CPI for 2016. This is the 25th year since the global anti-corruption watchdog agency has done so since Prof. Dr. Johann Graf Lambsdorff of the University of Passau, Germany, developed the index. This year 176 countries participated in the survey, compared with 168 in 2015. A total of 122 countries or more than two-thirds of those surveyed scored less than 50 out of 100, suggesting that corruption continues to be a serious problem for these countries.
Countries that are perceived to be the highly corrupt reflect a disturbing pattern of: (a) decline in democratic norms and values; (b) poor governance; (c) weak and ineffective public institutions, such as the police and the judiciary; (d) diminished civil society participation in decision-making; (e) limited press freedom; (f) weak or non-existent anti-corruption laws and institutions; and (g) lack of access to information on government programmes and activities, among others. The ten countries that are perceived to be the most corrupt (in descending order) are: Somalia with a score of 10 out of 100; South Sudan (11); North Korea (12); Syria (13); Libya (14); Sudan (14); Yemen (14); Afghanistan (15); Guinea-Bissau (16); and Iraq (17). These rankings as well as those of the other lower-ranked countries suggest a strong positive correlation between poverty and corruption. It is indeed unfortunate that countries with little economic and other resources are the ones tainted most with high levels of corruption.
The top ten countries on the 2016 CPI are: Denmark with a score of 90 out of 100; New Zealand (90); Finland (89); Sweden (88) Switzerland (86); Norway (85); Singapore (84); Netherlands (83); Canada (82); and Germany (81). These as well as other higher-ranked countries have: (a) strong democratic institutions, norms and values; (b) respect for the rule of law; (c) independent judicial systems; (d) strong and effective anti-corruption laws; (e) high degree of transparency in the affairs of the State; (f) high standards of integrity in public life; (g) high degree of press freedom, civil society involvement and activities; and (h) ready access to information on government programmes and activities, among others.
2016 CPI results for the English-speaking Caribbean
For 2016, eight countries in the English-speaking Caribbean were surveyed, compared with only three in 2015. Table I shows the results for these countries for the last four years.
As can be noted, only two countries showed an improvement – Dominica and Guyana; the others have shown a somewhat noticeable decline, particularly Barbados with a 13-point reduction, compared with 2014. On the other hand, Guyana showed an improvement by five points. This is third highest among all the countries surveyed, with Suriname recording the highest with a 7-point increase, followed by Timor-Leste with a 7-point improvement. However, Guyana remains at the bottom of the English-speaking countries, and for the Caribbean as a whole, only two countries scored below Guyana: Dominican Republic with a score of 31 and Haiti (20).
Guyana’s improved standing on the CPI can be attributed to the following:
(a) Amendments of the Anti-Money Laundering and the Countering of Financing of Terrorism (AML-CFT) Act 2009 which have a positive effect on efforts to curb drug trafficking, money-laundering and illicit flow of funds through the economy;
(b) The conduct of numerous forensic audits of State institutions, the results of which have been damning so far;
(c) The involvement of the Special Organised Crime Unit (SOCU) to review the results of the forensic audits and to institute charges where there is evidence of wrong-doing;
(d) The establishment of the State Assets Recovery Unit (SARU). With the passing of the related legislation, SARU will be provided with legal status to enable to carry out its work. SARU is also expected to be the main anti-corruption agency;
(f) The activation of the Public Procurement Commission to provide the much-needed oversight of Guyana’s procurement processes, though the Commission is somewhat slow at getting its act together;
(g) The activation of the Bid Protest Committee to investigate complaints from aggrieved suppliers and contractors in relation to the award of public contracts; and
(h) A greater appreciation for the work of Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. (TIGI), the local watchdog anti-corruption agency, and the absence of any animosity towards it.
However, much more needs to be done if we are to continue to improve our standing and score on the CPI. In the area of access to information, although legislation was passed in 2011 and a Commissioner of Information has been in place since 2013, the related impact is yet to be felt. In addition, the Integrity Commission has been without a chairperson since Bishop George resigned in 2006. Since then, no meetings of the Commission were held for want of a quorum.
It should not be over-emphasised that a key preventive measure in any fight against corruption is for there to be in place mechanisms for politicians, other senior public officials, and those who are involved in public procurement, to make annual declarations of their incomes as well as assets and liabilities to an independent body. This is provided for under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.
Without an effectively functioning Commission, staffed by professionally and technically competent persons to scrutinise these annual returns, the filing of such returns becomes an exercise in futility in terms of its intention. Other areas that could be considered include the promulgation of legislation on campaign financing, whistleblower protection, and witness protection.
Finally, while Guyana’s performance on the CPI is encouraging, one hopes that the Administration will engage in a serious reflection as to what more needs to be done to bring about further improvements. The areas identified in the previous paragraph, if addressed in a meaningful way, as well as a commitment to further strengthening of other areas, have the potential to lift Guyana to the level of performance comparable to those of the developed countries.
