To successfully tackle a problem and implement meaningful policy reform, there must be a clear understanding not only of the problem itself, but of the context in which that problem exists. For South Africa’s corruption problem, such understanding of the context is inadequate and little empirical information is available in this regard, and as a result there are gaps which hinder effective context-sensitive policy reform.
This is the view of Collette Ashton, a researcher with the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), who recently published a study titled Rethinking anti-corruption in South Africa: pathways to reform, with a view to helping to bridge some of the gaps and providing a purposeful way forward.
“This report analyses South Africa’s anti-corruption institutions in relation to international good practice. It highlights problems with their functional independence and organisational culture. It identifies a serious gap in the area of prevention.”
This situation has arisen, says Ashton, because the country’s anti-corruption institutions are governed by a parallel informal system of social norms held in place by incentives such as promotion and disincentives such as bullying. Furthermore, “this organisational culture prioritises obedience to authority over ethics, eroding integrity”.
To make matters worse, a culture of mistrust and competition exists between law enforcement agencies, Ashton says, and this hampers collaboration.
“Feasible, incremental reforms of anti-corruption institutions are needed in the short term, focusing on organisational culture.”
Other recommendations are to engage the private sector to help prevent and detect corruption, and prioritise prevention, among others. But first, control of corruption is paramount.
“Achieving better control of corruption is a key factor that influences a country’s trajectory from a state of corruption to one of better governance,” the report states. “[And] anti-corruption enforcement by means of public investigations that provide some form of accountability is one of the most important methods of achieving better control of corruption.”
It all depends on authorities’ ability to improve anti-corruption enforcement – “this is an indicator of whether the country will move towards a condition of better governance or one of greater corruption,” Ashton notes in her 2021 paper Dismantling ‘The Machine’: a Role for Non-Trial Resolutions in Anti-Corruption Enforcement in South Africa?.
The status quo
Corruption perceptions have worsened in South Africa over recent years, with the country’s Corruption Perceptions Index score dropping to its lowest ever in 2023. Meanwhile, public trust in core democratic institutions is at an “all-time low” according to the Human Sciences Research Council’s 2022 South African Social Attitudes Survey, where 67% of citizens believe “quite a lot” or “almost all” politicians are involved in corruption.
At the same time, the challenges persist, and not only in South Africa. Research shows that anti-corruption reform efforts frequently fail or backfire, especially in developing countries. Furthermore, high-level corruption is difficult to prosecute because of factors such as the complex global economy, cross-border transactions, secrecy among perpetrators, and political conflicts of interest, among others.
The ongoing discourse around the establishment of an independent anti-corruption agency adds another complicating factor. The 2011 Glenister II judgment provided for the creation of such an agency in South Africa, and it is also provided for in the 2020 National Anti-Corruption Strategy, which mentions the establishment of a “permanent overarching statutory or constitutionally entrenched state body”.
The possible powers of this agency are under debate – Adv Paul Hoffman of Accountability Now, for one, says the new body should be constitutionally established as a Chapter Nine institution, with all the accompanying protections and advantages, and with a mandate to prevent, combat, investigate, and prosecute serious corruption over a certain value.
Ashton includes some case studies of other countries who have implemented anti-corruption reforms, as examples of what works and what does not. In Kenya, for instance, the well-known Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission is reputed to be one of Africa’s more effective anti-corruption agencies and has achieved “several high-level convictions with large fines and long prison sentences”.
The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission is “is almost, but not quite, a super-agency. It is a multipurpose agency with preventive functions, enhanced investigative powers, and the power to prosecute”. It has its own anti-corruption academy and “exceptional” investigative powers, including the power to intercept communications and override banking secrecy laws and professional legal privilege. The failure to provide the commission with information is a criminal offence.
The context is important, though. Latvia’s Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau has been highly successful, but in the context of a small, high-income country – so what worked there may not work here.
“More research needs to be done regarding factors that contribute to the effectiveness of anti-corruption agencies in developing countries,” says Ashton.
Recommendations and considerations
She cautions against taking a “silver bullet” approach in terms of the proposed new agency, saying that rushing this through may have a destabilising effect. The idea must by no means be shelved, but in the short term, incremental, practical reforms to existing institutions, that are proven to work and are cost-effective, “can prevent further economic harm due to corruption. It would be reckless for reformers to ignore these in favour of advocating for a long-term ideal”.
These steps include supporting the new Investigating Directorate Against Corruption, implementing cost-effective prevention measures, and build better inter-agency co-operation, among others.
The private sector must step up, she says, in, for example, developing structured frameworks for corporate anti-corruption compliance.
In the public sector, cultural and organisational reform is overdue. The creation of better whistle-blower protection systems is an imperative. Other priorities include building strong ethical leadership and changing organisational culture and social norms such as obedience to authority over ethics, which allow corruption to thrive – this was seen especially at the height of state capture.
In their 2023 paper titled The World’s Anti-Corruption Efforts Need a Reset, Shamila Batohi of the National Prosecuting Authority and Christopher Stone of Oxford University write that bullying is a “super-spreader” of corruption. “Even carefully structured checks-and-balances and the best designed rules collapse in the face of a persistent bully in a senior role.”
Many ethical public servants, they add, “find themselves going along with corrupt schemes to stay clear of aggressive bullying from higherups or peers (or just to get away from them). They are not themselves corrupt, but they want to get on with their jobs without the hostility and stress that bullies sow”.
Prevention must become the primary remedy in anti-corruption discourse in South Africa, writes Ashton – not punishment, as is currently the case. “Prevention employs two methods to promote and maintain ethical values in organisations: data analysis and changing organisational culture.”
Batohi and Stone agree. “We cannot prosecute ourselves out of corruption,” they write. “Criminal investigations and prosecutions are crucial, but never sufficient.”
All this must be done with political stability and economic context in mind. There are numerous steps that can be taken immediately, Ashton says, while developing the long-term strategies – this approach will not take long to bear fruit, if effectively implemented.
