Political corruption free essay sample

Many political leaders, especially in Africa, are known to engage in financial malpractice involving public funds meant for the communities they represent. The few people who run the resources of a country end up abusing the resources. These resources that are supposed to be channeled to develop infrastructure or educate the citizens end up being misused, misapplied or misappropriated by those entrusted to bring development. For example in Zambia, Constituent Development Funds (CDF) have been diverted by Members of Parliament to their personal use. There is no doubt that financial malpractice by leaders is a stumbling block to meaningful development in any country. One would not expect leaders in a democratic society like Zambia to embezzle funds meant for the welfare and development of their communities. According to Acemoglu and Robinson, this kind of behaviour by leaders is only possible in autocratic regimes. They argue that democracy makes this kind of theft difficult to accomplish and to conceal for two reasons. We will write a custom essay sample on Political corruption or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Firstly, the formal institutions of government such as the legislature constrain the behaviour of leaders. Secondly, popular participation in the process of government ensures that elected leaders are accountable to the citizenry. In a truly democratic society, there will be honesty, fairness, responsibility and accountability to and for each other (Djokoto and Chama: 2006). However, in most democratic societies, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, leaders can misuse, misapply or misappropriate community funds without the affected citizens raising any serious queries against the culprits. The citizens seem to be indifferent to such occurrences. Their silence or indifference could be a result of either not caring about what goes on around them politically or just being unaware of such things happening. This essay will attempt to explain why citizens do not raise any serious queries against their leaders when they misuse, misapply or misappropriate funds meant for their communities. This essay will begin by defining democracy and give the meanings of the words misuse, misapply and misappropriate. It will then try to explain why the affected citizens do not query their leaders when they abuse community funds. Finally, it will conclude. Democracy is a word with many meanings. Sir Stafford Cripps defines democracy as a system of government in which every adult citizen is equally free to express his or her views and desires upon all subjects in whatever way he or she wishes and to influence the majority of his fellow citizens to decide according to those views and to influence those desires. H. B. Mayo defines a democratic political system as one in which public policies are made on a majority basis by representatives subject to effective popular control at periodic elections which are conducted on the principle of political equality and under conditions of political freedom (Mahajan 1988:794). Democracy is usually understood as majority rule and the holding of regular elections. But if it has to work effectively, it must include active participation by all citizens and a conscious awareness of both rights and responsibilities (Mbewe 2012:16-17). According to the Macmillan English Dictionary, the word misuse means to use something in a wrong way or for the wrong purpose. To misapply is to use something in a wrong or illegal way. Misappropriation means to take for oneself money that one is responsible for but does not belong to them. One of the primary challenges of some democratic societies such as Zambia is the lack of leaders who vie for political office with the goal of serving the people, instead of themselves. During election campaigns, aspiring leaders give false information to people. They promise them of things they fail to give them after elections. This has been the tradition in the Zambian politics. Once voted for, the leaders become part of the rich while the poor Zambians remain cut off. They will invite rich people to dine with him at their newly acquired mansions while the poor who are the majority voters remain poor if not poorer. To host rich people, these politicians will need to have huge sums of money. They also need money to afford their newly acquired status. These people will shun the services in the country; they will send their children to private schools, or to schools abroad. They will seek medical advice outside the country and they will buy their clothes from outside the country. With the above behaviour little or no attention will be paid to improving the services they will never access or to improve the conditions of those who voted for them. Since most of the politicians in poor democratic societies have financially humble backgrounds, where do they get such monies? Records show that it is easy to steal public money in most African countries. The Auditor-General’s report on the Zambian government accounts shows how public funds have been stolen in Zambia. Weaknesses in accounting and revenue collection make it easier for public servants to steal huge sums of public money. At times, the money is not stolen but just misapplied. For example, a forensic audit of Solwezi District Council books by the Office of the Auditor-General (OAG) for the financial year ending 31 December 2004 revealed glaring financial irregularities. The auditor’s report showed that the K168 million grant given to the municipal authority with instructions that 70 percent of the money be spent on social services went towards salaries, allowances for councilors and cell phones for chief officers. Only 25 percent of the money went towards social services (op cit Djokoto and Chama). An example of a case of misappropriation of public funds by a leader is one in which a former Defence Minister in the Chiluba administration was found guilty by the Lusaka High Court for using CDF for his campaign during the 2001 elections (ibid). The minister was never jailed but lost his ministerial appointment. Despite such rampant financial malpractices by leaders, the citizens who are deprived of the funds and other amenities fail to raise any serious queries against such leaders. In most cases, revelations about misuse or misappropriation of community funds have been largely driven by the private media. Sometimes, the greatest pressure on government leaders to be accountable for their actions has come from the international media and Western donors. Anti-corruption campaigners such as Transparency International (TI) and other interest groups have also been involved in the fight against abuse of public funds. Through their activism they try to amplify the weak voice of the poor citizens in keeping political leaders in check. However, this is not easy. The constant struggle by these interest groups to hold leaders accountable for their expenditure of public funds cannot be won without the greater involvement of the affected citizens (ibid). Unfortunately, citizens in these societies are just not angry enough. They seem not to care about what happens to the community funds meant to improve their livelihoods. Their indifference to financial malpractices by their leaders does not help the situations at all. As a matter of fact, it increases their already high levels of poverty and widens the gap between the rich and poor. To understand why affected citizens do not take any serious steps against their leaders when they embezzle public funds, there is need to understand the political awareness of the majority of citizens and their involvement in public issues, whether the political system gives a voice to the poor or not, and the way government agencies charged with the responsibility of handling such cases respond to citizens’ grievances. There are quite a number of reasons why citizens choose to keep quiet about the wrongs committed by their leaders. As we try to look at some of these reasons, there is need to understand that people have different levels of awareness with regard to what happens in their communities. There are those that are aware of the situation prevailing in their communities and those that are not. Those that are aware may try to voice their concerns through whatever means are available to them, but their voice will not be heard because it is not strong enough. The reason is that they are just a small minority of the affected citizenry. At times this is made worse by the fact that among this group there may be others who also benefit from the plunder of their community resources by way of receiving gifts or bribes from their community leaders. These will be unwilling to divulge any malpractice by their leaders because they fear losing their extra source of income, which is the bribes they receive to remain silent about the misuse, misappropriation or misapplication of community resources by the leaders. These may even try to protect such erring leaders by hiding whatever information they may know about such happenings to investigative agencies. The other group comprises those that are unaware or have just decided not to participate in such matters, and these are the majority. The majority of citizens are usually not well informed about public issues because of the general lack of information about such issues, especially about government spending policies. For example, in Zambia, there is no community involvement in the budgetary process at whatever level. At community level, there are no access points for ordinary citizens to participate in the budgetary process. The budgeting is done by officials and leaders. Participation of citizens in the budget process is inhibited by lack of access to information on both the national and community budget processes (http://info. worldbank. org/governance/wgi/index. asp). Although citizens may not play a direct role in the preparation process of the budget, they can contribute by fostering leaders’ accountability through positive engagement in monitoring of the implementation of the community projects. If the information about community projects being funded is readily available and understood by citizens, they can easily ask questions when planned projects are not implemented. Unfortunately, this does not happen even in some democratic societies. As a result, leaders continue to misuse, misapply or misappropriate community funds and get away with it because citizens are not aware of the malpractices being committed by their leaders. This can be prevented or lessened by availing citizens with all the necessary information pertaining to projects planned in their communities and how the allotted funds are to be used. Another reason why affected citizens fail to complain against the financial malpractices committed by leaders in their communities is the negative or unfavourable response by government agencies and investigative agencies charged with responsibility to deal with such cases. It appears that the government or political statements are, in most cases, not matched by action. For example, in 2005, a former Health Ministry permanent secretary was accused by the Task Force on Economic Plunder of misusing public funds. As he had openly voiced his support for the President, the latter ordered the chief prosecutor to drop the case. However, the prosecutor refused and ultimately managed to secure a conviction (http://www. freedomhouse. org/template. cfm? ). What this implies is that the citizens lose confidence in the ability of the responsible government agencies to ably handle their complaints without undue influence from higher offices. There have also been cases, for instance in Zambia, where the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had given consent to prosecute some government officials but the government has interfered to protect the accused from being prosecuted. People accused of abusing public resources are allowed to remain members of the ruling party. Such inconsistencies erode the credibility of the government’s stance in fighting such vices and make citizens lose confidence in the government. As a result, citizens begin to feel that even if they complained very little or nothing at all would be done by the government to correct the situation. This is a good reason for citizens to keep quiet and not complain against their leaders when they misuse, misapply or misappropriate community funds (ibid). In conclusion, it can be said that the citizens’ tendency to remain silent despite widespread acts of financial misconduct by the leaders is mainly due to fear by the affected citizens to lose the financial and material support they receive from the culprits because when leaders steal community funds, they bribe a few members of the community to buy their silence and loyalty. The other reasons are the lack of information pertaining to expenditure of public funds, and the unfavourable response by the responsible government agencies in handling issues of financial malpractice by leaders after receiving complaints from concerned citizens. In order for citizens to become willing, informed and effective participants in issues of democracy and good governance, they must be minimally taught to understand good governance and democratic principles and virtues and in the process begin to practice democracy and good governance themselves.