In whose interest? Political integrity and corruption in Africa

A common avenue for money to enter politics, besides direct bribes paid to senior officials, is through the financing of political parties. When elected, politicians can give preferential treatment to companies or groups who bankrolled their campaigns. At the same time, when political contestants do not have to declare the sources of funding and campaign expenditure, the costs of election campaigns increase and the risk of illegal expenditure increase, such as vote buying.*

The African Union Convention on Preventing and Combatting Corruption, ratified by 40 countries, specifically requires state parties to incorporate the principle of transparency into political party funding, and to proscribe the use of funds acquired through corruption.

Despite some African countries recently initiating public debates on political finance reform (here and here), change is very slow to happen in most countries. Even when laws exist, implementation and enforcement are very poor. A recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Lagos, Nigeria, argues that the financing of political parties in Nigeria “has served the purposes of consolidating elite rule as well as the political exclusion of the non-elite.” Our GCB survey finds that over 60 per cent of Nigerians believe that most or all of their MPs are involved in corruption.

The Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre, our national chapter in Nigeria, argue that laundered money is often used for political campaign financing and vote-buying during elections. Election management bodies and other relevant oversight and law enforcement agencies often lack the appropriate mandate, independence and resources to ensure that laws are enforced. Civil society organisations and the media do not have the space or resources to monitor who is funding political candidates, and whether these same donors are more likely to enjoy preferential treatment once those they have funded come to power.

The abuse of state resources, defined as undue advantages obtained by certain parties or candidates through use of their official positions or connections to governmental institutions, to influence the outcome of elections, is a grave breach of political integrity as it gives incumbents an unfair electoral advantage (see here and here). A 2013 study on abuse of state resources in Uganda found a textbook catalogue of such abuses, including using government facilities for political purposes, money from state revenues being used for partisan purposes, a supplementary budget passed six weeks before the election included US$4.2 million for youth unemployment.

In this year’s edition of the GCB, 78 per cent of Ugandans said that the government is doing badly in the fight against corruption and 69 per cent said that corruption is increasing. Almost two in five citizens in Uganda believe that most or all of their top politicians are corrupt.

In 2012 Kofi Annan wrote: “Building democracy is a complex process. Elections are only a starting point but if their integrity is compromised, so is the legitimacy of democracy.” We find that citizens tend to perceive their top politicians to be less corrupt in countries which perform well on electoral integrity, as measured for example by the Clean Elections Index.**

Electoral integrity refers to the appropriate conduct of all parties involved in elections, including candidates, voters and election management authorities. In fact, expert assessments of corruption, as reflected in the Corruption Perceptions Index scores are even more closely associated with the Clean Elections Index than people’s perceptions, as seen in the GCB. This may be due to public opinion data being more volatile and sensitive to high-profile cases that receive considerable attention in the media.

One of the best performers in this edition of the GCB is the small West African state of Gambia. The majority of Gambians (54 per cent) said that the government is doing a good job in the fight against corruption. Sixty-seven per cent of them said that they trust the president “somewhat” or “a lot”. Members of the Parliament also enjoy a high integrity rating, with only 15 per cent of Gambians thinking that they are involved in corruption (less than half the average for Africa, 36 per cent).

Since the ousting of autocratic ruler Yahya Jammeh, Gambia has improved markedly across different governance indicators, including an upgrade from “Not Free” to “Partly Free” in the Freedom House ratings as well as an improvement from “repressed” to “obstructed” in the CIVICUS assessment of civic space and notably a 40 per cent improvement on the Clean Elections Index score. All these changes followed the 2016 elections, deemed peaceful and credible by international observers.

After 22 years of patrimonial rule, where the misuse of state resources was normal, Gambians seem to have placed their trust on their new democratically elected representatives, who have vowed to uphold political integrity and deliver results for ordinary citizens. Gambians have taken a great leap towards democratic consolidation, however much more work is needed to ensure that transparency and accountability follow the political opening. Despite recent improvements and an apparent commitment to transparency and accountability by the current president Adama Burrow, political integrity remains a key challenge in Gambia.

Although ministers in the new government were supposed to disclose their assets by July 2017, as of yet many of them have failed to do so. Worryingly, the reform-minded president’s family where involved in a controversy when his wife’s foundation was found to have accepted a donation of US$752,594.42 by a company competing for a government tender on electricity distribution. The matter is being investigated, and the way it is handled will show whether Gambia is truly committed to political integrity, or whether vested private interest will continue to dominate politics.

Crucially, political corruption excludes and disenfranchises large swathes of the population, particularly those who are less well connected and powerful. Across Africa, only 41 per cent of citizens are satisfied with how democracy works in their country. Worryingly, those living in high poverty are more than 15 percentage points more likely to say that most or all politicians are involved in corruption, as compared to the richest respondents.

Corruption erodes citizen trust in democratic institutions and leads to political apathy, which in turn further fuels corruption. Open, fair and accountable access to decision-making is essential to regain citizen’s trust in democracy, and to ensure policies meet people’s needs.

• High ranking politicians and public servants should regularly and publicly disclose their financial assets as well as business interests.
• Political parties and contestants should disclose sources of funding as well as the destination of expenditure.
• Private companies donating to political candidates should disclose their true owners.
• Election oversight bodies and other agencies tasked with monitoring undue influence of money in politics should be given the independence, mandate and resources to meaningfully conduct their activities.
• Civil society and media need to be empowered to monitor campaign expenditure, lobbying activities and the abuse of state resources around election campaigns.