Way back in 1987, the Nationalist administration was elected to office on a promise that it would eradicate “root and branch” all traces of corruption. At that time the administration was all fire and fury, with charges of blatant irregularities associated with tixhim (sleaze or bribery).

A Commission against Corruption was set up. A long-winded inquiry into irregularities in the affairs of Mid-Med Bank – held behind closed doors from beginning to end – practically drew a blank.

In short, hardly a mouse emerged from the mountain, due exception being made to a few isolated cases. The rest was lost in the wash or allowed to evaporate by the law of prescription

There are laws as well as rules against the greasing of palms, sleaze and abuse of power. But it takes more than innuendo and repeated charges, no matter how vigorous, to bring suspects before the tribunal of justice.

In more recent years, the situation became even more problematic with the emergence of more and more quangos, more remote from parliamentary control than the average government department, and all allowing space for surreptitious decision-making and cosy networks.

Democracy needs more, not less, accountability.

The Nelson eye

There have been far too many instances where the perception of corruption, real or perceived, has been highlighted by the media, with official quarters turning the Nelson eye.

Corruption corrodes all decent standards of public life and the institutions of government. When it advances in the guise of patronage, it can debilitate social cohesion and the management of the economy. It is the cause of particular harm to developing countries, where the political fabric may be relatively weak and civic institutions less firmly based. In such circumstances, the economy may be fragile.

In a developing economy, corruption is a heavy tax on economic activity because it blunts competitiveness and raises costs. It also distorts the management of the economy, making it more difficult to assess the exact consequences of spending, investment and tax decisions.

A school of economists holds that corruption is a sort of lubricant in developing countries in that it generates economic momentum. It certainly helps the rich and the powerful at the expense of the rest of the community, particularly the poor. It is therefore, in truth, a political irritant and a destabiliser and can, in the end, turn out to be a source of unrest.

Poisoned environment

It is much easier to get away with corruption in an authoritarian climate, where every act of discretion can be potentially lucrative. It is more likely to be exposed, restrained and controlled in a democratic environment and a regulated free market.

A democratic environment can be poisoned when patronage is wielded clumsily or irresponsibly in favour of vested interests, which expect a quid pro quo or more in return for surreptitious donations.

Man’s frailty and the corrosive quality of power make explosive chemistry that is capable of blowing up democracy. Democracy can wither on the vine unless those in office take effective measures to assuage the popular thirst for justice and democratic rectitude.

This is why the vigilance of the democratic electorate is of the essence. Wouldn’t such vigilance be far more effective it if were bolstered by a Freedom of Information Act and special legislation to protect whistle-blowers who stick their neck out against corruption?

[email protected]