Peter Espeut
POLITICIANS ARE 'vocabularily challenged' when it comes to certain words; they use them often, but don't know what they mean; and deserve the name Mr. Malaprop several times over. Over the years in this column I have discussed several of these, but it makes no difference; the malapropisms continue.
An important word that politicians clearly don't understand is "corruption". They seem to think that it is the same thing as "theft"; "I have to line my pockets before you can call it corruption. If there are rules for awarding contracts, and I breach those rules - for whatever reason - it is not corruption unless I can be shown to have financially benefited."
The Shorter Oxford Dictionary defines "corruption" inter alia, as: "the perversion of anything from an original state of purity", or "moral deterioration".
Corruption is first and foremost a moral state, or rather, a state of immorality - when things do not go the way they are supposed to. And so, if agreed rules are breached - if things don't go the way they are supposed to - that is corruption, pure and simple.
BREACHES
When the Auditor-General or the Contractor-General or the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament find that there have been breaches of financial or procurement or contracting procedures, that is corruption. It may also be other things: it may be youthful exuberance; it might be expedience; it might be that the law is not a shackle; but it is also corruption.
Not everything that is immoral is also illegal; politicians who make the laws often do not make their breaches of the law a crime; or may not prescribe a penalty when they depart from the law. But breaching agreed guidelines or regulations or the law itself is corruption, whether it is a crime or not.
And then there are other ways to gain financial benefit from corruption than by stealing money or misappropriating funds. One can give a contract to someone who then turns around and gives you some of the money. You did not directly steal government funds, but it is still corruption; that type is called graft. Or it can go the other way: a politician can receive a campaign contribution, and then afterwards give the donor a contract. That is a common type of corruption in Jamaica; politicians call it "campaign financing".
Of course, it could have nothing to do with money. Environmental permits could be given without following the proper procedure. Or one could give one's friend or relative or political supporter a job or a house or a contract. This is such a common practice in Jamaica that one could say that corruption is woven into the fabric of the Jamaican polity.
POSITIONS OF INFLUENCE
I know persons in positions of influence who refuse the bottles of Scotch they are offered at Christmas (correctly) on the grounds that it could be construed as a bribe. I also know of persons in high places who look forward to Christmas and these gifts. Corruption is rife in both government and the private sector.
And yes, corruption has gone on for so long - across both party administrations - that it has become "normal" - the norm. Interestingly, the leaders of both PNP and JLP have publicly stated their commitment to ending corruption, but they never seem to find it in their own party, and never when they are in power. And heads never seem to roll, and the commissions of enquiry never seem to find anything.
As long as we get away with calling corruption by other names, it will persist and thrive. Politicians of both stripes need to tighten up on their vocabulary, and learn the meanings of words like 'corruption' and 'conflict of interest' and 'sustainability'. Our nation will be better governed for it.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
