Islands of Integrity
By
Rory Macnamara
NEWS
7
In the recent report ‘Money down the Drain – Corruption in South Africa’s
water sector’, principal researcher and author, Mike Muller, made as one
of his recommendations that the water sector should be designated as an
‘Island of Integrity’.
We need to understand the meaning of Islands of Integrity.
The term ‘islands of integrity’ refers to public institutions that are
successful at reducing corruption despite being situated in a context
of endemic corruption. While there is no formal definition of islands of
integrity in the literature, generally they have the following characteristics:
i. They are self-contained areas that distinguish themselves from other
public institutions in the same country in that they are corrupt-free and
effective within corrupt and dysfunctional national contexts;
ii. They are not focused on fighting corruption but rather they have their own
institutional mandate;
iii. They fulfil their mandate ‘corruption free’ or with considerably lower levels of
corruption compared to the rest of public institutions in the same context.
As the report pointedly noted, “the aim of designating the sector as an island
of integrity is to focus both political leadership and citizens on the need to keep
corruption out of water to keep the taps flowing and the rivers clean”. It went
on further, “they (ministers, senior officials, boards and executives responsible
for water agencies) should be people of impeccable integrity and technical
competence”. I include the Portfolio Committee in Parliament whose activity
regarding their mandate of holding such officials to account has been and is
sorely lacking.
The heading ‘Ending impunity – Instilling a culture of consequences’ makes
the valid point (among many others) that abuses must not go unpunished.
The Auditor-General exposed many irregularities in the management of water,
his report is somewhere in the arena of non-response and inactivity and only
recently has his office been given additional powers to enforce his findings.
Sadly, the rampant corruption referred to in the report was before the
Auditor-General’s powers were expanded. This does not in any way indicate
that corruption is not active currently with, the community plumber being
identified as part of the corrupt activity!
Such an Island must not be made up of political appointees who fulfil the function to
gain for family and friend’s coffers. These are knowingly doing wrong because they
go to great lengths to hide these activities through various companies and such. “It
is well-documented that political affiliation rather than competence or integrity has
been the determining factor in appointments,” the report notes.
For the purpose of this article I conclude with this quote from the report, “on the
latter point (transparency, responsive and accountable public service and the NDP)
state information, including details of procurement, should be made openly available
to citizens. Furthermore, an information regulator should be established to adjudicate
appeals when access to information is denied.” (Copies of the report are available as
indicated below.)
My final point is around our official bodies and how they interact with such reports
and the issue of corruption. They may well not be ‘public bodies’ by definition, but
they represent companies involved in sectors. It is inconceivable that their members
are not in some way affected by corruption which is not confined only to government
but to business as well. Corruption is not a political issue but a business issue. We
hear about government corruption, which is business, as our press is vigilant in this
regard, but what of business itself and potentially within our official bodies. Are our
official bodies equally as transparent as we expect our public service to be? Citizenry
must be active, and part of this activity must come from members of official bodies
as well. Here I speak of sensible, articulate, non- personal and well-prepared
questioning to open up transparency and accountability of official bodies.
Official bodies should unquestionably be the highest beacons of integrity in the
land. Where any are currently not – they should become so forthwith.
References:
1. Water Integrity Network www.waterintegritynetwork.net
2. Corruption Watch www.corruptionwatch.org.za
3. Anti- Corruption Resource Centre www.U4.no. Author(s): Nieves Zúñiga,
Transparency International, [email protected]
Reviewed by Marie Chene, Transparency International, mchene@
transparency.org
4. NDP – National Development Plan PA
August 2020 Volume 26 I Number 06
www.plumbingafrica.co.za