Focus on system changes, not big fish, to deliver Kenya from graft

The international perception of public sector corruption in Kenya is getting worse, not better. PHOTO | FILE 

By DENNIS KABAARA

In Summary

• Transactional approach to fighting the vice will make little progress.

To paraphrase the late actor Peter Ustinov, “corruption is nature’s way of restoring our faith in democracy”.

This remark came to mind following Transparency International’s (TI) launch of its 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) and the public attention accorded to Kenya’s latest rating.

This was particularly telling coming just after Chief Justice Willy Mutunga’s recent reference to Kenya as a “bandit economy”, and mounting corruption allegations involving his Supreme Court colleague, Philip Tunoi.

Let’s stay away from episodes and events and go straight to what the TI report says, especially given that President Uhuru Kenyatta has categorised corruption as a national security problem.

As TI-Kenya’s executives explained, along a scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean), Kenya achieved a score of 25 (ranking us at 139 out of 168 countries), the same score as 2014 and two points below our 2012 and 2013 score.

This score was based on data sourced from eight out of a possible 12 institutions, with only the World Bank, World Economic Forum and African Development Bank ratings translating into scores above 30, while the lowest (translated) rating came from IHS Global Insight at 11.

The first key message is that the international perception about public sector corruption in Kenya — that is, administrative and political corruption — is getting worse, not better. 

How did we compare with others in 2015? Kenya is placed second last in East Africa (equal to Uganda, ahead of Burundi’s score of 21, and behind Tanzania’s 30 and Rwanda’s 54 scores). 

Our other geographical neighbours — Somalia, South Sudan and Ethiopia respectively score eight, 15 and 33. From these data, is there a link between economic growth and (perceived) corruption? 

The three countries growing faster than us — Ethiopia, Tanzania and Rwanda — have higher CPIs. Ranked 33rd out of the 46 Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries covered by the CPI, Kenya falls below the SSA average of 33, which is itself well below the 45 global average score.

Countries that score better than us include Liberia, Mali and Sierra Leone and economic giants Nigeria (barely) and South Africa.

We share company with 40 SSA counties and two thirds of all surveyed countries with a score below the 50 per cent “pass mark” — signifying what TI terms as a “serious corruption problem”. The BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) also fail this pass mark. 

Vision 2030 benchmarks

Where am I going with these numbers? Well, our Vision 2020 Sector Performance Standards (SPS) lay out target scores for 2015, 2017 and 2030, respectively as 40/43, 65 and 85/87 (for 2015 and 2030 there are two sets of standards (one under the Department of Justice, the other under the Presidency). 

Basically we were 15 points short of our (lower) 2015 target. However, corruption affects everything, so let’s look at a few of our SPS benchmark countries and see how they fared on the CPI.

The benchmarks for reducing waste in public spending are found in Africa where Botswana has (scored 63) and Rwanda (54), while those on cutting diversion of public funds are Malaysia (50) and Japan (75).  

Our world-leading investor protection and FDI yardsticks, New Zealand and Ireland scored 88 and 75 respectively.

Norway, our human development standard, scored 87, while Mauritius, our governance point of reference, scored 53.

What of our corruption gauge? Look no further than the CPI leader, Denmark, at 91. If, as the Jubilee administration often proclaims, we aim to be in the global top 50 in “doing business” and “competitiveness” then it will not happen if we do not single-mindedly address administrative (inside the office) and political (outside the office) corruption.

It’s not just about hardware mega-investment. Institutional software matters too!

We could do worse than take international ratings and assessments more seriously. Earlier in 2015, TI released the Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) which surveys public perceptions and experiences around corruption and bribery.

A special African version — prepared together with Afrobarometer and covering 28 countries, was simultaneously released. 

Institutional culprits

The GCB provides useful insight into the “institutional who’s who” of corruption and bribery.

To begin, 70 per cent of surveyed Kenyans felt that corruption in the country was getting worse. In response to a perception question around corruption by institution (that is the percentage that thinks most or all people in the institution are corrupt), the police stood out with a rating of 75 per cent.

Government officers (46 per cent) and MPs (45 per cent) were next in rating.

Business executives (38 per cent), Members of County Assemblies (36 per cent), KRA officials (three per cent) and judges/magistrates (32 per cent) formed a third corruption cohort.

Those least perceived as corrupt were traditional (13 per cent) and religious leaders (12 per cent). Governors were not part of the survey, but one presumes that the inane “competitive argument” between the Judiciary and Parliament is already settled in the public mind.

On the Kenyan bribery experience, which is linked to day-to-day services, the GCB found that more than one in three service interactions involved bribery. 

The main culprits are the police (almost one in two interactions) followed by the courts and identification document services (around four in 10 interactions)