Voters don't like plans to forgive past corruption

From: Gordon Teti

By Gladwell Otieno
East African Standard Published on November 23, 2007, 12:00 am
 
Over the decades, Kenya has accumulated a mountain of economic crimes which has largely remained unaddressed. The most serious attempts yet were made by President Kibaki’s Government, under the leadership of Mr John Githongo, then Governance and Ethics Permanent Secretary, but they eventually foundered.
 
Debate on this issue continues and has been an important aspect of the present electoral campaigns.
 
The Africa Centre for Open Governance, a civil society initiative that focuses on anti-corruption and governance, commissioned a survey to find out what people think about grand corruption and what they want done about it.
 
Presidential candidates have made various declarations on how they intend to treat past economic crime. ODM-Kenya’s Mr Kalonzo Musyoka promotes the unconditional "forgive and forget" line. ODM’s Mr Raila Odinga has at times promised radical action and at others offered the possibility of forgiveness after restitution of stolen wealth. President Kibaki, on the other hand, has generally maintained distance from discussions about corruption and preferred to focus on the achievements of his regime.
 
Responses to the survey made it clear that Kenyans do not support a "forgive and forget" strategy. It would be difficult for politicians to sneak a backroom elite bargain past voters, if any is contemplated.
 
The survey reveals that people view corruption as the issue of greatest concern. Fully 89 per cent of them rate corruption as a national priority concern: 97 per cent think that corruption is a "big" or "very big" problem.
 
A commentary on the Government’s below par communication skills is the 25 per cent who are still unaware of official efforts to address corruption. Only 13 per cent of respondents spontaneously reported knowledge of the National Anti-Corruption Campaign.
 
Only 23 per cent were aware of institutional efforts such as those of the Controller and Auditor General. However, 98 per cent knew about the Artur Brothers.
 
Demonstrating the futility of efforts to suppress information was the 39 per cent of Kenyans who are aware of the Government-commissioned Kroll report and had strong opinions about it.
 
Asked to assess the performance of various Government efforts and initiatives on a scale of 1 to 10, many were uncompromising; none of them scored above the halfway mark. While 92 per cent were aware of the existence of the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission they were so unimpressed that they gave it a score of only 3.7 out of 10.
 
Questioned as to what should be done about various corruption offences, people’s responses ranged from confiscation of assets to prosecution and lengthy jail terms to the dismissal, or barring from public office of those guilty of corruption.
 
Most think that wealth stolen and kept abroad, should be returned and used for health, education and other social welfare purposes. This shows that people attach a clear cost to graft and, indeed, see corruption and the loss of development opportunities as closely interlinked.
 
There was a marked perception of inequity and impunity in the treatment of prominent corruption offenders: 77 per cent said that there are sacred cows or "untouchables". Of the tiny minority (six per cent) who believed that there should be untouchables, fears on the potential for open ethnic conflict if prominent cases are pursued were cited, given the penchant of some suspects to seek refuge in their communities.
 
A full 93 per cent of Kenyans claim that they will not vote for a candidate who is widely perceived to be corrupt. Paradoxically, 48 per cent also said they would accept a bribe. Poverty and cynicism seem to be important motivators. However, 80 per cent said they had no intention of voting for the candidate whose bribes they would accept.
 
Respondents listed the types of bribes they were aware of as money, clothes, jobs and, interestingly, title deeds which only the Government can offer. From their comments, voters seem to be well aware that the goodies being lavished on them by the Government in various voter-mollifying packages come with a price tag. All candidates should be aware that money spent on bribes is very likely money wasted, provided polling conditions are free and fair.
 
The aspect of the poll that receives the greatest public attention is people’s assessment of which presidential candidate is most committed to fighting corruption. Perhaps inevitably this directly reflects the results of various polls to date on voters’ preferred candidate overall.
 
A regional breakdown of the results shows all the candidates generally enjoying the "homeboy" advantage. However, Raila also leads in North Eastern, Western, Rift Valley, Coast and Nairobi. Raila’s support base is strongest among younger voters who are particularly riled about corruption.
 
Interestingly, the poll shows that the candidates’ positions are sometimes at variance with those of their own supporters. For example, 77 per cent of Kalonzo’s supporters disagree with his "forgive and forget" stance; 36 per cent want the corrupt to face the full force of the law, lengthy jail terms and confiscation of property, 41 per cent were prepared to accept restitution and an apology. Forty-six percent of Kibaki’s supporters also support the more radical options.
 
Only a small minority are willing to contemplate the "forgive and forget" option; 7 per cent of Kalonzo’s supporters, 6 per cent of Kibaki’s and 5 per cent of Raila’s.
 
What do they want the new Government to do about corruption? First, 94 per cent say the next President should not appoint any individuals who have a corruption record. Respondents also demanded the repossession of all illegally acquired property, the introduction of tough terms such as lengthy jail sentences; the immediate resignation of all those under investigation on corruption cases; proper vetting of Government appointees and "radical surgery of the Judiciary".
 
Strong, focussed leadership will be necessary to respond to and manage these demands in an accountable and transparent manner.
 
The writer is the Executive Director of the Africa Centre for Open Governance;