How not to be a ‘fantastically’ corrupt country
Just before the anti-corruption summit held in London on 12th May, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, at a reception with the Queen at Buckingham Palace in London on May 10, was ‘caught on camera’ describing Nigeria and Afghanistan as “fantastically corrupt” countries. “We’ve got some leaders of some fantastically corrupt countries coming to Britain… Nigeria and Afghanistan, possibly the two most corrupt countries in the world,” he was overheard saying. This sweeping claim reflected little of the nuance in Transparency International’s latest corruption ranking, in which Afghanistan was second from bottom, whilst Nigeria notched up 136th out of 168 countries. By downplaying the serious anti-corruption effort of Nigeria’s current government, Cameron provoked uncomfortable questions about the ambiguities in the West’s own anti-corruption stance. And in classic British sarcasm, the Speaker of Parliament interjected, in his only comment on the tape; “they are coming at their expense, one assumes?
Perhaps, the sole consolatory tone – which no doubt pleased President Buhari to no end and even prompted a “thank you” visit afterwards, was from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, when he interjected: “But this particular President is not corrupt. He is trying very hard”. The response from the Nigerian government fully captured the feeling. The Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu, tacitly acknowledged that Cameron may be right after all, but his description refers to Nigeria before the current administration. According to Shehu, the remark was not reflective of the anti-corruption stance of the present regime in Nigeria, saying “it is certainly not reflective of the good work that the President is doing”. Not to forget Archbishop Justin Welby, the statement was effusively in thanking the clergyman for defending the personal integrity of the President: “Thank you to the Archbishop Justin Welby. We very much cherish the good relationship between our two countries and nothing should stand in the way of improving those relations”.
Therein lies the problem with Nigeria – personalisation of reforms, powers and governance by politicians and those in authority. As President Buhari subsequently admitted, he did not mind Cameron referring to Nigeria as a “fantastically corrupt” country. He himself has made similar statement before. What he minded however, was that Cameron did not add the caveat that he was referring to Nigeria before the second advent of Buhari. In essence, Buhari placed his personal integrity and honour over and above the integrity and honour of the country. That kind of ‘messianic’ complex and disposition is all that is wrong with us and it is why we cannot build enduring institutions that are independent of particular leaders.
We need to remind the president that personalisation of powers and reforms prevent the creation of strong institutions. Africa has been particularly afflicted with this kind of rulers. Reforms and governance is not about him but about the country. In personal rule, state institutions become synonymous with the ruler and cease to have any importance outside of the ruler. Much more damaging however is the corruption, mismanagement, nepotism, patrimonialism and prebendalism inherent in personalised rule. Of course, everything crumbles the moment the rule exits the stage, and in the absence of institutions, the state descends into chaos and even anarchy. Over fifty years of experimentation with strong men rule in Africa has shown that strong and enduring institutions do not co-exist with strong man rule.
In contrast, a country with strong and established institutions could withstand weak or even disastrous leaders. The focus and or accent is on the institutions and not the leaders. The fortunes of such countries are not tied to the whims and caprices of individuals, but on established and enduring institutions. That is why, for instance, the United Kingdom could emerge stronger from the many blunders of weak Prime Ministers like Neville Chamberlain and Anthony Eden. In contemporary times, we are all witnesses to how the United States quickly recovered from the many disasters of George Bush Junior. Africans are better off prioritising the establishment of strong institutions than on getting strong men to rule because only strong institutions ensure democratic sustainability.
What this points to is the urgent need to begin the process of building strong and viable institutions that cannot be easily subverted or destroyed by subsequent rulers. The current trend of creating anti-corruption institutions can get the people excited and keep everyone busy, but it does not solve the problem. Those institutions remain highly susceptible to manipulation. Also, depending on the personal integrity of rulers is ephemeral at best. Sooner or later, a king that does not know Joseph will come and destroy everything. As Obama counselled in his first trip to Africa, what Africa – and we dare add Nigeria – need most are strong institutions and not strongmen or even ‘righteous’ leaders