Sadly, What Rich White Men Think of Us Matters

By MWALIMU MATI

Over the last week, I've had to deal with a lot of angry and a lot of very happy Kenyans. The source for their extreme emotion is the same, and the emotion is aroused by their interpretation of the change in Kenya's score on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2004 (up to 2.1 from 1.9 the previous year).
]
Both ends of the spectrum, seem unconcerned that, going by the CPI score Kenya lags far behind Uganda and Tanzania, with regard to the perceived hygiene of our investment climate in the eyes of respondents to the 18 surveys from which the CPI is calculated. The extreme fringes of Kenyan politics (that is, those who either fanatically oppose or fanatically support) are now using the CPI to assert that Transparency International has ceased to be objective and is now in some form of "public relations role/ marriage" with the Kenyan government. No amount of explanation will satisfy them that the global Corruption Perceptions Index cannot be influenced by our whims. But just for laughs, here we go again. 

The CPI ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. It is a composite index, drawing on corruption-related data in 18 surveys carried out by a variety of reputable institutions. Only one of these surveys is directly commissioned by Transparency International (the Bribe Payers Survey, which measures the propensity of multinational companies to pay bribes). To be ranked, a country must have appeared in at least three of these surveys. 

The CPI reflects the views of businesspeople and analysts from around the world, including some experts who are resident in the countries evaluated. It is not correct to conclude that the country with the lowest score is the one perceived to be the most corrupt of those included in the index. There are almost 200 sovereign nations in the world, and the latest CPI ranks only 146 of them. 

On rare occasions, governments laud the CPI. For example, in 1997, when the Kenyan government intimated that corruption had been completely eradicated because Kenya was not ranked that year! In actual fact, Kenya was not ranked because it did not meet the three-survey criterion. That said, the CPI is vilified by governments on an annual basis. I searched the Internet and found some interesting repudiations of the CPI results. 

The response from the Malacanang Palace, Manila, was a curt dismissal of the report as an "exaggeration." The Nigerian Information Minister accused TI of self-glorification and consistently "destroying the reputations of nations and impugning their efforts at enthroning good governance." For those not in the know, President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria is a founder member of Transparency International. 

Subcontinental political explanations were propounded by one Bangladeshi commentator, for whom the poor perception rating was born of an "anti-Bangladeshi sense of hopelessness and despair" which results from reading "New Delhi-leaning newspapers like the Daily Star," compounded by listening to "New Delhi-influenced politicians or parties expounding a New Delhi agenda."

Because the real change in international perceptions is marginal and restricted to 2003, Kenya's government, the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs excepted, received the CPI's judgment of Kenyan public life with decorum. Ironically, this preservation of sang froid (no doubt counselled by the Permanent Secretary for Governance and Ethics) is provoking suspicions that the results have been spiked in favour of the government. That the CPI was published within seven days of a high-profile international anti-corruption conference (co-organised by the GOK and TI-Kenya), closed the cynics' cycle. What is certain is that in-country surveys, including an upcoming national survey by Gallup, will give the true picture of the experiences of Kenyans during the year 2004. 

The CPI has its admitted weaknesses as a means of doing year-on-year; and country-to-country comparisons. These are the subject of academic debate. In fact, this year, on the publication of the CPI, the Nigerian government's Justice Minister simultaneously alerted the world to an academic paper on the "Seven Failings of the CPI." 

Nevertheless, because the CPI remains an extremely well known corruption research product, it is the basis for many a decision in terms of business investment and, despite TI's protests, aid decisions. The respondents to the 18 CPI surveys are primarily businessmen, business analysts and academics - mostly in exporting nations. Whether we like it or not, while their perceptions may not be grounded on perfect knowledge of local conditions in Kenya, they are their perceptions, and decisions are often coloured by perceived notions. Take for example, Kenya's travails with the US State Department's travel advisory. 

If a businessman is asked about the likelihood of having to engage in corruption in order to assure his investment and his answer is that this is very likely - that is a bad thing for Kenya. For example, since 1999, the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), which comprises the world's leading exporting and investing nations, has criminalised bribery of foreign public officials abroad by companies from member states. If they get caught they face a real threat of criminal and civil punitive action against them in their home countries. Because they are restrained, while others are not, if corruption is at play, they are at a competitive disadvantage. They are not likely to invest where they are at a disadvantage. This I submit is why it is naIve to write off the CPI simply because it comprises the perceptions of a bunch of white men up north. 

Kenyans take note that while there has been a marginal improvement this year, recent scandals could reverse this trend in a flash. Since we are constantly in pursuit of foreign direct investment, it is not a wise thing to allow an air of official sleaze to settle over the nation. Having OECD investors too afraid to invest in our country for fear of corruption is not, I submit, a smart way of going about economic recovery. To quote a Malaysian TI colleague, "The perception may be wrong but in the end, based on the foreign business community's perception, they will decide whether they will come to Malaysia or not."

Mwalimu Mati is deputy director of Tranparency International-Kenya 

Comments\Views about this article