Proposal on how to fight corruption

One of the most famous Irish writers, Jonathan Swift, penned a famous essay titled: A Modest Proposal that advocated for the slaughter of children to ease biting hunger in the midst of the potato crisis.

Today, I would like to make a modest proposal on an issue that defines our society nowadays.

In every society, people agree about norms and values that govern how they live, work and stay together. Once such norms are formalised they become a law which is enforced by the State. The people within the society are therefore obliged to comply with these norms.

Criminal behaviour by individuals or groups of people require the ability of the agents of State to enforce such norms and values. When the majority of the members of the society do not want to internalise the norms and values agreed upon, we generate into a state of what sociologists call anomie.

Even when there is an attempt to enforce and coarse people to comply, the success rate of such compliance is very low. In some countries such as Japan and in most Scandinavian countries, the rate of crime is very low.

Muslim countries in the Middle East also register very low levels of crime. Accepting these norms means the society also acknowledges the sanctions that are imposed on wrongdoers. These communities have internalised their norms and values therefore the State deals with few deviants and authority is respected. Is this level of reduced crime achievable in our society?

In Kenya, statistics indicate high levels of crime such as robberies, burglaries, break-ins, murder, traffic offenses and other crimes that affect the society. The police therefore cannot simply deal with matters of crime adequately. This is because, despite our norms and values, we continue breaking the law many times, often knowingly.

A motorist on the highway might commit an offence, but hopes once caught by the police he will part with some little money and escape justice. Many do it. Many will do it even as you read this article. It is easy to throw up our hands and resign to fate.

The situation is not in the levels of helplessness. But then other factors pull back the push to making our society crime-free.

The commitment to law enforcement agencies is compromised by other factors. For example, if a policeman does not have enough income, he is more inclined to accepting kickbacks compared to those with sufficient income.

Corruption is a crime in Kenya. The Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act 2003 and the Public Officer Ethics Act 2003 are the two acts of Parliament that govern how we counter corrupt practices.

While we have very good laws on corruption, we seem less inclined to end the practice. Therefore even the relevant government agencies might find it very difficult to ensure we reduce the levels of corruption.

The Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission is overburdened with many cases that makes it difficult to succeed in this war. The EACC is expected to prosecute every corruption and economic crimes.

This demand on them is too much. We therefore need a paradigm shift on how we perceive corruption and those who engage in corrupt practices. If the people do not to change the way they perceive corruption, then enforcing the relevant laws will become difficult.

The easier method would be to decriminalise some aspects of corruption. For example, a traffic officer is less likely to charge an offender in court if he knows that some money might come his way.

Supposing through a process of decriminalisation we ask a traffic officer to give an instant fine to the motorist. As a means of appreciating the work of the police if the officer is allowed to keep part of the fine officially, then he is more likely to enforce the law with satisfaction. In fact, the law enforcement will be more than willing to enforce the law.

In Government services, the common mwananchi is more likely to bribe his way to get a service much faster. If someone does not have the time to wait in long a queue or wait for the required time to get his national identity card for example, there is no need to criminalise someone who wants to pay a premium for it and get the service faster. After all, not all Kenyans are the same. People have different status and income.

Those citizens, who feel they’ll lose time by waiting, should have a possibility of paying for premium services. The officers who work in this environment should also benefit from an extra income since they might be forced to work harder and sometimes longer to give a quicker result. In most public offices, people pay premium service, but the Government gets a raw deal.

Therefore they risk being prosecuted. But if a legal premium is to be paid, then the Government will increase revenue while at the same time, public servants can receive part of the proceeds. In these arrangements no one gets victimised and the biggest winner will be Kenya.