|
DOCUMENTS > external
donors: how can they be part of the solution? [< backward | forward]
External Donors: How Can They be Part of the Solution?
Rt. Hon. Baroness Chalker FSS
External Donors: How Can They be Part of the Solution?
Mr Chairman, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
Today is the first major occasion overseas when I have given a speech
since leaving Government and the first without the constraints which government
necessarily imposes. This is a liberating experience in itself. Consequently,
I hope that what I have to say will be taken as a personal and honest
appraisal of the issues we are discussing, with the benefit of my experience
at the cutting edge of development politics for 8 years.
Corruption is a fact of life in all corners of the globe. It is found
in developed and developing countries alike. It is to be found in the
public and private sectors. It can manifest itself on a "grand scale"
and at the "petty level". Politicians, civil servants, businessmen and
others have each been implicated and exposed as perpetrators of corrupt
practices, at different times.
It is too simplistic to look for definitive, all embracing answers to
the reasons why individuals or governments indulge in corruption. There
is no magic wand at our disposal. However, the fact that such an array
of speakers has come together here in Lima, is a clear demonstration of
the will to tackle the cancer of corruption. Yes it is all our
tasks to drag out the truth from the dark recesses where corruption has,
for too long, gone undetected, and in some instances, been condoned or
even encouraged.
In this new climate of relative openness, the importance of the international
MEDIA should not be under-estimated; journals such as the Financial Times
and the Wall Street Journal have devoted considerable space to analyses
of the corruption issue as well as to articles exposing individual cases.
Some may be concerned that such MEDIA exposure could be counterproductive,
at least in the short term. Corrupt governments or businesses may seek
alternative methods. I believe that in the longer-term the cumulative
impact of serious investigative journalism will act as a highly effective
weapon in the anti- corruption armoury.
The task facing us all is daunting. There are vested interests to be
tackled, ingrained attitudes to be overturned and cultural orthodoxy's
to be challenged.
There can be no gain in this process without some pain. However, we must
ask what is the price of not tackling the issue?
There is an overwhelming, hard-headed economic case for tackling corruption.
If developing countries wish to have fair access to the benefits which
the expansion of free trade will bring, then it is in their own national
self- interest to dismantle the barriers which will deter foreign investment.
High on the list of deterrents to FDI is the fear of dealing with countries
where the rule of law is undermined, where democratic institutions are
weak, where the accountability of the public service is non-existent and
petty corruption is endemic. There is increasing empirical evidence to
show that investors, especially foreign ones, choose to go elsewhere rather
than become caught up in costly projects which squeeze their profit margins.
In the new world economy of the twenty-first century, corruption on a
grand scale will not continue to oil the wheels of investment.
This is not to pretend that the onward march of free trade and more discerning
decision-making by investors from the developed world will, in themselves,
result in the market correcting all distortions in trade, investment and
development. They should, however, be a major factor in focussing politicians
on the disadvantages to the economic well-being of their people of failing
to tackle the causes of corruption.
Why Fighting Corruption is Essential
First, if the world's political leaders are serious ABOUT finding solutions
to the gross disparities in wealth between developed and developing nations,
action against corruption is crucial.
There must be a concerted effort to expose the causes of corruption and
particularly the contribution it makes to exacerbating the abject poverty
of millions in the developing world.
Second, all nations wish to stimulate economic growth to satisfy the
increasing expectations of their citizens. Such economic growth can only
be achieved effectively and for the long-term if decision making is soundly
based with institutions in which investors and ordinary people across
the world can have confidence. Those who refuse or fail to see the correlation
between corruption and long term economic stagnation will condemn poor
countries to a worse fate as more enlightened societies grasp the nettle
of reform. Politicians who remain wedded to out-dated and economically
damaging corrupt ACTIVITIES will, in due course, suffer the political
consequences. Ultimately, economic progress and wealth creation cannot
be secured without the private sector, just as the private sector is a
truly essential player in the overall fight against corruption.
President Narayanan and Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral have, in recent
weeks, demonstrated an impressive political and moral determination to
attack the corruption they believe is now endemic in Indian society.
Invoking the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi, President Narayanan declared:
"Corruption is corroding the vitals of our politics and society."
"……the people have to be in the forefront of the fight against corruption...."
"A social movement or a widespread national movement is needed to cleanse
the system."
The fact that the leaders of one of the world's great nations chose to
highlight the corruption issue at a time when the eyes of the world were
focussed on Delhi, celebrating 50 years of independence, demonstrates
the progress being made. At times of national rejoicing, politicians normally
wish to concentrate on the good news, not on the downside of their country's
life.
Why did President Narayanan do it? As The Times of London said:
"Behind this appeal, which if heeded would change India as much as it
would enrich it, lies a sharpening recognition that corruption and poverty
go together."
The enlightened approach being adopted by India's political elite should
now find expression elsewhere in the developing world. India will benefit
from its decision to lay bare the corruption culture and the mechanisms
it intends to use to overcome its causes. Foreign investors can have confidence
that the climate for investment in India will improve. Honesty and positive
action by governments can make a real difference. India has shown the
way.
Can Donors Make a Difference?
There has been a tendency in some quarters to pin much of the guilt on
developed countries and their business communities for corruption. This
is a futile and self-defeating exercise. There are no truly innocent parties
in this debate, and we must acknowledge the causes of corruption are to
be found in the north, not only the south. However, our focus should be
on finding solutions for the future, not indulging in retrospective
debate ABOUT who or what is most culpable in the development of international
corruption.
The north has understood the need to put its own house in order. The
G7, the Commonwealth, the OECD, the EU and others have in recent times,
set in motion recommendations to make foreign bribery a criminal offence
and end tax deductibility of bribes to foreign officials. There is still
much work to be done and scepticism to be overcome, before the necessary
legislative frameworks and legal sanctions are fully in place. This is
not solely a job for the donors, but it is also one for business. It is
in their interests also. In a recent survey for the World Bank top business
executives identified corruption as the most important obstacle to transacting
business in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean.
The fact that the political will is now being translated into proposals
for reform should act as a catalyst for everyone, especially the developing
world to respond. No single action by any individual or government can
effect the changes we wish to see; the process must be two-way and complementary.
Where the developed world can and should be enabled to make a difference
is in the process of building the capacity of institutions in developing
and transition countries. Based on my somewhat long experience, building
strong, accountable and durable institutions is central to deterring corruption
and the causes of corruption.
I make no apology for repeating my views published in the Nairobi press
in 1994:
"Where a government wants development aid to help with a transformation
to democracy, to strengthen its institutions, to weed out corruption
and incompetence, we (the then British Government) will give it. But
where a government turns its back on democracy, ignores accountability,
flouts human rights and allows corruption to flourish, our aid will
be of a humanitarian nature to help the people in real need. No taxpayer
in any donor country should be asked to contribute to the Swiss bank
accounts of corrupt third world politicians".
Cleaning-up government is a complex and lengthy exercise, requiring political
commitment and a determination to see the process through to a successful
conclusion. The challenge for us is to devise ways of assisting those
who wish to be helped to set ABOUT building their own strong, independent
and accountable institutions whose ethos is to engage pro-actively in
driving corruption out of the national psyche. Where substantive strategies
of reform and renewal can be most effective are in the following six areas:
- civil service reform;
- the establishment of soundly based policy-making processes;
- the legal framework, including the judicial system and an adequate
prosecution service;
- strengthening financial management systems;
- government procurement and contract Management systems which demonstrate
open, competitive bidding for public contracts;
- anti-corruption commissions to improve integrity in public life; answerable
to Parliaments not governments.
It would be disingenuous, however, to suggest that reform in any of these
areas can ultimately hope to fulfil its purpose unless the political environment
is open and democratic with a properly functioning elected legislature.
The process should as far as possible, in principle at least, have the
consent of opposition political parties.
Civil Service Reform
On the whole, western democracies benefit enormously from long-established
institutions such as an impartial civil service. During my many years
as a Government Minister, I deeply appreciated the ethical code and high
standards by which my civil servants discharged their duties. For an ethical
code to operate successfully requires all parts of the body politic to
subscribe to its development.
The objective of any reform programme in the civil service must be to
enhance public confidence in the integrity of the service. Tackling the
root cause of why officials resort to corruption leads to a civil service
with improved recruitment procedures, fairer remuneration and a career
structure with promotion based on merit. In short, the ethos should be
thoroughly professional with performance targets clearly set out. Underlying
this should be a code of conduct to which all public servants and politicians
must adhere - and which commands respect from the Permanent Secretary
down to the lowliest desk officer.
Such a code may, for example, as in the case of Zimbabwe, define wrongdoing
in the following terms:
- failing to take reasonable care of state funds or property;
- theft of funds and property;
- failing to reimburse advances,
- falsifying official DOCUMENTS;
- accepting bribes;
- failing to declare and disclose conflict of interest.
Infusing the service with such an ethos cannot be achieved in isolation
from the conduct of government ministers or parliamentarians in general.
If reform is to produce results which improves demonstrably the policy-making
process and increases transparency and accountability, agreement and co-ordination
between the political and administrative arms of the Executive and Parliament,
is vital.
Although countries embarking on a reform process should work closely
with the international advisory organisations, each country must identify
for itself what specific requirements they have. The host country needs
to be involved in drawing up the programme of reform. Such exercises must
command the widest possible support within the country and not be viewed
as interference in their internal affairs by foreign authorities.
The Case for a Public Forum
As a potentially integral part of the reform process, I suggest that
there is considerable merit in convening a public forum of key public
figures to debate openly the fundamental issues involved ineffective capacity-building.
Politicians, parliamentarians, the private sector, the MEDIA and academic
community all have a useful and productive role to play. Not only can
they generate ideas, they should also command respect from and the support
of, the wider society. Chaired by an independent public figure, the forum
might consider:
- an ethics code;
- effective interface between the State institutions and the people;
- case studies on comparative examples of reformed or reforming civil
service structures; and
- the effects of corruption and bribery on
- the international standing and reputation of a country and
- the economic well-being of a country.
In itself, such a forum cannot hope to produce a panacea for all ills.
However, its deliberations should facilitate informed debate on the evils
of corruption at all administrative levels within a country. In other
words, an anti- corruption ethos must permeate regional and local government
too where corruption may be endemic and more difficult to detect.
In addition to the civil service, an integrated institutional reform
process needs to examine the legal and judicial systems. Effective enforcement
of anticorruption legislation demands an accountable judiciary truly independent
of the Executive and political interference. In particular, together donor
and recipient should look at ways of creating effective prosecuting authorities
as part of the process of strengthening legal enforcement. I am strongly
of the view that a highly trained and motivated prosecuting authority
is vital. Without this, there is a real prospect of corruption cases collapsing
because of evidence withheld or false information used by the defence.
The capacity of authorities to gain the evidence necessary to secure a
conviction is a crucial element in a fair and responsive legal system.
None of these reforms will have lasting success without budget reform.
The requirement for sound modem financial management systems within government,
central and local, is now more widely recognised. Proper auditing procedures
should be established which can at best prevent but at least minimise
and detect wrong-doing in the public sector.
This is necessary if a government's macro-economic objectives are to
be secured, scarce resources prioritised and allocated within a strategic
framework, and projects implemented effectively.
Associated with this is the difficult and sensitive area of government
procurement. Countries seeking to improve their system of bidding for
public contracts should learn from best practice elsewhere. The economic
and moral madness of corrupt bidding procedures is self-evident. The legacy
of badly built roads, semi-finished tower blocks and industrial enterprises
situated in the wrong location is well known to those who have witnessed
at first hand the debilitating consequences of corrupt bidding practices.
I repeat -if countries indulging in such folly continue to sweep this
issue under the carpet, the downward spiral to economic stagnation and
decline will inevitably increase the prospects of economic marginalisation.
Anti-Corruption Authorities
The use of anti-corruption authorities is a mechanism used throughout
the world to advance the cause of integrity in public life. I have personal
experience of a number of such projects where Ombudsman offices, independent
anti-corruption commissions and Inspectors General have been established
to investigate those suspected or accused of corruption and to pursue
alleged abuses of power.
In principle, the creation of such bodies is essential although experience
has taught me to be sceptical ABOUT the effectiveness of those which report
exclusively to a Head of State or government. The independence of any
such commission is necessarily compromised if there is an absence of scrutiny
by the elected legislature. Such commissions should report direct to parliaments
where all elected representatives of the people can judge issues on their
merits, free from interference by the Executive. The ACCs must also be
underpinned by an adequate system of prosecution, an open and independent
judiciary and the resources necessary to conduct their work in a proper
fashion.
Conclusion
I make no apologies for concentrating my remarks today on the importance
of building the capacity of institutions. Of course, the anti-corruption
agenda encompasses other issues many of which are inextricably linked
to each other But, for a nation in the developing world to advance its
economic well-being, rooting out the underlying causes of corruption in
State institutions must surely be a very high priority.
We meet at a time when the corruption issue has rarely been higher on
the agenda of governments and international organisations. It is incumbent
upon all of us to seize the advantages which this new openness provides.
No one pretends that there is a bright new dawn just around the corner.
There are forces at work in the international economy with much to lose
from a concerted attack on the menace of corruption. We shall not, however,
be deflected from the task in hand, notwithstanding the dangers which
can accompany an assault on wrong-doing.
If the political will exists, reinforced by a demonstrable commitment
to enact the reforms required, then whilst we may not remove completely
the blight of international corruption the movement towards a less corrupt
environment will become irreversible.
DOCUMENTS > external
donors: how can they be part of the solution? [< backward | forward]
|