How corruption may hamper peacebuilding: The case of South Sudan
On January 16th South Sudan's Parliament met to discuss the Auditor General's announcement that $1.3 billion was unaccounted for during the 2005-2006 budget period of the then Autonomous Government of Southern Sudan. This comes in the midst of a flurry of anti-corruption initiatives sweeping the country. These events raise several important questions about the nexus between corruption and peacebuilding.
Published on 15 February 2012 in
ISS Today
By
On January 16th South Sudan’s Parliament met to discuss the Auditor General’s announcement that $1.3 billion was unaccounted for during the 2005-2006 budget period of the then Autonomous Government of Southern Sudan under the transitional government. This comes in the midst of a flurry of anti-corruption initiatives sweeping the country in the past few months. In November last year, President Salva Kiir appointed senior judge Justice John Gatwhich Lul as chair of the national Anti-Corruption Commission. Established in 2006 and viewed by many as toothless, this body gained prosecutory powers through the 2011 Transitional Constitution. These events raise important questions about the nexus between corruption and peacebuilding. What have we learnt from African post- conflict states about how corruption affects peacebuilding efforts?
Corruption and peacebuilding are traditionally viewed as distinct practices. Upon first glance, one is inherently bad and undesirable while the latter, constructive and welcome. What about the intersection between the two?
The nexus between corruption and peacebuilding is characterised by the tension between the short and long-term impacts of corruption. Some functionalists argue that certain forms of ‘illegal’ channelling of state funds may have positive consequences in the aftermath of conflict. In the short term some would argue that this could help bring about stability, by sustaining networks of patronage and ‘buying’ spoilers to participate in the peace process. Both the need and opportunity for corrupt practices can increase following conflict, arguably as the case of Burundi shows. Certain financial ‘rewards’ also have the potential to play an incentivising role in peace negotiations. However, the difficulty in embracing this rationale arises when one considers the longer-term implications of these kinds of practices. Is stability and peace sought after, at any cost?
Peacebuilding, an arguably hazy term, can be understood as the achievement of sustainable peace at all levels of society. As Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung put it, seen as two sides of the same coin- in contrast to negative peace (the absence of physical violence), positive peace is the absence of structural violence. Peacebuilding is likened with conflict transformation, as the attempt to address the root causes of conflict in order to achieve sustainable peace, development and social justice.
The end of a conflict presents ample opportunities for corruption. Weak institutions and influx of outside funds that characterize post-conflict states provide incentives for officials to engage in corrupt activities for personal gain, asserts Susan-Rose Ackerman, Co-Director for the Centre for Law, Economics, and Public Policy Yale Law School. Countries emerging from conflict are extremely vulnerable to corruption and not conducive to a culture of transparency and accountability in government
Corruption can undermine peacebuilding efforts through a number of different ways:
Corruption can entrench an imbalance of power, especially in cases where those who gained in financial terms from the conflict are the ones in power. Human Rights Watch reported in 2010 that in Angola, due to a lack of transparency public accountability, opportunities for self-enrichment of leaders prevail with disincentives to yield power. Interviewees for the Cumulative Impact of Peacebuilding in Liberia study cited rampant corruption as an obstacle for peacebuilding. The public interest is compromised as those implicated in corruption often hold positions in government. As long as political leaders can use resource rents to employ security services to keep them in power, they have little incentive to fulfill the demands of their people.
Another risk corruption poses for the outbreak and persistence of conflict is in resource-rich states. Resource rents may also be used by officials to sustain their positions and perpetuate socio-economic inequality. As a result of an increase in oil revenues, Angola’s GDP grew from $7.8 billion in 1997 to $83.4 billion in 2008- while poverty and human development indicators remain downcast. Angola was ranked 168 out of 182 countries in Transparency International’s 2011 Corruption Perception Index (CPI), not indicating significant improvement since the end of its civil war in 2002.
A critical dimension to consider in post-conflict environments is the dominant role of international actors in providing aid for reconstruction. . In April last year, Michael Elmquist, head of the Joint Donor Team to South Sudan, flagged corruption as a challenge to technical and financial donor support to one of the poorest regions in the world and warned against the wasting of development aid in corruption-related practices. The expansion of the presence of international aid workers, large sudden influx of donor funds, associated challenges of coordination and the need to distribute funds swiftly provides an environment ideal for corruption to flourish. The mismanagement of reconstruction funds can have disastrous effects by preventing the funds from reaching those in need.
Corruption facilitates criminality and violence in post-conflict societies, which undermines judicial institutions and the rule of law, essential to building peace. South Sudanese Journalist Michael Magok, writing from Juba on February 11th, contends that corruption in the country is endemic and has reached a cultural level status which debilitates service delivery and enriches few, undermining the country’s legal instruments. A further concern is reintegrating former combatants into key positions in the new dispensation could compromise the independence of the police and judiciary. In post- conflict countries plagued by a lack of capacity, weak oversight of law enforcement often means that the protection of human rights is sidelined. This contributes to a weakening of and erosion of trust in public institutions
A culmination of these consequences of corruption in the long run can lead to new sources of grievances for the people, renewed risk of conflict, and ultimately the corrosion of legitimacy of the state. Condoning corruption in order to buy short term ‘peace’ can do more harm than good in the long run by leaving a legacy of impunity and a culture of criminality. In addition, transparency and accountability- essential building blocks of public trust and legitimacy- are undermined. Sustainable peace should be sought, at any costs, even at the cost of fighting corruption.
While this article has only scratched the surface of the corruption-peacebuilding nexus, it sheds light on the need to pay more attention to how the synergy between the anti-corruption and peacebuilding discourses can contribute towards preventing corruption, thereby enabling sustainable peace in post- conflict countries. A good start would be to consider a corruption-sensitive approach to peacebuilding
Shireen Mukadam, Researcher, Governance and Corruption Division, ISS Cape Town
