How Much Transparency in Fighting Corruption?
How Much Transparency is
Needed in Fighting Corruption?
Twaweza
released another installment of `Sauti za
Wananchi` findings this week - this time focusing on corruption. What stands
out is that citizens “report experiencing less corruption in their regular
interactions with government (and other) institutions”, compared to 2014. This
is happening after multiple incidents of newspapers suspension, and recent
withdrawal from Open Government Partnership (OGP) - all seen as continuation of
efforts to restrict civic space. Notably, withdrawal from OGP caused uproar,
and many wondered how a government committed to fighting corruption would
decide to distance itself from an initiative meant to achieve the same
objective. This piece explores the thinking that seem to guide the fifth phase
government's conception of accountability, and which may be informing its
approach in the fight against corruption.
In
the brief that summarizes the findings, Twaweza notes that the fifth phase
government has “brought a new approach” to fighting corruption, and mentions
the establishment of anti-corruption court, and swift action in response to
allegations of corruption as examples. Moreover, the brief notes that the (new)
approach has attracted both “praise and criticism”. On criticism, the brief
states;
“However, critics point to the
lack of respect for (due) process and the rights of the accused, and to the
apparent amnesty being given to former presidents for any involvement they may
have had in past scandals. Further, the government is also doing other things
that are likely to weaken anti-corruption efforts in the long term such as
reducing space for media and public debate and removing Tanzania from the Open
Government Partnership.”
The
excerpt above suggests that transparency, and guaranteeing space for public debate,
are key in fighting corruption. This is a conventional view. Evidence shows that transparency per se isn't
sufficient. The fourth phase government, under President Kikwete, took
significant steps to enhance transparency, as symbolized by the adoption of
Open Government Partnership (OGP) as well as Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative (EITI). Other transparency (and accountability!) initiatives
included African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), Construction Sector Transparency
Initiative (CoST) and even Publish What You Pay (PWYP). Government support for
these initiatives was predicated on the belief that transparency was key in
enhancing accountability.
However, in spite of such multiple initiatives,
accountability remained low. In terms of corruption, for instance, Transparency
International`s corruption perception index rating for Tanzania remained almost
stagnant - hovering around 30 to 35 (100 is
not corrupt), between 2012 and 2015. In this period, Tanzania failed to improve
its scores on the index “by a statistically significant amount.” Perhaps the
irony of the limits of transparency in delivering accountability was well
captured in Policy Forums Governance Review report (2012), which was
titled `Transparency with Impunity`?
Corruption
is an accountability issue. Scholars of accountability have differentiated
between two dominant forms - horizontal, and vertical
accountability. Horizontal accountability refers to the “capacity of state
institutions to check abuses by other public agencies and branches of the
government, or the requirement for agencies to report sideways.” Parliament and
Judiciary are key institutions in this category, and are envisaged to work in a
manner that checks the executive. However, vertical accountability is “the
means through which citizens, mass media and civil society seeks to enforce
standards of good performance on officials.” Actors under this form of
accountability rely on public disclosures to be able to influence change. This
explains the essence of Twaweza`s concern
over space for media and country`s withdrawal from Open Government Partnership.
The
current regime's approach to accountability, including the fight against
corruption, seems to focus on enhancing horizontal accountability, while
curtailing its vertical variant. This is, in part, due to the current regimes
need to build its own power base, and a (historical) weak link between
transparency and accountability. Vertical accountability depends
on the capacity of civil society to network, organize and influence
public opinion. This is difficult in the context characterized by low public
awareness, even of major corruption cases, as Twaweza has shown in its brief.
Moreover, while the parliament, under the fourth phase government, led the
demand for accountability (bunge lenye meno), the current fight is being led by
the executive. The (executive) push for horizontal form of accountability is in
line with the regime`s illiberal tendencies, which are made possible by the current constitution.
Effective
and sustainable anti-corruption initiatives require a convergence of horizontal
and vertical accountability efforts. But, as Tanzania`s experience has shown, when
the horizontal `arm` is weak, the vertical can do little to bring about
change. Therefore, if one had to make some concessions, it would be worth
compromising on the latter, especially when things seem to work.
0 comments:
Post a Comment