I am delighted to share this forum today with those who, like me, are concerned about corruption in the ranks of government in this country. This address has given me an opportunity to express my thoughts on the subject that has a tendency, by definition, to retain an element of taboo in the public discourse. Corruption in government, broadly speaking, refers to the misuse by government officials of their governmental powers for illegitimate private gain.

Sadly, all forms of government are susceptible to political corruption. Democracy may have given us all a stake in the existing order, but it has not created a water-proof protection against corruption in its own administration.

The relationship between the two is clear. In the political realm, corruption undermines democracy and good governance by flouting or even subverting formal processes. Corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off and public offices are bought and sold. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance.

Equally importantly, corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the public sector, corruption undermines economic development by diverting public investment into capital projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful.

Officials may increase the technical complexity of public sector projects to conceal or pave way for such dealings, thus further distorting investment.

Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental or other regulations, reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure and increases budgetary pressures on government.

Corruption also generates economic distortions in the private sector's interactions with government by generating considerable distortions and inefficiency. In practice, corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials and the risk of breached agreements or detection.

Although some believe that corruption reduces costs by cutting red tape, the availability of bribes can also induce officials to contrive new rules and delays. Openly removing costly and lengthy regulations are better than covertly allowing them to be bypassed by using bribes. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the playing field, shielding firms with connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.

How do we in South Africa feel about corruption right now? Despite recent controversies over the so-called “Travelgate” scandal in Parliament, South Africans remain far less likely to see corruption in government today than they were during the 1990s. This is one of the many important results revealed by the recent October / November 2004 South African Afrobarometer survey. A review of responses to questions asked in Idasa and Afrobarometer surveys over the past decade suggest that public perceptions of corruption underwent something of a "sea change" between 2000 and 2002.

Placed against the larger context of Afrobarometer readings of public opinion across Africa, South Africans’ views of corruption amongst elected representatives are far more positive than those measured in countries such as Malawi (36 percent), Mali (38 percent) or Nigeria, where over one half (53 percent) of all people told us in 2003 that their MPs were corrupt. At the same time, other African countries like Cabo Verde (8 percent) and Ghana (13 percent) appear to have had far greater success in creating an impression of official probity than South Africa’s legislators, thus showing great room for improvement.

The comparison with many other African countries may be flattering to us in South Africa, but so would be anyeveloped nations with South Africa. Corruption is, after all, a relative concept. From the experience of many government agencies, watchdogs and NGOs, the areas of greatest risk when it comes to corruption in South Africa across its three-tier system of government are:
- Nepotism in employment of staff. This is the practice of employing relatives;
- Inadequate financial controls. This could involve lack of oversight on expenditures by those who are supposed to do this work, especially in the finance department of the municipality;
- Procurement for building and allocating of RDP houses. This is the whole area of tenders to businesses to build and allocate housing;
- Lack of transparent procurement processes. This includes lack of openness about processes for procuring services in the municipality by outside individuals and businesses;
- Abuse of municipal assets. This involves abuse of things like municipal cars, computers, and so on.

These are simple facts, evidenced on a daily basis in the mass media and experienced by many individuals in their official or private dealings with government. Is there anything these individuals - who may be witnesses or even victims where government corruption occurs - can do about it? Yes, there is.

My political organisation, the Inkatha Freedom Party, has a lot to say against corruption in government. Let me tell you where our focus in fighting corruption lies. In and out of government, we have consistently encouraged a culture within both provincial and local government where all employees, the public and other stakeholders continuously behave with, and promote integrity in their dealings with, or on behalf of government departments and municipalities.

We have broadly improved accountability, efficiency and effective administration within local government departments and municipalities including decision-making and management conduct which promotes integrity. We have likewise improved the application of systems, policies, procedures, rules and regulations aimed at uprooting corruption within government departments and municipalities.

As a result of these multi-pronged efforts, I can say that we have largely changed aspects within government departments and municipalities that undermine institutional integrity and facilitate unethical conduct, fraud and corruption and allow these to go unnoticed or unreported.

We have also, with some tangible results, encouraged employees and other stakeholders to strive towards the promotion of integrity and for the prevention and detection of unethical conduct, fraud and corruption impacting, or having the potential to impact on both provincial and local government.

We in the IFP have often pondered over one controversial issue in the context of corruption across the South African government. Does the size of the public sector result in corruption? Extensive and diverse public spending is, in itself, inherently at risk of cronyism, kickbacks and embezzlement. Complicated regulations and arbitrary, unsupervised official conduct exacerbate the problem. This has been at the heart of our life-long argument for privatisation and deregulation.

Opponents of privatisation - and believe me there are many in South Africa - see the argument as ideological. Admittedly, the argument that corruption necessarily follows from the opportunity is weakened by the existence of countries with low to non-existent corruption but large public sectors, like the Nordic countries.

However, these countries score high on the Ease of Doing Business Index due to good and often simple regulations and have rule of law firmly established. Therefore, due to their lack of corruption in the first place, they can run large public sectors without inducing political corruption.

We in South Africa have yet to learn how to conduct business with few obstacles from the government or even how to conduct business with the government without the government's bad habits getting in the way. While a lot of energy and political capital htegies against corruption in government, the solution lies in their successful implementation. With regards to enforcement, any successful strategy to fight corruption in government must outline the following commitments:
- Reporting and monitoring of allegations of unethical conduct, fraud and corruption;
- Whistle-blowing which is intended to provide assurance to employees that government is committed to protecting employees who report unethical conduct, fraud and corruption in good faith, from victimisation and other forms of intimidation; and
- Feedback to be given to whistle-blowers to provide assurance that allegations of unethical conduct, fraud and corruption will be investigated.

Without being serious about these aspects of the organised fight against corruption in practice, we are running the risk of deluding ourselves into believing that the worst of corruption in this country is safely behind us.

I thank you.

Contact: Blessed Gwala, 078 690 5777