To fight corruption, we must change our thinking

By MOHAMED GULEID

We need a complete shift in thought and attitudes with regard to corruption. In every society, people agree on norms and values, which shall govern how they live, work and stay together. Once such norms are formalised they become a law that is enforced by the State. The people within the society are therefore obliged to comply with the norms agreed upon.

Criminalising of behaviour by individuals or groups of people requires the ability of the agents of the 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, then it means the State cannot enforce such laws.

Even when there is an attempt to enforce and coerce people to comply, the success rate of such compliance is very low. In some countries such as Japan the rate of crime is very low. Muslim countries in the Middle East also register very low levels of crime. These communities have internalised their norms and values therefore the State deals with few deviants and authority is respected.

In Kenya, however, statistics from the National Police Service indicates high levels of crime such as robberies, murder, traffic offences and others, which 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 often knowingly. A motorist on our highways might commit an offence, but hope that once caught by the police he is able to part with some little money and off he goes.

The commitment on the side the law enforcement agencies is compromised by other factors. For example if a policeman does not have enough income he might be inclined to accept a kickback compared to him having 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 fighting corruption, we as wananchi generally don’t really want to end the practice.

Therefore even the relevant government agencies might find it very difficult to ensure we reduce the levels of corruption.

The Kenya Anti Corruption Commission is overburdened with many cases that in the long run would make it difficult to succeed in this war.

The KACC is expected to prosecute every economic crime. This demand on them is too much. We therefore need a paradigm shift on how we perceive corruption. If the people of Kenya do not to change the way they see corruption then enforcing the relevant laws will become difficult.

The easier method would be to de-criminalise 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 de-criminalisation 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 he 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 extra income since they might be forced to work harder and sometimes longer to give a quicker result.

In most Government offices, people pay premium service illegally and public servants collect these monies and pocket them.

Therefore they risk being prosecuted.

But if a legal premium is to be paid, then the Government will be able to increase revenue while at the same time, public servants can receive part of the proceeds. In these arrangements no one would be victimised.