“Corruption is Harmful? How Do You Know?”

Corruption is Deadly

Picture taken from futureatlas.com on Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0

„Corruption is harmful? Why? How do you know?“

Sometimes you’re challenged by very simple questions. Everybody knows that corruption is harmful. Don’t you think?

Some time ago I met someone from Bulgaria. I don’t remember how and why we had turned to this topic but suddenly we were talking about corruption. I said that there are some states in the world where corruption is one of the biggest societal problems. He asked: „Corruption is harmful? Why? How do you know?“ He also said that this is like a Western view on corruption and I’m giving the impression that there would be no corruption in Germany. Well, of course there is corruption in Germany and in all other European countries as well. That is why organizations like Transparency International, LobbyControl (a German NGO) or investigative journalists are so important.

Yesterday I stumbled upon an interesting blogpost by Andrea Arzaba. She describes the harmful effects of corruption in Mexico and she is advocating the fight against corruption.

Everywhere, of course. Not only in Bulgaria or Mexico!

Thanks Andrea for giving the permission to publish the article on my blog.

Mexico: When Corruption “Bites” You

Literally, mordida means “to bite” in Spanish. But in common Mexican slang, it can also refer to bribery. To give money in order to influence the behaviour of the recipient who abuses his/her power. By these means people avoid long tramits or do not pay the penalty of their wrong behaviour. In Mexico, many citizens have been involved in the cycle of corruption  just by “giving a bite” to people who accept corruption as a part of their routine.

Usually, these mordidas are given to the transit police – when drivers are going to get a fine, they often prefer to pay a few pesos to make the police look the other way, and by this avoid a series of paperwork, visits to the police station and more money to pay for their acts.

Another common mordida would be given to corrupt school directors, offered by students or by their parents, who pay those teachers and/or directives to accept misusing their position and getting fake grades to students, in order to pass the school year.

Some other known “bites” are those given to any public official who can make paperwork processes that take days, in minutes, all under a bill with more than one zero. Journalists with unethical backgrounds get mordidas, and as an exchange they write biassed stories that bring out only some facts and hide others. A common practice where democracy becomes just a fantasy in developing countries.

In Mexico it is common that citizens criticize the government, criticize the companies, executives and journalists. We criticize the police and public officials for taking bribes, but in reality, common people are the ones who also allow this endless cycle  keep on going. Common people are the ones who offer these mordidas as well. Us, the ones who accept this behaviour as a normal part of our lives are allowing the corruption wheel to continue moving forward. Us, who witness corrupt acts on the streets and continue walking as if nothing had happened.

Discussing this issue, a few days ago a friend told me: “well, the system works this way and it benefits everyone.” I refused to accept his argument. This is what happens today, but it is our duty to inform others and show them that the system should work with transparency. That it is possible. These mordidas make us realize that something is failing in our system,  and it is our generation who can change it by understanding the real means of bribery and standing against it.

Because in the end the one who asks for a bribe is as corrupt as the one who tolerates it and remains silent.

Post written and published for the 15th IACC – Transparency International
(Andrea Arzaba, August 2012 )

Weapon Deals and Land Grabs: Justify Yourself!

A few days ago the campaign 25000-euro.de (German) caught my attention. Publishing wanted posters of the owners of the German weapons manufacturer Kraus-Maffei Wegmann and calling for tips that could lead to convictions of the company’s shareholders? That’s quite a bold campaign I thought. But the motivation for it – preventing the delivery of 270 Leopard 2 tanks to Saudi-Arabia – is definitely a noble one.  Does the end justifiy the means?

The organizers of this campaign (The Center for Political Beauty) say that Krauss-Maffei Wegmann’s shareholders (KMW is a family enterprise with just a couple of shareholders) have too long operated in the background. In fact, there are even people who have worked with the owners and who don’t know that these people earn their money through selling tanks and other wepaons.

The German government has already approved the tanks deal with Saudi-Arabia. In such a case the Federal Security Council decides. This decision was made behind closed doors and without consultation of the parliament. Krauss-Maffei Wegmann claims that it’s „merely“ executing the government’s decision. It could be so easy…

Justify Yourself

Photo taken from andeecollard on Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0

However, I think it’s about time that in such a case decision-makers or those who „merely“ execute these decisions have to justify their actions. The owners of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann should tell the public why they will deliver 270 tanks to Saudi-Arabia, which are appropriate for oppressing protesters. Those tanks could be used to violently oppress protests in Saudi-Arabia or in neighbouring countries like in Bahrain. This has happened before.

Yesterday I stumbled upon an article titled: „Meet the millionaires and billionaires buying land in Africa“. The principle behind it is basically the same like 25000-euro.de. Those people who are making profits in ways that harm others should justify their actions. Transparency could help to avoid actions like these. If the public makes clear that it detests weapons deals with despotic regimes, land deals (landgrabs) at the expense of those who have cultivated the land for a long time or any other deal that bring profits to a minority and that harms a majority of innocent people, some people could think twice about their actions.

Do you know any similar campaigns like 25000-euro.de? I would be happy if you share them! What do you think of campaigns like this one?

SOPA – PIPA – ACTA: Nothing less than a disaster

Those of you who read these lines have probably heard of SOPA, PIPA or ACTA. You use the Internet, you read blogs or perhaps you are even a blogger yourself! In this case you might have an idea of what consequences and implications the regulations behind these acronyms would have once they are in place. But my guess is that  too many people don’t know it.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, US House of Representatives) and the Protect IP Agreement (PIPA, US Senate) were envisaged to be adopted only a few days ago. However, massive online protests prompted parliamentarians in US congress not to vote on it (this doesn’t mean that it won’t loom on the horizon once again).

Currently the Anti-Counterfeit Trade Agreement is a further try to ban content from the Internet which is suspected of violating copyright laws. This agreement is heavily criticized by NGOs, bloggers, and Internet users. In contrast to SOPA and PIPA, ACTA wouldn’t be a national law. Instead it is a transnational agreement between countries like the US, Japan and the EU countries. This is why Forbes says: If You Thought SOPA Was Bad, Just Wait Until You Meet ACTA. Here is a good overview of what ACTA really means:

For me the most scandalous aspect of ACTA is not its content. I think that we need a copyright that is adjusted to our digital times. Banning all content that is disagreeable for someone can’t be accepted. But to be honest, I don’t know every detail of how ACTA would affect my everyday experience as an Internet user though I guess it won’t make it easier. The biggest problem with ACTA ist that it was negotiated secretely. The negotiations started back in 2008. But it was only a few weeks ago that I heard of it the first time. Furthermore, it wasn’t elected representatives who negotiated the agreement. What about public consultation? What about balancing the needs and wishes of content producers and consumers (if it is possible at all to draw these lines)? No, nothing like this had happened.

The United States have initiated (besides Brazil) the Open Government Partnership which aims at making governance more transparent and responsive. How can this be aligned with an agreement like ACTA? There are even tech bloggers who don’t know all the details of ACTA. Ask ordinary citizens what they think of ACTA and you will notice that the vast majority has no idea what it is.

If countries that support initiatives like the Open Government Partnership sign ACTA (which is unknown to so many people) this is nothing less than a disaster.

The Digital Zeitgeist Behind Occupy Wall Street

Today, nobody knows how Occupy Wall Street or Occupy Together will develop. Will it even get stronger? Will it only be one of those events that has been hitting the headlines for a couple of weeks?

At first glance the Occupy Wall Street movement might just seem like a wave of protests of people who are upset due to their dire economic situation. If you analyze it more thoroughly you might also think that growing inequality is the catalyst for these protests (and there is plenty of reason to believe this, if you look at these graphs). But I think that another development or trend comes into play here as well which is illustrated by the slogan „We are the 99 per cent“. It is an economic slogan because many Americans feel that they are disadvantaged compared to a minority of the wealthiest 1 per cent. But it’s also a political slogan because people in the US and elsewhere feel that this 1 per cent in collaboration with politics doesn’t listen to the 99 per cent and their needs. And this is simply not in accord with the zeitgeist.

In these digitial times hierarchies are in a constant state of flux. Allegiance must be earned and not commanded. People gather very quickly around a common interest using modern technologies. However, they are also quick to apt to organize protests against obvious drawbacks and it comes as no surprise that social media are a useful tool in this regard. The ruling political elite doesn’t only have to earn its credibility every four or five years but also on a constant basis. The digital zeitgeist also implies Openness in its various forms. Keywords are Open Government, Open Innovation or Open Source. An organization that has formed itself around the purpose of promoting Openness is the Foundation for P2P Alternatives. It means that everybody can contribute to the economic, political or societal sphere. Michel Bauwens, who is founder of the Foundation for P2P Alternatives, puts it like this in a Tedx Talk: „So what I’m claiming is {…} that we are already now seeing the seeds of a new society within the old and this is what I call „Open Everything“.

An open society or Open Everything as Michel Bauwens calls it is necessarily opposed to a governance system that is supposedly working to benefit only the wealthiest one per cent of a society. Dubious back door deals, hidden lobbyism and of course corruption aren’t accepted by a society that has familarized itself with openness which is especially provided by the use of modern technologies. People are used to get directly in contact with others. Many people just don’t accept why it should be different with authorities.

In a blogpost about intercultural exchange I read this statement: „Challenging others and our own opinions and biases is vital to the progression of our society in every aspect“. And I think that this is what protesters in New York and in other cities around the world are demanding: an open dialogue between citizens and politics instead of a top-down monologue from politics (driven by economic interests) to the citizens.

This blogpost has orginally been published on futurechallenges.org. Please see the “In Focus: Occupy Wall Street” series on futurechallenges.org.

Open Government and a “Wonderful Crisis”

„We had a wonderful crisis…“ This is how Birgitta Jónsdóttir, member of the Icelandic parliament and former Wikileaks activist, started her keynote at the Open Government Bar Camp (only in German) from 29th to 30th October in Berlin. Jónsdóttir believes that the global financial crisis was the decisive trigger for Iceland to adopt the principles of open government. Iceland even rewrote its constitution with the help of its citizens using social media like Twitter and Facebook.

Today, more and more governments worldwide acknowledge the legitimate demand from their citizens to act more transparent and responsive and to listen to their demands. The Open Government Bar Camp in Berlin has shown that there are already a few Open Government initiatives on the way in Germany. But it has also proven that Germany is still lagging behind compared to other countries. Kenya, for example, has recently launched a national open data website, we already talked about Iceland, and the Open Government Partnership which was initiated by the United States and Brazil has got eight members so far and more than 30 countries are currently developing their committments.

The Open Government Bar Camp in Berlin was a success because it brought together round about 400 participants representing administrations, governments, enterprises and civil society. They shared their knowledge and best practices which is the best way of promoting the principles of Open Government. Nevertheless, it could be an idea to attract more participants from abroad in order to learn from their experience. Perhaps more people from Iceland could join the debates…

Please check out a short interview with Birgitta Jónsdóttir which was conducted by FutureChallenges:

Avoiding the Resource Curse

All too often the discovery of oil and other natural resources leads to conflict and corruption, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

This article has originally been published by me on www.futurechallenges.org.

What is a resource crisis? Put simply, it’s the problem heading our way as an expanding global population faces up to the fact that its natural resources are running out. Population expansion has put an unprecedented strain on the planet’s natural resources, and unless governments, corporations and NGOs cooperate, the resulting crisis could turn the blessings of resource-rich countries into a curse.

The world has already seen several scenarios in which natural resources have started or prolonged civil wars, or detrimentally impacted governance by institutionalising corruption. Today, we’re seeing the first signs of anger and resistance to this damaging state of affairs in North Africa and the Middle East. The challenge will be to reconcile the urgent demand for natural resources with the task of using the funds from these resources for the public good. Otherwise many people in countries that are resource-rich will stay in dire poverty.

The Resource Curse

Countries with large reserves of non-renewable natural resources such as oil, gas, gold or diamonds are blessed with the perfect opportunity to generate income and boost the domestic economy. But when those earnings are managed irresponsibly, the effect can be damaging. Unfortunately, this is the case far too often.

The work of Paul Collier and his colleagues at Oxford University (in, for example, The Bottom Billion) has increased awareness about how, paradoxically, resource wealth can result in low growth rates and stagnating per capita income. The exploration and exploitation of resources attracts capital and workforce that are then unavailable to other sectors. At the same time, the influx of money increases the value of the domestic currency and, consequently, other export sectors lose their competitiveness (as we’ve seen, for example, in Angola).

As the country becomes dependent on its resources, an unholy trinity of low growth rates, low levels of per capita income, and a strong dependence on the resource sector substantially increases the likelihood of civil war.

Of course, civil war is by no means an inevitable outcome, but the sad truth is that corruption flourishes alongside the income generated by the resource industry. Money that could be invested for the public good instead drains away into the hands of a small elite loyal to the ruling clique, whether the military (the BICC’s Global Militarization Index shows that many of the highly militarized countries are oil-rich states in the Middle East) or tribal leaders, who in turn safeguard the power of incumbent rulers.

These corrupt cliques are only part of the problem, though. Consider the damage done by multinational corporations that profit while destroying the environment or displacing people to get access to resources. And let’s not forget the resource-poor states that turn a blind eye to human rights abuses as long as their supply is guaranteed; or government officials in the resource-rich countries who use this newfound wealth to buy loyalties and enrich themselves.

No representation without taxation

Though there are many types of natural resources, oil is still the most prominent – and perhaps the most troublesome. A closer look at major oil producing countries reveals not only that many of them record low growth rates and per capita incomes, but that a vast majority are governed by authoritarian regimes.

So why does oil abundance seem to foster autocratic forms of governance? The political scientist Michael L. Ross explains this phenomenon by reversing the slogan of the American revolution: No representation without taxation. These regimes can choose to lift the burden of paying taxes because income from the resource sector is sufficient to cover the state’s spending needs. And without the imposition of taxes weighing them down, people are less inclined to demand political participation.

Today, many countries are aware of the imbalance between resource abundance, governance and the economic performance of states. In Afghanistan, which is surprisingly rich in natural resources, the Mines Minister Wahidullah Shahrani declared : “We are determined to avoid any possibility of the ‘resource curse’ and to ensure these resources bring long-term community benefits.” When large oil reserves were discovered off the Ghanaian coast, meanwhile, many critical voices warned of the resource curse (Ghana’s Oil Find: Benefits and Nightmares and Ghana’s Oil Wealth: Delusion and Grandeur ). But does this mean that citizens should be worried when oil, gas or diamonds are found on their nation’s territory?

Opportunity in Transparency

With all the issues surrounding access to natural resources, you could be forgiven for thinking that resource abundance automatically degrades a country’s governance. But this isn’t the case. Examples like Norway, Canada or Botswana show that natural resource revenues can be invested for the public good.

Two keywords are important: ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’. Both have been aided by the launch of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). It forces companies in the extractive industries sector to reveal any payments they may have made to governments; and in turn compels those governments to disclose how they used this income. An independent EITI commission then checks whether the government has spent the money reasonably or whether corrupt officials have diverted it into their own pockets.

Liberia is just one country that has benefited from the initiative. The West African state experienced a devastating civil war during the 1990s and beyond, and diamonds were essential for financing the conflict. However, today Liberia is making progress in using funds from the natural resource sector efficiently rather than destructively (see Liberia’s EITI Compliance). It demonstrates how companies, governments and NGOs can collaborate successfully for the wellbeing of citizens.

Similarly, the Revenue Watch Index displays which countries are managing their resources in a responsible and efficient manner – or not. The key is ‘investing in investing’ as Paul Collier calls it in a film for the Natural Resource Charter. These revenues must be invested in future-oriented measures.

Investing in Investing

What does all this mean for countries that suffer from a lack of natural resources and which rely on a steady supply from abroad? They are demanding access to scarce resources but they can’t afford to neglect possible negative consequences in the supplier countries. In an increasingly borderless world, poverty, refugees or civil wars are no longer contained within the nation-state; severe crises in resource-rich countries can and will impact the security of supply.

As the recent unrest in Libya started, oil prices spiked immediately, showing once again that resource markets are extremely sensitive (see Oil Pressure Rising). Similar or worse scenarios apply to possible upheavals in Saudi Arabia (see Oil and Unrest). As a result, it’s in the best interests of resource-scarce countries to promote good governance in resource-rich countries, otherwise the consequences will be felt everywhere.

In times of increasing competition for resources, as well as population and economic growth in countries like China and India, the challenge will be to reconcile the needs of resource-scarce countries with those of resource-rich countries in a way that equally benefits governments, transnational corporations and citizens. The demand countries have to ensure that their short-term resource policy does not clash with medium and long-term development goals in developing countries.

When the European Union published an update on its ‘Raw Materials Initiative’, critics accused it of privileging access to critical resources while neglecting the needs of the supplier countries to grow their economy and improve living standards (Analysis of the EU Raw Materials Initiative).

Fatal transactions have to be avoided. Cohesion must be a priority. The supply countries have to provide transparency and accountability – in the long run this will deliver the best guarantee for stabilizing a country. The resource curse can be avoided if everyone involved finds a way to cooperate.