Will GoSS eliminate corruption in South Sudan?

By Zechariah Manyok Biar

June 30, 2010 — The President of South Sudan, Salva Kiir Mayardit has repeatedly warned his ministers against corruption. He recently said, “With this in mind, we are duty bound to ensure, in addition to the overarching responsibility of keeping Southern Sudan peaceful and out of harm’s way, equitable sharing of resources, fiscal prudence in the use of public funds, devolution of power to local governments and building institutional and human capacity at all levels of government.”

I believe President Kiir is serious in his repeated warning against corruption. But some people who doubt the follow-up of our leaders’ words will ask me to tell them how I know that President Kiir is serious about his claimed zero tolerance on corruption. Some of these brothers who reacted to my recent article about Dr. Kwaje’s statement about agricultural activities said that our leaders say words but never do them.

The concerns of these brothers might be true. But my position is that what did not happen in the past is not always the indicator of what will or will not happen in the future. It might or might not be true that our leaders still speak and never implement what they say. So, let me stick to my belief that our leaders today mean what they say until we see them do otherwise.

One question is: If it is true that President Kiir is determined to fight corruption this time, then will he succeed? The other question is: Is corruption found in government offices or is it an illusive virus that can affect even those who sell their mangoes on the street in any town in South Sudan?

I believe that corruption is not found in government offices or in police offices. Corruption is encouraged by some prevailing conditions in any country. One of the conditions that breed corruption is the lack of will to fight it, and this is the condition that President Kiir is now taking on. But people would still be corrupt as long as they are not caught if consequences are the only things that they fear.

The other condition that encourages corruption is the lack of moral living. Moral living is still consequential in nature. But the fear of moral negative consequences trumps the fear of imprisonment. Moral negative consequences on immoral people do not have any protection from their relatives because these consequences are individuals in nature. The fear of imprisonment, unlike negative moral consequences, may be overcome when one has strong community backing, regardless of whether the action is too bad or not.

The fear of negative moral consequences to corrupt practices may be deterrent to corruption only if another moral situation is addressed. The other powerful moral situation that encourages corruption is the need to take care of one’s relatives and friends. In our current society, a person who turns a blind eye to his or her relatives is considered nothing less than an outcast. But working people may not have salaries good enough to take care of the needs of every relative. So, the result of meeting this moral obligation is for any employee, public or private, to take what does not belong to him/her and prays that the government or a company does not recognize it.

How then can President Kiir’s government address this morality of taking care of relatives in the fight against corruption? It will take long time, I believe, to overcome this problem and it is one of the root causes of the prevailing corruption in many places in the world.

Here is my idea: job creation. When many people are working, especially in a country like Sudan where welfare services are unheard of, then they divide the burden of taking care of jobless relatives. For example, if six people are working in a family of ten people, then the burden of taking care of the four jobless people will not force the working six into corrupt practices like if only one person out of ten is working.

How would the government create jobs then? It is a question that needs many smart heads to address. But I think that the building of infrastructure would contribute to job-creation. For example, the government of South Sudan can start the housing projects. If two million dollars is given to each state for housing project after every three months for the building of government-owned apartments, then many people can be employed all over South Sudan.

Building of houses does not need every worker to have a college degree. The money allotted to housing is not lost because finished apartments would be rented to both foreigners and Sudanese nationals who now cram themselves in small houses of few working people in towns in South Sudan.

The apartments should be equipped with air-conditioners, powered by solar systems. Comfortable apartments would attract South Sudanese who spend millions of dollars in renting houses in the neighboring countries. If these people come back home, then they will be buying food from business people in South Sudan, encouraging many current dependent people to do business and become self employed.

Those who do not take job-search seriously now will have to take it seriously if they are asked to pay for the rent at the end of every month in town. The need to pay for the renting and food will encourage people to take any available job until they later get the job of their choice, giving the government a lot of money in taxes.

The apartments can be in stages. Some will be for low-income people and some can be for the better-off people. The other part would be housing system in which houses are built for individual families and the payment for those who buy these houses is stretched over time to give them a breathing space as they pay off these mortgages.

This article might not be a comprehensive plan for job creation and effective way of fighting corruption, but it is better to have ideas that can be popularized by others than to have none at all.

Zechariah Manyok Biar, MACM, MSSW. He can be reached at [email protected]