The Journal of Applied Christian Leadership
By Kelvin Onongha
September 1st, 2014
This is an excerpt of the paper “ Corruption, Culture, and Conversion: The Role of the Church in Correcting a Global Concern”,
One of the most challenging issues confronting contemporary society is the problem of corruption. This global malaise cuts across race, gender, age, culture, religion, and geography.
The World Bank estimates that every year over $1 trillion exchanges hands as bribes-a significant amount when placed alongside the total world economy of $30 trillion recorded between 2001 and 2002 (Goel & Nelson, 2010, p. 433).
The World Bank itself does not appear to be untainted with the miasma of corruption. It has in its 32 years given away $3.5 trillion. While not much has come out of these loans due to corruption, if the World Bank itself were to be investigated, it would very likely be shut down for corruption (Winter, 2009, p. 10).
So prevalent is the scope and spread of this scourge that it is now considered a norm rather than an exception, and even has special regional jargon to name it: in the Middle East, it is baksheesh; in Latin America, mondida; in Italy, speed money; in West Africa, dash; and in Russia, blat (White, 2010, p. 39).
Corruption has left a sordid trail all through human history, from the ancient kingdoms of Egypt to Israel, Rome, Greece, and the present period (Lipset & Lenz, 2000, p. 112).
Although long held to be a cultural, moral, and historical problem, in the 1990s corruption also became regarded as a political and institutional problem (Andvig, Fjeldstad, Amunsten, Sisener, & Soreide, 2010, p.60). This paper, while broadly examining the scope of global corruption, w ill focus especially on the African context. I will draw heavily on my familiarity with the Nigerian setting in order to derive lessons applicable to other regions of the world.
Many definitions for corruption can be found in various literature on the subject today.
A very simple definition of corruption is “the misuse of office for personal gain” (Kiltgaard, Abaroa, Parris, & Lindsay, 1999, 2). Floristeanu (2010) gives a broader definition of corruption as “the abusive use of power with the purpose of satisfying personal or group interests” (p. 252).
De Graaf (2007) has defined it as “the behavior of public individuals which deviates from accepted norms in order to serve private ends” (p. 43). These different definitions help to capture the complexity of this broad subject.
Corruption is a pernicious, ubiquitous problem that has plagued every culture, government, and establishment, to the extent that it is believed no system has ever been able to eliminate its existence (Genovese, 2010, 2).
All aspects of human life have been affected by the cancer of corruption, yet its complexity in nature renders it extremely difficult to isolate and identify a comprehensive set of causes for its existence.
Corruption manifests itself in various ways depending upon culture and context. For instance, in Africa, it may entail diversion of public funds for the purpose of infrastructural development into personal accounts, while in America it takes the form of reduced competition in politics and the economy (Johnston, 2010, p. 13). Distinction can also be made between the various natures of corruption: manipulative corruption, which excludes those who could have benefitted from a process through some form of duplicity; discriminatory corruption, “duplicitous exclusion from conditions of equal influence and respect”; and privative corruption, “duplicitous exclusion of citizens from rights and privileges generally available throughout society” (Parrish, 2010, pp. 76, 80, 84).
Depending on the region and cultural context, corruption assumes hybrid forms.
Some of the most commonly identifiable forms of official corruption as listed by Gerald Caiden (2001) are treason/subversion, kleptocracy, misappropriation, abuse and misuse of power, deceit and fraud, perversion of justice, nonperformance of duties, bribery and graft (extortion), tampering with elections, misuse of inside knowledge and confidential information, unauthorized sale of public assets/trusts, tax evasion, influence peddling, acceptance of improper gifts and entertainments, protecting maladministration, black market operations, misuse of official seals/supplies, and illegal surveillance (Caiden, 2001, p. 17).
It is important to state that the factors responsible for corruption should not be mixed up with its sources and causes.
Among the sources identified for corruption are psychological, ideological, external, economic, political, sociocultural, and technological (De Graaf, 2007, p. 42).
Often regarded as a problem endemic to developing economies or countries from the majority world, recent reports indicate that corruption cannot be stereotyped-its footprints are evident in Europe and North America, too.
For instance, just over a decade ago, international business magazine The Economist featured an article titled “is Europe corrupt?” in it the author detailed various levels of corrupt practices from Italy, Turkey, Spain, Belgium, Britain, and even from Germany and Sweden-northern European Protestant countries that have stricter laws and are traditionally considered to be squeamish about such issues ( The Economist, 2013).
There are several factors obviously responsible for corruption. However, culture and context appear to be determinative in what exactly constitutes corruption, for it has been observed that “what may seem like corruption in one culture might count simply as a responsible family loyalty in another” ( The Economist, 2012).
