The corruption issue
Moderators: Moderator Team, phpBB2 - Administrators
The corruption issue
How and why exactly did corruption grow so much in Nigeria? It exists in all countries but not in such proportions.
Has any country/group ever successfully eradicated/lessened a similar problem and how did they do it?
Also, what can the average Nigerian do to be part of the solution and not the problem?
Has any country/group ever successfully eradicated/lessened a similar problem and how did they do it?
Also, what can the average Nigerian do to be part of the solution and not the problem?
-
original skeepolah
- Eaglet
- Posts: 24065
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 6:48 am
-
Thought
- Egg
- Posts: 5644
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 9:24 am
- Location: Frontal Lobe, the Cerebral Cortex
- Contact:
I think the oil wealth has been the deciding factor in corruption in nigeria. Huge money to be made from contracts and so forth since oil prospectors could easily give more money than some have ever seen to circumvent or speed up the contract process and obligations.
I have never heard of a country or group that has had corruption as pervasive as it is in Nigerian society and has dealt with it effectively. Perhaps some of the old Sov-Bloc countries but I cant be certain.
What im certain of is that Nigeria has been rooted to the top 2 positions of the most corrupt countries for the past 5-7 years. Bangladesh is the other country that has remained number 1 since 2001. Transparency International Interestingly enough, countries like Uganda seem to be managing the problem.
Im of the opinion that education and opportunity will go a long way in lessening this. There are several things that an average Nigerian can do to help with the solution, the first of which is not to participate in it: dont offer bribes and dont take bribes. I also believe that Nigerians at home and those returning from the diaspora shouldnt be reticent about the ills and dangers of corruption.
I have never heard of a country or group that has had corruption as pervasive as it is in Nigerian society and has dealt with it effectively. Perhaps some of the old Sov-Bloc countries but I cant be certain.
What im certain of is that Nigeria has been rooted to the top 2 positions of the most corrupt countries for the past 5-7 years. Bangladesh is the other country that has remained number 1 since 2001. Transparency International Interestingly enough, countries like Uganda seem to be managing the problem.
Im of the opinion that education and opportunity will go a long way in lessening this. There are several things that an average Nigerian can do to help with the solution, the first of which is not to participate in it: dont offer bribes and dont take bribes. I also believe that Nigerians at home and those returning from the diaspora shouldnt be reticent about the ills and dangers of corruption.
Real Madrid - The Greatest Club on Earth!
Corruption grew and became entrenched in the Nigerian system because there was no consequence to getting caught. Instead our corrupt leaders are heroes in their respective villages because they are sharing the loot. The unfortunate part of this is that the very few Nigerians who have actually tried to make a difference become the laughing stock in their respective villages because they are not corrupt. This sense or idea that it's "my turn" to enrich one's self has seeped into our our collective conciousness. I remember the nasty things people said about one of my late uncles who got a high federal appointement and was not corrupt. He was still driving the same car he had before he was appointed when he left the job. His children were not sent abroad but stayed in the Nigerian universities. His house in our village was the same 4 bedroom bungalow he built as a university professor while maintaining his campus house at the Univerity of Ibadan. How could he be sitting in a very lucrative position and not enrich himself (and us!), they were all saying. That's what happens to you when you get too much education, they were saying. When we make heroes of the people that rob us blind because they throw a few pennies our way, and then laugh at people who are trying to do the right thing, that explains why things are the way they are.
"It is not who you are that holds you back, it's who you think you are not."
-
Akure4Life
- Egg
- Posts: 8908
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:31 pm
- Location: London
There is a simple solution to corruption in nigeria. Privatise all the government own companies like nepa, nnpc,nitel e.t.c. This would make it less attractive to run for a political post.
Regardless of those who buy it, they would not like to see their money go down the drain. The only catch is sell all those named above to Nigerians only.
Regardless of those who buy it, they would not like to see their money go down the drain. The only catch is sell all those named above to Nigerians only.
Akure4Life
Ojota is my hood.
Ojota is my hood.
-
cic old boy
- Flying Eagle
- Posts: 64227
- Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 7:59 pm
Here is a detailed and interesting angle on the issue.
Some Observations on the Problem of Corruption in Nigeria From a Historical Perspective*
By
Yusufu Bala Usman, Ph.D.
www.ceddert.com
Forwarded by Forwarded by Abubakar Saddique, Ph.D.
[email protected]
There can be no doubt that the problem of corruption is one of the most important problems which the people of Nigeria have to tackle and overcome, if they are to make any significant and sustainable progress in the 21st century. This is widely recognised in almost all quarters in this country. Also widely recognised by the Nigerian public, are the practices which constitute corruption by those holding public office. But, what is barely understood, is the essence of this corruption and its dimensions and root causes in the economy, the society and the political system, and in the larger global network of economies and nations which we are a part of.
Of course, the full meaning of corruption goes well beyond the meaning normally given to it in Nigerian public discourse. For, corruption means much more than public officers taking bribes and gratification, committing fraud and stealing funds and assets entrusted to their care. Corruption, in my view, means the deliberate violations, for gainful ends, of standards of conduct legally, professionally, or, even ethically, established, in private and public affairs.
_________________________________________________________________
*A Contribution to, The National Conference on the Problems of Corruption in Nigeria, The Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Abuja, 26-29th March, 2001.
These gains may be in cash, or, kind, or, it may even be psychological, or, political, but, they are made from the violation of the integrity of an entity and involves the subversion of its quality and capacity. So, in my view, corruption is far broader a phenomenon in human society than what it is narrowed down to, in our public discourse. But, this contribution will be limited to the usual definition of corruption, which is, public officers violating the laws, rules, regulations and procedures, and ethical standards, by which they are expected to conduct themselves, in order to acquire money, goods, services, positions and privileges, for themselves, and for others.
In these observations, I shall attempt to draw attention to what I think is at the core of the problem of comprehending the essence and full dimensions of corruption in Nigeria. This has to do with the refusal to see that, throughout most of our history, and that of the rest of mankind, one of the most crucial issues in the organisation of societies and political systems has been how to separate the holding of public office from the private accumulation of wealth by those holding public office.
Public Office and Private Acquisition
In societies, found all over the world, with the exception of some epochs in ancient Egypt, Imperial China, Rome and Moghul India, the normal practice was that the holding of public office was clearly for the purpose of the private accumulation of wealth. The European feudal nobility and its mercantile bourgeoisie, developed this practice to a very high level, arising from the conception that the whole realm itself was the private property of the highest feudal lord, the sovereign monarch. So, everybody in the political system had a status based on a private relationship with that sovereign, and this relationship involved acquiring private property by using that relationship. This may have been one of the factors that caused the incessant wars and banditry that wrecked many parts of Europe, until the rise of the absolute monarchs from the fifteenth century, when some European ruling classes began to develop the concept and the institutions of public service separate from the private acquisition of wealth.
The evidence available indicates that in the rest of Africa, outside ancient Egypt, the position was more mixed. But, in the Nigerian area, some of the polities here had clearly began to function on the basis of the existence of a public realm distinct and above, any private interests, even those of the ruler, or, rulers.
The Oba Olua of Benin, ruling in the mid-fifteenth century, faced public opposition and indignation for using the public treasury to buy personal popularity. According to Chief Jacob Egharevba,1 the modern royal chronicler of the Obas’ of Benin, this Oba was even nicknamed, “Olua the prodigal, who pays the debt he does not owe”, because one of his practices was to pay off the debts of people unable to pay their debts.
His generosity was apparently regarded as corrupt and its consequences came to be linked to a chain of events which seriously undermined the Obaship, so much so that after his death, no Oba was appointed for three years and, “a republican government was set up”, before his brother, Ozolua, agreed to ascend to the throne.
In the sixteenth century, we have the example of the Sarkin Katsina Yusufu, who ruled for a short period in c.1516, and who was, apparently, a man of personal courage; but the problem of corruption marred his reign. In the words of the writer of one of the Katsina king-lists:2
He destroyed a lion. But he was driven out because of what the poor people said: that Yusuf took their poultry.
In the eighteenth century, a poem, that became one of the best known poems in the Central Sudan, was written by a Bornuan scholar, Muhammad Ibn Abdulrahman al-Barnawi, who died in 1755. It was known as the Shurb al-Zulal. In it, Muhammad al-Barnawi made a ringing denunciation of corruption which marks a milestone in Nigerian cultural and political history. What he said has direct relevance to what is happening in this country right now: He warned:3
And everything which is taken by the judge in return for his judgement, leave it, even if the judgement is lawful, do not eat it.
And the like of this is the gift of the governors, for all of its is unlawful, profit from error.
God will not accept the prayer of one who has anything illegal in his belly.
Thus also one who has prayed in clothes which have been paid for by a single illegal dirham.
Beware of going on pilgrimage with (money) obtained illegally.
The completion of worship does not make its acceptance obligatory, for the condition of this is piety; therefore know.
The issue of the way, rich and powerful people purchase the support of scholars, intellectuals, and others, with gifts of food, clothing and the payment of the pilgrimage to Mecca, was clearly a potent one in those days, as it is today in Nigeria. The earnestness in those verses of Muhammad al-Barnawi, reaches us across, two hundred and fifty years of our history, to bring the message to us of the permanent significance of the issue of corruption.
The permanence and intensity of the issue of corruption is also vividly conveyed in Kitab al Farq, one of the books written by the Shehu Usman Dan Fodio, after 1806. The Shehu, in this book, made a devastating denunciation of the corruption of the ruling class and the governments he was just going to get overthrown. The Shehu wrote:4
One of the ways of their governments is the building of their sovereignty on three things; the people’s persons, their honour and their possession… One of the ways of their government, which is also well-known, is that if you have an adversary (in law) and he precedes you to them, and gives them some money, then your word will not be accepted by them, even though they know for a certainty of your truthfulness, unless you give them more than your adversary. One of the ways of their governments is lying, treachery and pride, and you cannot see one of them who does not give himself airs, and anyone who shows the least lack of respect (for them) they punish him for that….
The force of the jihad movement which the Shehu led, over 170 years ago, had one of its roots in the explosive potency of the problem of corruption in our societies. That is one of the reasons why, within a decade, over an area larger than Nigeria, ruling classes and governments which had been established for centuries collapsed before the movement, like a pack of cards.
But, the significance of the issue of corruption and injustice did not just set the jihad movement against the governments it challenged and overthrew. Within the movement itself, it remained a crucial issue of contestation. Abdullahi dan Fodio, for example, was, by 1807, deeply disturbed by some of the developments within the movement, particularly, the growth of corruption and ostentation. He made his position clear, with great force and clarity, in the powerful poem in his book, Tazyin al-Waraqat. He wrote:5
When my companions passed and my aims went awry
I was left behind among the remainder, the liars
Who say that which they do not do, and follow their desires, And follow avarice in everything incumbent upon them, …Whose purpose is the ruling of the countries and their people,
In order to obtain delights and acquire rank,
According to the custom of the unbelievers, and the titles of their sovereignty.
And the appointing of ignorant persons to the highest offices And the collecting of concubine and fine clothes
And horses that gallop in the towns and not on the battle fields
And the devouring of the gifts of sanctity, and body and bribery
And lutes and flutes and the beating of drums.
Their activities weaken those charged with managing affairs, And the country people make off from every side.
From these few examples, from the Oba Olua in Benin, in about 1473 to Mallam Abdullahi dan Fodio, at Gwandu, in 1807, it is clear that the problem of corruption was of decisive political significance in our societies long before colonialism.
Market and Markets
Of course, the polities of pre-colonial Nigeria did not ultimately succeed in building strong public institution and organs defending public interest, strong enough to resist the penetration of their systems by European imperialism and the subsequent conquest and subjugation. Here in Africa, the Trans-Saharan and the Atlantic Slave Trade constituted the cutting edge of this devastating penetration of our economies, society, cultures and political systems, particularly from the sixteenth century. But, this trade, and the other forms of trade relations which developed, accelerated the development of the market which we have to understand clearly if we are to begin to get to the roots of the problem of corruption in our country today, and in the global network of nations and economies we are a part of.
We need to ask ourselves the question, what precisely is the market? From historical and contemporary realities we know that the market is more than just a place where people come to buy and sell goods and services. A market is a relationship of exchange between buyers and sellers of goods and services. It does not have to be fixed in a particular place. The buyers and sellers do not have to see each other, or, the goods and services and currency they are exchanging. The essence of the market, setting aside all the jargon with which it is mystified, is the exchange of goods and services through the operation of demand and supply between buyers and sellers.
There have been various types of markets since human beings moved beyond collecting what they immediately need for sustenance, and started exchanging the goods and service they require for their own use. At this early stage, this took the form of direct barter. Fish for yams, meat for millet, milk for salt.
The basis of this exchange, and of the market, even at this its most embryonic stage is the collection or production of the goods and services exchanged. For without production, that is without labour, there can be no exchange. Therefore, the development of the market is inseparable from the development of the division of labour within societies and between societies. This division of labour, is also inseparable from the exercise of political power for the organisation of space, and the control of manpower for the appropriation of labour, land and other resources, within societies and between societies.
The elementary stage of the market, when goods and services are exchanged for the direct use for those buying them is passed when the division of labour increase and the amount of the goods and services also increases to a level when some people specialise in obtaining goods and services, not for their own direct use but, in order to exchange them for money, these are the merchants and traders. They are soon followed by money-lenders and bankers, who are not even involved in exchanging any good and services. They obtain and supply money in order to get more money.
Even at this higher level of the market, the exchange between buyer and seller never took place in a vacuum. It took place within a given system of the division of labour and within a given social and political order for the appropriation of labour, land and other resources.
When family and communal ownership of property began to give way, and to be replaced and or, to exist side-by-side with private, individualised rights to property, the intensity of exchange relationship increased, but this did not change the fact that the market existed within a given framework of a specific local and international division of labour and a territorial political order.
The point here is that the market has never been an immutable set of relationships of exchange, which remains unchanging under all the various types, and complex combinations of types of economic and social relation and political systems that have existed in human history. The market is a historically changing sets of relationship of exchange between buyers and sellers, defined by the political order within societies, and between societies.
The type of market which dominates the world economy now is not the same as the markets that prevailed in the 10th, 16th, or, the 19th centuries. We are told, and some of us believe, that this is a free market where you can obtain the goods and services you need, and make as much money as you can, if you have something to offer. But this is just not true. The slogan of “deregulation” that has been imposed on the world by the ruling classes of the United States of America, and the countries of the European Union in the last decade, is just a smokescreen to hide the reality of how their governments, banks and giant corporations regulate their own and most other countries economies to their advantage. Even a country like Japan, with one of the most advanced industrial economies in the world, is subjected to this regulation to the extent that the Japanese government is being told to get its people to buy more goods, especially American goods and services, irrespective of whether they want them, or, not. They are told to bring to an end their system of lifelong employment of workers by companies and to even stop producing and eating so much Japanese rice!
This fact about the nature of the present market, which regulates our economy comes out clearly over the role of the dollar in the world economy. About 80% of transactions in the world are said to be in the US dollar. This currency is issued by the US government, which will go to war if anybody seriously tries to also print it. This status of the dollar, which rests largely on American psychological, political and military power, is crucial to the US economy. As the historian at the University, of California, Los Angeles, Robert Brenner, author of a number of path-breaking studies of changes in the global economy, succinctly pointed out:6
By the first half of 2000, gross US assets held by the rest of the world reached $6.7 trillion, or, 67 per cent of US GDP, compared to just $3.4 trillion, or, 46 per cent of GDP in 1995. Of these $3.4 trillion were composed of privately held US treasury certificates, corporate bonds, and equities, compared to $1.2 trillion in direct investment. The dependence of American prosperity and the prospects for global expansion on unprecedented foreign purchases of US assets is stark. So too is the vulnerability of the US boom to any withdrawing of overseas confidence.
This “overseas confidence” in the US dollar and the US bond market is not based on any freedom to buy and sell, for the rest of the world. It is based on the current equation of military, political, including media, power in the world, which favours the ruling class of the United States above all others, but which has a precarious economic basis, as the USA becomes the biggest debtor nation in the world, dominant, largely because the rest of us accept the current status of the US dollar.
There is perhaps no need to mention here the central and leading role of the armaments industry in American technological and economic growth. In the structure and operations of this armaments industry, the distinction between public service and the private accumulation of wealth barely exists, as, no less a person, then President Eisenhower, who warned before he left office in the late 1950s, pointing at the dangers of the “military industrial complex”, whose operations have nothing to with any free market forces.
Violations of the Constitution
Now, where does the problem of corruption in Nigeria come in? It comes in because the present Federal and State governments of Nigeria, supported by most of the Nigerian ruling class, are hell bent on creating an economy and a political system here modelled on that of the USA. It is not enough for them that we are part of a market system which American interests largely dominate and regulate. They want our country to be like America and entrench and legitimise the American system of running a country. This attempt appears positive because the level which the plunder and looting of public funds and assets has reached in our country is very destructive and debilitating. No economic growth, or, political stability is possible unless this cancer of corruption is tackled and largely overcome. But, do we have to combat this cancer by a headlong rush into privatisation and “deregulation”? Do we have to surrender to forces dominant in the current world market? Can we, in fact combat corruption by doing that? Or, shall we only be entrenching it, as in America, by giving it new disguises?
There is no doubt that the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles enshrined in chapter II of our Constitution do not allow us to go the American way. Sections 13, 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution are quite clear in this regard. They make it very clear that it is the duty and responsibility of all authorities and persons exercising legislative, executive or, judicial powers, to build a self-reliant economy, ensure social justice, promote planned and balanced economic development, harness all our resources for the common good and prevent the concentration of the means of production and exchange in a few hands. They explicitly provide that:7
The State shall, within the context of the ideals and objectives for which provisions are made in this Constitution:
(a) harness the resources of the nation and promote national prosperity and an efficient, a dynamic and self-reliant economy;
(b) control the national economy in such manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality or status and opportunity;
(c) without prejudice to its right to operate or, participate in areas of the economy, other than the major sectors of the economy, manage and operate the major sectors of the economy;
(d) without prejudice to the right of any person to participate in area of the economy within the major sector of the economy, protect the right of every citizen to engage in any economic activities outside the major sectors of the economy.
(2) The State shall direct its policy towards ensuring:
(a) the promotion of a planned and balanced economic development;
(b) that the material resources of the nation are harnessed and distributed as best as possible to serve the common good;
(c) that the economic system is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the means of production and exchange in the hands of few individuals or of a group; and
(d) That suitable and adequate shelter, suitable and adequate food, reasonable national minimum living wage, old age care and pensions, and unemployment, sick benefits and welfare of the disabled are provided for all citizens.
President Olusegun Obasanjo, and the thirty six State Governors are clearly violating this and other sections of chapter II of the Constitution in their attempt to follow the prescription of the World Bank and I.M.F. and impose what some people call “Anglo-saxon capitalism” on the people of Nigeria. Although the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, leadership is full of free-marketers and freebooters, President Obasanjo campaigned as, and described himself as, a social democrat. He is, like many of the Governors going against the mandate given to him by the people of Nigeria, by obeying the prescriptions of the IMF and the World Bank, which are directly opposed to the key provisions in this chapter of our Constitution, which they have sworn to uphold. Every time that arch patron of privatisation, Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, insists on it as a panacea to our problems, he is actually violating section 16 of our Constitution.
This current attempt to privatise and “deregulate” the Nigerian economy and cut off all subsidies to its backbone, which is agriculture, is being justified by the atrocious record of inefficiency, criminal waste and plunder by those who have managed our country’s public utilities. Among these, the National Electric Power Authority, NEPA, is held up as the outstanding example of the failure of public enterprises in Nigeria. Hence, any discussion of privatisation today is closed by pointing at the chronic power cuts of NEPA, which are so disruptive to the economy and crippling almost all spheres of our national life.
If our leaders have not been so bamboozled and/or, intimidated by American and European campaign to regulate the world economy to serve their own interests, they would have looked closely at the actual political and economic developments in these countries and learned a few lessons from these, with regards to the problem of corruption.
The Electricity Crisis in California
I do not want to go into the crises of the British railways, or, agriculture, to bring out these lessons. I think the best example, to cite is the electric power crisis in California, which has hit that US state since May, 2000. This is said to be the most economically advanced state of the USA, and said to be the most “post-modern” economy, technologically and culturally, in the whole world. That is where you have Silicon Valley, said to be the birthplace of “the information revolution”, which is said to be, like the industrial revolution, a turning point in world history. The state of California has no NEPA. The power generation there is entirely privatised and the distribution is also almost entirely privatised. But, California is right how being crippled by power-cuts, like Nigeria. Why is this happening, when there is no NEPA? Why is this happening, when private electric power companies like Enron, which is now expected, with the wave of the magic wand of privatisation, to solve the problem of power cuts in Lagos State?
This is what is happening to California. According to a feature article in the Washington Post, published in The Guardian Weekly of 25-31st January, 2001:8
California started ordering rolling blackouts last week. Its most desperate move yet in an energy crisis…with only minutes of warning, parts of San Francisco, San Jose, Silicon Valley, the state capital, Sacramento and a few smaller cities, lost power. Traffic light and television broadcast blinked off, assembly lines and automatic tellers shut down and system operators who maintain the vast computer network in the effected areas rushed to turn up backup generators. People were trapped in elevators, business closed early, and schools sent students home.
This electricity crisis, now in its eleventh months, is so serious
that:
Silicon Valley manufacturers have told the governor that the state had better get its house in order, or, they will move their operations. Intel Corp said it would build its new manufacturing facilities in another state…Even a one day outage such as the one that occurred last June can cost these giant companies $100 million.
This is happening although electricity prices have been raised and the privatised power generating companies are recording huge profits. A number of factors have been identified as being the causes of this crisis. One of the most widely touted, is that, while the price of power sold wholesale by the electricity generating companies are unregulated, the price charged by distributing companies are regulated. Other factors are, that the power generating companies want to get the state and local governments to change their environmental protection laws to allow them to build more power plants with fewer restrictions.
Whatever may be behind this serious power crises in California, there is evidence that one of the most important is what can only be described as corruption, as defined by Nigeria’s, Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Act of 2000.
A recent meeting of eight State Governors from the north-west region of the USA, from both political parties, asked President George Bush to intervene. He has refused. And he has done so because the power generating companies are not only based in Texas, but are major contributors to his campaign fund and their owners have close personal relationships with him and the Bush family.9
These nine power companies are:
1. Enron
2. Southern Company
3. Reliant Energy
4. Williams
5. Duke Energy
6. Arizona
7. Dynegy
8. AES Corp
9. Calpine
Their publicly recorded contributions as companies to the Republican Party campaign funds in 2000 was $4.1 million. Three of them, Enron, Reliant Energy and Dynegy, publicly recorded a total contribution of $1.5 million to the Bush Presidential campaign fund. The first two are actually controlled by two very close friends and advisers of President George Bush, Kenneth Lay, the CEO of Enron, and James Baker III, a powerful director on the board of Reliant Energy. Enron’s Kenneth is said to be, “a long-time Bush family friend and an architect of Bush’s policies on electricity deregulation, taxes and tort reform while Bush, was Texas governor”, while James Baker is said to be, “a long-time Bush family adviser who oversaw Bush’s legal efforts in the Florida election controversy”.
The price of wholesale electricity which these companies sell to the utilities rose by 276 per cent between 1999 and 2000 and these companies posted profits rises 54 per cent higher in 2000 than in 1999. In fact one of them, Calpine, recorded a profit rise of 240 percent!
The corruption here has a lot of ramification. For, the power distributing companies which are said to be virtually bankrupt, seem to have also been raking in money. Two of the biggest, Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison, are said to be indebted to the tune of $12 billion from their California operations. But, last year their parent companies spent $20 billion on power plants and other purchases!
Conclusion
What is quite clear from the example, of the California power crisis is that the separation of the holding of public office from the private accumulation of wealth is an essential requirement in any genuine attempt to fight corruption. While legislation and its effective implementation is a useful starting point, for at least, it delegitimises corrupt practices, it is not enough. The people of Nigeria, and the political activist and leaders, at all levels, have to get down to the arduous task of promoting and defending public interest, building public organs, reviving and reconstructing the public service, and upholding the integrity of other public institutions. Political parties, trade unions and professional and other civil associations are crucial here.
The fight against corruption has to involve, at its core, the building up of these organisations nationwide and combating all the divisive, sectionalist, politics of ethnicity and religious and regional rivalries and animosities. This type of parochial politics, not only undermines these institutions, subverts the common public interests of citizens, but is essentially corrupt, and provides a fertile soil for generating and entrenching corrupt practices. For, without a clear cut separation between public service and the private acquisition of wealth and the exercise of political power to establish the primacy of the public interest of all citizens, over and above everything else, as clearly provided for, in the Constitution, any attempt to fight corruption is largely cosmetic.
References
1. Jacob Egharevba, A Short History of Benin, Ibadan University Press, 1968, pp20-22.
2. Yusufu Bala Usman, The Dynastic Chronologies of Three Polities of Katsina, Bulletin de I’Institute Fondamental d’Afrique Noire, Tome 40, Serie B. no. 2, 1978, p404.
3. A.D. Bivar and M.Hiskett, The Arabic Literature of Nigeria to 1804: A Provisional Account, Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies, vxv, I, 1962, pp.123-129.
4. Thomas Hodgkin, Nigerian Perspectives: An Historical anthology, Oxford University Press, London, 1975, pp250-252.
5. Ibid, P.260.
6. Robert Brenner, The Boom and the Bubble, New Left Review, No.6, November/December, 2000. p.29.
7. 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Ministry of Information and Culture, Lagos, pp883-884.
8. Rene Sanchez and William Booth California Powerless to Avert Energy Crisis (Washington Post), The Guardian Weekly, January 25-31, 2001, p.29.
9. Public Citizen, February, 15, 2001, pp.1-2; http://www.citizen.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yusufu Bala Usman, Ph.D. is with the Department of History, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
Some Observations on the Problem of Corruption in Nigeria From a Historical Perspective*
By
Yusufu Bala Usman, Ph.D.
www.ceddert.com
Forwarded by Forwarded by Abubakar Saddique, Ph.D.
[email protected]
There can be no doubt that the problem of corruption is one of the most important problems which the people of Nigeria have to tackle and overcome, if they are to make any significant and sustainable progress in the 21st century. This is widely recognised in almost all quarters in this country. Also widely recognised by the Nigerian public, are the practices which constitute corruption by those holding public office. But, what is barely understood, is the essence of this corruption and its dimensions and root causes in the economy, the society and the political system, and in the larger global network of economies and nations which we are a part of.
Of course, the full meaning of corruption goes well beyond the meaning normally given to it in Nigerian public discourse. For, corruption means much more than public officers taking bribes and gratification, committing fraud and stealing funds and assets entrusted to their care. Corruption, in my view, means the deliberate violations, for gainful ends, of standards of conduct legally, professionally, or, even ethically, established, in private and public affairs.
_________________________________________________________________
*A Contribution to, The National Conference on the Problems of Corruption in Nigeria, The Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, Abuja, 26-29th March, 2001.
These gains may be in cash, or, kind, or, it may even be psychological, or, political, but, they are made from the violation of the integrity of an entity and involves the subversion of its quality and capacity. So, in my view, corruption is far broader a phenomenon in human society than what it is narrowed down to, in our public discourse. But, this contribution will be limited to the usual definition of corruption, which is, public officers violating the laws, rules, regulations and procedures, and ethical standards, by which they are expected to conduct themselves, in order to acquire money, goods, services, positions and privileges, for themselves, and for others.
In these observations, I shall attempt to draw attention to what I think is at the core of the problem of comprehending the essence and full dimensions of corruption in Nigeria. This has to do with the refusal to see that, throughout most of our history, and that of the rest of mankind, one of the most crucial issues in the organisation of societies and political systems has been how to separate the holding of public office from the private accumulation of wealth by those holding public office.
Public Office and Private Acquisition
In societies, found all over the world, with the exception of some epochs in ancient Egypt, Imperial China, Rome and Moghul India, the normal practice was that the holding of public office was clearly for the purpose of the private accumulation of wealth. The European feudal nobility and its mercantile bourgeoisie, developed this practice to a very high level, arising from the conception that the whole realm itself was the private property of the highest feudal lord, the sovereign monarch. So, everybody in the political system had a status based on a private relationship with that sovereign, and this relationship involved acquiring private property by using that relationship. This may have been one of the factors that caused the incessant wars and banditry that wrecked many parts of Europe, until the rise of the absolute monarchs from the fifteenth century, when some European ruling classes began to develop the concept and the institutions of public service separate from the private acquisition of wealth.
The evidence available indicates that in the rest of Africa, outside ancient Egypt, the position was more mixed. But, in the Nigerian area, some of the polities here had clearly began to function on the basis of the existence of a public realm distinct and above, any private interests, even those of the ruler, or, rulers.
The Oba Olua of Benin, ruling in the mid-fifteenth century, faced public opposition and indignation for using the public treasury to buy personal popularity. According to Chief Jacob Egharevba,1 the modern royal chronicler of the Obas’ of Benin, this Oba was even nicknamed, “Olua the prodigal, who pays the debt he does not owe”, because one of his practices was to pay off the debts of people unable to pay their debts.
His generosity was apparently regarded as corrupt and its consequences came to be linked to a chain of events which seriously undermined the Obaship, so much so that after his death, no Oba was appointed for three years and, “a republican government was set up”, before his brother, Ozolua, agreed to ascend to the throne.
In the sixteenth century, we have the example of the Sarkin Katsina Yusufu, who ruled for a short period in c.1516, and who was, apparently, a man of personal courage; but the problem of corruption marred his reign. In the words of the writer of one of the Katsina king-lists:2
He destroyed a lion. But he was driven out because of what the poor people said: that Yusuf took their poultry.
In the eighteenth century, a poem, that became one of the best known poems in the Central Sudan, was written by a Bornuan scholar, Muhammad Ibn Abdulrahman al-Barnawi, who died in 1755. It was known as the Shurb al-Zulal. In it, Muhammad al-Barnawi made a ringing denunciation of corruption which marks a milestone in Nigerian cultural and political history. What he said has direct relevance to what is happening in this country right now: He warned:3
And everything which is taken by the judge in return for his judgement, leave it, even if the judgement is lawful, do not eat it.
And the like of this is the gift of the governors, for all of its is unlawful, profit from error.
God will not accept the prayer of one who has anything illegal in his belly.
Thus also one who has prayed in clothes which have been paid for by a single illegal dirham.
Beware of going on pilgrimage with (money) obtained illegally.
The completion of worship does not make its acceptance obligatory, for the condition of this is piety; therefore know.
The issue of the way, rich and powerful people purchase the support of scholars, intellectuals, and others, with gifts of food, clothing and the payment of the pilgrimage to Mecca, was clearly a potent one in those days, as it is today in Nigeria. The earnestness in those verses of Muhammad al-Barnawi, reaches us across, two hundred and fifty years of our history, to bring the message to us of the permanent significance of the issue of corruption.
The permanence and intensity of the issue of corruption is also vividly conveyed in Kitab al Farq, one of the books written by the Shehu Usman Dan Fodio, after 1806. The Shehu, in this book, made a devastating denunciation of the corruption of the ruling class and the governments he was just going to get overthrown. The Shehu wrote:4
One of the ways of their governments is the building of their sovereignty on three things; the people’s persons, their honour and their possession… One of the ways of their government, which is also well-known, is that if you have an adversary (in law) and he precedes you to them, and gives them some money, then your word will not be accepted by them, even though they know for a certainty of your truthfulness, unless you give them more than your adversary. One of the ways of their governments is lying, treachery and pride, and you cannot see one of them who does not give himself airs, and anyone who shows the least lack of respect (for them) they punish him for that….
The force of the jihad movement which the Shehu led, over 170 years ago, had one of its roots in the explosive potency of the problem of corruption in our societies. That is one of the reasons why, within a decade, over an area larger than Nigeria, ruling classes and governments which had been established for centuries collapsed before the movement, like a pack of cards.
But, the significance of the issue of corruption and injustice did not just set the jihad movement against the governments it challenged and overthrew. Within the movement itself, it remained a crucial issue of contestation. Abdullahi dan Fodio, for example, was, by 1807, deeply disturbed by some of the developments within the movement, particularly, the growth of corruption and ostentation. He made his position clear, with great force and clarity, in the powerful poem in his book, Tazyin al-Waraqat. He wrote:5
When my companions passed and my aims went awry
I was left behind among the remainder, the liars
Who say that which they do not do, and follow their desires, And follow avarice in everything incumbent upon them, …Whose purpose is the ruling of the countries and their people,
In order to obtain delights and acquire rank,
According to the custom of the unbelievers, and the titles of their sovereignty.
And the appointing of ignorant persons to the highest offices And the collecting of concubine and fine clothes
And horses that gallop in the towns and not on the battle fields
And the devouring of the gifts of sanctity, and body and bribery
And lutes and flutes and the beating of drums.
Their activities weaken those charged with managing affairs, And the country people make off from every side.
From these few examples, from the Oba Olua in Benin, in about 1473 to Mallam Abdullahi dan Fodio, at Gwandu, in 1807, it is clear that the problem of corruption was of decisive political significance in our societies long before colonialism.
Market and Markets
Of course, the polities of pre-colonial Nigeria did not ultimately succeed in building strong public institution and organs defending public interest, strong enough to resist the penetration of their systems by European imperialism and the subsequent conquest and subjugation. Here in Africa, the Trans-Saharan and the Atlantic Slave Trade constituted the cutting edge of this devastating penetration of our economies, society, cultures and political systems, particularly from the sixteenth century. But, this trade, and the other forms of trade relations which developed, accelerated the development of the market which we have to understand clearly if we are to begin to get to the roots of the problem of corruption in our country today, and in the global network of nations and economies we are a part of.
We need to ask ourselves the question, what precisely is the market? From historical and contemporary realities we know that the market is more than just a place where people come to buy and sell goods and services. A market is a relationship of exchange between buyers and sellers of goods and services. It does not have to be fixed in a particular place. The buyers and sellers do not have to see each other, or, the goods and services and currency they are exchanging. The essence of the market, setting aside all the jargon with which it is mystified, is the exchange of goods and services through the operation of demand and supply between buyers and sellers.
There have been various types of markets since human beings moved beyond collecting what they immediately need for sustenance, and started exchanging the goods and service they require for their own use. At this early stage, this took the form of direct barter. Fish for yams, meat for millet, milk for salt.
The basis of this exchange, and of the market, even at this its most embryonic stage is the collection or production of the goods and services exchanged. For without production, that is without labour, there can be no exchange. Therefore, the development of the market is inseparable from the development of the division of labour within societies and between societies. This division of labour, is also inseparable from the exercise of political power for the organisation of space, and the control of manpower for the appropriation of labour, land and other resources, within societies and between societies.
The elementary stage of the market, when goods and services are exchanged for the direct use for those buying them is passed when the division of labour increase and the amount of the goods and services also increases to a level when some people specialise in obtaining goods and services, not for their own direct use but, in order to exchange them for money, these are the merchants and traders. They are soon followed by money-lenders and bankers, who are not even involved in exchanging any good and services. They obtain and supply money in order to get more money.
Even at this higher level of the market, the exchange between buyer and seller never took place in a vacuum. It took place within a given system of the division of labour and within a given social and political order for the appropriation of labour, land and other resources.
When family and communal ownership of property began to give way, and to be replaced and or, to exist side-by-side with private, individualised rights to property, the intensity of exchange relationship increased, but this did not change the fact that the market existed within a given framework of a specific local and international division of labour and a territorial political order.
The point here is that the market has never been an immutable set of relationships of exchange, which remains unchanging under all the various types, and complex combinations of types of economic and social relation and political systems that have existed in human history. The market is a historically changing sets of relationship of exchange between buyers and sellers, defined by the political order within societies, and between societies.
The type of market which dominates the world economy now is not the same as the markets that prevailed in the 10th, 16th, or, the 19th centuries. We are told, and some of us believe, that this is a free market where you can obtain the goods and services you need, and make as much money as you can, if you have something to offer. But this is just not true. The slogan of “deregulation” that has been imposed on the world by the ruling classes of the United States of America, and the countries of the European Union in the last decade, is just a smokescreen to hide the reality of how their governments, banks and giant corporations regulate their own and most other countries economies to their advantage. Even a country like Japan, with one of the most advanced industrial economies in the world, is subjected to this regulation to the extent that the Japanese government is being told to get its people to buy more goods, especially American goods and services, irrespective of whether they want them, or, not. They are told to bring to an end their system of lifelong employment of workers by companies and to even stop producing and eating so much Japanese rice!
This fact about the nature of the present market, which regulates our economy comes out clearly over the role of the dollar in the world economy. About 80% of transactions in the world are said to be in the US dollar. This currency is issued by the US government, which will go to war if anybody seriously tries to also print it. This status of the dollar, which rests largely on American psychological, political and military power, is crucial to the US economy. As the historian at the University, of California, Los Angeles, Robert Brenner, author of a number of path-breaking studies of changes in the global economy, succinctly pointed out:6
By the first half of 2000, gross US assets held by the rest of the world reached $6.7 trillion, or, 67 per cent of US GDP, compared to just $3.4 trillion, or, 46 per cent of GDP in 1995. Of these $3.4 trillion were composed of privately held US treasury certificates, corporate bonds, and equities, compared to $1.2 trillion in direct investment. The dependence of American prosperity and the prospects for global expansion on unprecedented foreign purchases of US assets is stark. So too is the vulnerability of the US boom to any withdrawing of overseas confidence.
This “overseas confidence” in the US dollar and the US bond market is not based on any freedom to buy and sell, for the rest of the world. It is based on the current equation of military, political, including media, power in the world, which favours the ruling class of the United States above all others, but which has a precarious economic basis, as the USA becomes the biggest debtor nation in the world, dominant, largely because the rest of us accept the current status of the US dollar.
There is perhaps no need to mention here the central and leading role of the armaments industry in American technological and economic growth. In the structure and operations of this armaments industry, the distinction between public service and the private accumulation of wealth barely exists, as, no less a person, then President Eisenhower, who warned before he left office in the late 1950s, pointing at the dangers of the “military industrial complex”, whose operations have nothing to with any free market forces.
Violations of the Constitution
Now, where does the problem of corruption in Nigeria come in? It comes in because the present Federal and State governments of Nigeria, supported by most of the Nigerian ruling class, are hell bent on creating an economy and a political system here modelled on that of the USA. It is not enough for them that we are part of a market system which American interests largely dominate and regulate. They want our country to be like America and entrench and legitimise the American system of running a country. This attempt appears positive because the level which the plunder and looting of public funds and assets has reached in our country is very destructive and debilitating. No economic growth, or, political stability is possible unless this cancer of corruption is tackled and largely overcome. But, do we have to combat this cancer by a headlong rush into privatisation and “deregulation”? Do we have to surrender to forces dominant in the current world market? Can we, in fact combat corruption by doing that? Or, shall we only be entrenching it, as in America, by giving it new disguises?
There is no doubt that the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles enshrined in chapter II of our Constitution do not allow us to go the American way. Sections 13, 16(1) and 16(2) of the Constitution are quite clear in this regard. They make it very clear that it is the duty and responsibility of all authorities and persons exercising legislative, executive or, judicial powers, to build a self-reliant economy, ensure social justice, promote planned and balanced economic development, harness all our resources for the common good and prevent the concentration of the means of production and exchange in a few hands. They explicitly provide that:7
The State shall, within the context of the ideals and objectives for which provisions are made in this Constitution:
(a) harness the resources of the nation and promote national prosperity and an efficient, a dynamic and self-reliant economy;
(b) control the national economy in such manner as to secure the maximum welfare, freedom and happiness of every citizen on the basis of social justice and equality or status and opportunity;
(c) without prejudice to its right to operate or, participate in areas of the economy, other than the major sectors of the economy, manage and operate the major sectors of the economy;
(d) without prejudice to the right of any person to participate in area of the economy within the major sector of the economy, protect the right of every citizen to engage in any economic activities outside the major sectors of the economy.
(2) The State shall direct its policy towards ensuring:
(a) the promotion of a planned and balanced economic development;
(b) that the material resources of the nation are harnessed and distributed as best as possible to serve the common good;
(c) that the economic system is not operated in such a manner as to permit the concentration of wealth or the means of production and exchange in the hands of few individuals or of a group; and
(d) That suitable and adequate shelter, suitable and adequate food, reasonable national minimum living wage, old age care and pensions, and unemployment, sick benefits and welfare of the disabled are provided for all citizens.
President Olusegun Obasanjo, and the thirty six State Governors are clearly violating this and other sections of chapter II of the Constitution in their attempt to follow the prescription of the World Bank and I.M.F. and impose what some people call “Anglo-saxon capitalism” on the people of Nigeria. Although the People’s Democratic Party, PDP, leadership is full of free-marketers and freebooters, President Obasanjo campaigned as, and described himself as, a social democrat. He is, like many of the Governors going against the mandate given to him by the people of Nigeria, by obeying the prescriptions of the IMF and the World Bank, which are directly opposed to the key provisions in this chapter of our Constitution, which they have sworn to uphold. Every time that arch patron of privatisation, Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, insists on it as a panacea to our problems, he is actually violating section 16 of our Constitution.
This current attempt to privatise and “deregulate” the Nigerian economy and cut off all subsidies to its backbone, which is agriculture, is being justified by the atrocious record of inefficiency, criminal waste and plunder by those who have managed our country’s public utilities. Among these, the National Electric Power Authority, NEPA, is held up as the outstanding example of the failure of public enterprises in Nigeria. Hence, any discussion of privatisation today is closed by pointing at the chronic power cuts of NEPA, which are so disruptive to the economy and crippling almost all spheres of our national life.
If our leaders have not been so bamboozled and/or, intimidated by American and European campaign to regulate the world economy to serve their own interests, they would have looked closely at the actual political and economic developments in these countries and learned a few lessons from these, with regards to the problem of corruption.
The Electricity Crisis in California
I do not want to go into the crises of the British railways, or, agriculture, to bring out these lessons. I think the best example, to cite is the electric power crisis in California, which has hit that US state since May, 2000. This is said to be the most economically advanced state of the USA, and said to be the most “post-modern” economy, technologically and culturally, in the whole world. That is where you have Silicon Valley, said to be the birthplace of “the information revolution”, which is said to be, like the industrial revolution, a turning point in world history. The state of California has no NEPA. The power generation there is entirely privatised and the distribution is also almost entirely privatised. But, California is right how being crippled by power-cuts, like Nigeria. Why is this happening, when there is no NEPA? Why is this happening, when private electric power companies like Enron, which is now expected, with the wave of the magic wand of privatisation, to solve the problem of power cuts in Lagos State?
This is what is happening to California. According to a feature article in the Washington Post, published in The Guardian Weekly of 25-31st January, 2001:8
California started ordering rolling blackouts last week. Its most desperate move yet in an energy crisis…with only minutes of warning, parts of San Francisco, San Jose, Silicon Valley, the state capital, Sacramento and a few smaller cities, lost power. Traffic light and television broadcast blinked off, assembly lines and automatic tellers shut down and system operators who maintain the vast computer network in the effected areas rushed to turn up backup generators. People were trapped in elevators, business closed early, and schools sent students home.
This electricity crisis, now in its eleventh months, is so serious
that:
Silicon Valley manufacturers have told the governor that the state had better get its house in order, or, they will move their operations. Intel Corp said it would build its new manufacturing facilities in another state…Even a one day outage such as the one that occurred last June can cost these giant companies $100 million.
This is happening although electricity prices have been raised and the privatised power generating companies are recording huge profits. A number of factors have been identified as being the causes of this crisis. One of the most widely touted, is that, while the price of power sold wholesale by the electricity generating companies are unregulated, the price charged by distributing companies are regulated. Other factors are, that the power generating companies want to get the state and local governments to change their environmental protection laws to allow them to build more power plants with fewer restrictions.
Whatever may be behind this serious power crises in California, there is evidence that one of the most important is what can only be described as corruption, as defined by Nigeria’s, Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Act of 2000.
A recent meeting of eight State Governors from the north-west region of the USA, from both political parties, asked President George Bush to intervene. He has refused. And he has done so because the power generating companies are not only based in Texas, but are major contributors to his campaign fund and their owners have close personal relationships with him and the Bush family.9
These nine power companies are:
1. Enron
2. Southern Company
3. Reliant Energy
4. Williams
5. Duke Energy
6. Arizona
7. Dynegy
8. AES Corp
9. Calpine
Their publicly recorded contributions as companies to the Republican Party campaign funds in 2000 was $4.1 million. Three of them, Enron, Reliant Energy and Dynegy, publicly recorded a total contribution of $1.5 million to the Bush Presidential campaign fund. The first two are actually controlled by two very close friends and advisers of President George Bush, Kenneth Lay, the CEO of Enron, and James Baker III, a powerful director on the board of Reliant Energy. Enron’s Kenneth is said to be, “a long-time Bush family friend and an architect of Bush’s policies on electricity deregulation, taxes and tort reform while Bush, was Texas governor”, while James Baker is said to be, “a long-time Bush family adviser who oversaw Bush’s legal efforts in the Florida election controversy”.
The price of wholesale electricity which these companies sell to the utilities rose by 276 per cent between 1999 and 2000 and these companies posted profits rises 54 per cent higher in 2000 than in 1999. In fact one of them, Calpine, recorded a profit rise of 240 percent!
The corruption here has a lot of ramification. For, the power distributing companies which are said to be virtually bankrupt, seem to have also been raking in money. Two of the biggest, Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison, are said to be indebted to the tune of $12 billion from their California operations. But, last year their parent companies spent $20 billion on power plants and other purchases!
Conclusion
What is quite clear from the example, of the California power crisis is that the separation of the holding of public office from the private accumulation of wealth is an essential requirement in any genuine attempt to fight corruption. While legislation and its effective implementation is a useful starting point, for at least, it delegitimises corrupt practices, it is not enough. The people of Nigeria, and the political activist and leaders, at all levels, have to get down to the arduous task of promoting and defending public interest, building public organs, reviving and reconstructing the public service, and upholding the integrity of other public institutions. Political parties, trade unions and professional and other civil associations are crucial here.
The fight against corruption has to involve, at its core, the building up of these organisations nationwide and combating all the divisive, sectionalist, politics of ethnicity and religious and regional rivalries and animosities. This type of parochial politics, not only undermines these institutions, subverts the common public interests of citizens, but is essentially corrupt, and provides a fertile soil for generating and entrenching corrupt practices. For, without a clear cut separation between public service and the private acquisition of wealth and the exercise of political power to establish the primacy of the public interest of all citizens, over and above everything else, as clearly provided for, in the Constitution, any attempt to fight corruption is largely cosmetic.
References
1. Jacob Egharevba, A Short History of Benin, Ibadan University Press, 1968, pp20-22.
2. Yusufu Bala Usman, The Dynastic Chronologies of Three Polities of Katsina, Bulletin de I’Institute Fondamental d’Afrique Noire, Tome 40, Serie B. no. 2, 1978, p404.
3. A.D. Bivar and M.Hiskett, The Arabic Literature of Nigeria to 1804: A Provisional Account, Bulletin of the School of African and Oriental Studies, vxv, I, 1962, pp.123-129.
4. Thomas Hodgkin, Nigerian Perspectives: An Historical anthology, Oxford University Press, London, 1975, pp250-252.
5. Ibid, P.260.
6. Robert Brenner, The Boom and the Bubble, New Left Review, No.6, November/December, 2000. p.29.
7. 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Ministry of Information and Culture, Lagos, pp883-884.
8. Rene Sanchez and William Booth California Powerless to Avert Energy Crisis (Washington Post), The Guardian Weekly, January 25-31, 2001, p.29.
9. Public Citizen, February, 15, 2001, pp.1-2; http://www.citizen.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yusufu Bala Usman, Ph.D. is with the Department of History, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.
This idea of yours is not a solution as it will not eliminate corruption at all.Akure4Life wrote:There is a simple solution to corruption in nigeria. Privatise all the government own companies like nepa, nnpc,nitel e.t.c. This would make it less attractive to run for a political post.
Regardless of those who buy it, they would not like to see their money go down the drain. The only catch is sell all those named above to Nigerians only.
-
original skeepolah
- Eaglet
- Posts: 24065
- Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 6:48 am
Conclusion
What is quite clear from the example, of the California power crisis is that the separation of the holding of public office from the private accumulation of wealth is an essential requirement in any genuine attempt to fight corruption. While legislation and its effective implementation is a useful starting point, for at least, it delegitimises corrupt practices, it is not enough. The people of Nigeria, and the political activist and leaders, at all levels, have to get down to the arduous task of promoting and defending public interest, building public organs, reviving and reconstructing the public service, and upholding the integrity of other public institutions. Political parties, trade unions and professional and other civil associations are crucial here.
The fight against corruption has to involve, at its core, the building up of these organisations nationwide and combating all the divisive, sectionalist, politics of ethnicity and religious and regional rivalries and animosities. This type of parochial politics, not only undermines these institutions, subverts the common public interests of citizens, but is essentially corrupt, and provides a fertile soil for generating and entrenching corrupt practices. For, without a clear cut separation between public service and the private acquisition of wealth and the exercise of political power to establish the primacy of the public interest of all citizens, over and above everything else, as clearly provided for, in the Constitution, any attempt to fight corruption is largely cosmetic.
This is a false hope and a farse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1Nigeria will always implement projects, and have big grandeous ideas but the country will always be a pig sty, because we refuse to deal with the issue as is.............The issue is our acceptance and tolerance of corruption across the board. The large scale chaos and calamity is going to stay(and will grow) because we are not working collectively to try and salvage it......................Nobody wants to be the hero, no one wants to set the example. We are (most of us) corrupt by nature, whether in a big way or small way. Corruption is too deeply embedded in us. That is the ROOT cause of Niaja's dilemmas....Running to *African American*/obodo is not solving the case.
The other day, a pstor in my church said that before he became a christian, this dad told him that if he did not stop doing what he was doing, he would not only destroy himself, but his family as well. while preaching,he took a plant(to help get his point across)
and broke the stems, leaves and branches, and said the plant will still live. In order to kill it, you have to kill the root. Dig out the root, and it seizes to live. He had to deal with the root of his detructive tendencies..........
We brush things aside until it affects us directly. It odes not have to be a problrm sitting in our laps before we scream, "Danger!!Help oooohhh!!!!!!!Wetin i go do???Kai!!Palava!!!!!!!!!"
No, we can see a problem far away affecting domeone else, and say,"Man that could be me."
A guy on the net gave a story of twin bros born into a home of abuse, chaos and sadness because of their alcoholic, wife beating, jailbird dad. They both grew up, one becaem a respected man of society(amily, good guy, senatore, money) while the other became a scumbag like his dad. They both said it was their environment that made them the way they were. Basically, the excuse, "He/she/everyone is like this so i won't change" is not the way to look at things and deal with them.
It takes one person to make that change and want that change and people will follow. Our inner challenges and urges are by nature bad, but it does not have to be that way.
Take for example, someone trying to liose weight, they have a dietitian who helps them but they cheat and cut corners ......do you think they will really see the changes they are looking for??/I think not.....we too want to take the essy route and short cuts and it has been our detrement.........for naija to change it must come from within each individual naijan....Period!
What is quite clear from the example, of the California power crisis is that the separation of the holding of public office from the private accumulation of wealth is an essential requirement in any genuine attempt to fight corruption. While legislation and its effective implementation is a useful starting point, for at least, it delegitimises corrupt practices, it is not enough. The people of Nigeria, and the political activist and leaders, at all levels, have to get down to the arduous task of promoting and defending public interest, building public organs, reviving and reconstructing the public service, and upholding the integrity of other public institutions. Political parties, trade unions and professional and other civil associations are crucial here.
The fight against corruption has to involve, at its core, the building up of these organisations nationwide and combating all the divisive, sectionalist, politics of ethnicity and religious and regional rivalries and animosities. This type of parochial politics, not only undermines these institutions, subverts the common public interests of citizens, but is essentially corrupt, and provides a fertile soil for generating and entrenching corrupt practices. For, without a clear cut separation between public service and the private acquisition of wealth and the exercise of political power to establish the primacy of the public interest of all citizens, over and above everything else, as clearly provided for, in the Constitution, any attempt to fight corruption is largely cosmetic.
This is a false hope and a farse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1Nigeria will always implement projects, and have big grandeous ideas but the country will always be a pig sty, because we refuse to deal with the issue as is.............The issue is our acceptance and tolerance of corruption across the board. The large scale chaos and calamity is going to stay(and will grow) because we are not working collectively to try and salvage it......................Nobody wants to be the hero, no one wants to set the example. We are (most of us) corrupt by nature, whether in a big way or small way. Corruption is too deeply embedded in us. That is the ROOT cause of Niaja's dilemmas....Running to *African American*/obodo is not solving the case.
The other day, a pstor in my church said that before he became a christian, this dad told him that if he did not stop doing what he was doing, he would not only destroy himself, but his family as well. while preaching,he took a plant(to help get his point across)
and broke the stems, leaves and branches, and said the plant will still live. In order to kill it, you have to kill the root. Dig out the root, and it seizes to live. He had to deal with the root of his detructive tendencies..........
We brush things aside until it affects us directly. It odes not have to be a problrm sitting in our laps before we scream, "Danger!!Help oooohhh!!!!!!!Wetin i go do???Kai!!Palava!!!!!!!!!"
No, we can see a problem far away affecting domeone else, and say,"Man that could be me."
A guy on the net gave a story of twin bros born into a home of abuse, chaos and sadness because of their alcoholic, wife beating, jailbird dad. They both grew up, one becaem a respected man of society(amily, good guy, senatore, money) while the other became a scumbag like his dad. They both said it was their environment that made them the way they were. Basically, the excuse, "He/she/everyone is like this so i won't change" is not the way to look at things and deal with them.
It takes one person to make that change and want that change and people will follow. Our inner challenges and urges are by nature bad, but it does not have to be that way.
Take for example, someone trying to liose weight, they have a dietitian who helps them but they cheat and cut corners ......do you think they will really see the changes they are looking for??/I think not.....we too want to take the essy route and short cuts and it has been our detrement.........for naija to change it must come from within each individual naijan....Period!