Corruption cannot be defeated without a depersonalised and principled revolutionary war waged in our lives, work situations and governance engagements.

War against corruption cannot be won, if it is led by those who have been distinguished by their silence or involvement in the very subject corruption and their vicious and condescending attacks against those who have, over a long time, pointed out and condemned the culture of corruption.

It cannot be won through hypocrisy, personalisation and selectivity, which are solely aimed against former president Frederick Chiluba. Corruption in Zambia is in the social values, business practices and daily ways many people make a living, inside and outside the public sector.

Without people outside government it would not be possible for corruption to be practised in government and public institutions. And, of the reverse is also the case, for without corruption by political leaders and public servants, corruption could not flourish.

The task of addressing corruption, for the purpose of eradicating it, should not be hurried and rushed, personalised and de-professionalised, limited and targeted at select individuals or select group of individuals, on the basis of the expediencies of the political moment of change of government leadership.

The new administration is commended and encouraged to continue taking a clear, unequivocal and persistent stand against corruption. But, it should be careful not to be drawn into a position perpetuating the culture of bad blood between in-coming and out-going political leaders.

This demands that the President and political leaders should not be at the forefront of pointing out specific individuals or groups of individuals to be investigated or arrested. In particular, the new President is correct and well advised, when he resists playing the role of Prosecutor, Police officer and Magistrate! In order to conduct the war against corruption efficiently, professionally and satisfactorily, investigatory and law enforcement institutions must avoid selectivity and personalisation in their anti-corruption approaches and action.

They must let the facts determine who is to be further investigated, prosecuted or arrested. It should not be the other way round, a pre-selected person is first accused and arrested and then investigated.

They must act in a fair and impersonal manner. They must not be allowed to first determine who is to arrest, and then work in reverse to fish for an offence. War against corrupt should not be driven by vengeful embittered personalities with a justified or unjustified grange to settle scores over. In order to ensure this, and getting the anti-corruption train on firmer trucks, it is advisable for the Ant-Corruption Commission to establish, or advise the President to establish ad hoc investigation teams.

These should thoroughly review the last ten years of the operations of the Bank of Zambia, Commercial Banks, the Development Bank of Zambia. the Food Reserve Agency, Zambia National Oil Company, Purchasing operations of ministries and government institutions. This extend to all other areas where corruption, particularly, but not only by political leaders, is most likely.

These teams of Commissions should make their report available to the President, Parliament, the Press and all law enforcement agencies simultaneously, for diverse follow up action. It can be anticipated that if such an approach was adopted, some of the most vocal persons calling for the former president’s head could be found wanting of the morality of throwing stones at any corrupt person.

And, indeed, perhaps, very few of our political and business leaders would come out very clean. But, that is exactly what it would take to move to win the war against corruption.

And, if the focus of words and action remains on “arresting Chiluba,” then, we can be sure that our political leaders and law enforcement agencies are not yet serious and determined to eradicate all corruption by all corrupt people. It means that they are just using the language of anti-corruption to exercise vengeance against some people.

Anti-corruption measures should be based on unbiased and depersonalised comprehensive investigation reports. These should determine that in such and such case, such and such a person should be further investigated or prosecuted or arrested. In cases of corruption, it should be understood that arresting offender alone is not enough.

Corrupt offender should also be made to pay back or return the fruits of his or her corrupt activities. The decision to have “the law visit” someone should be determined by facts that are publicly available. This is so that, under no circumstances, can any one person or a one group of persons, credibly say that they are victims of unjustly selective and targeted action.

It is important to recall that the features of the original 1990 agenda for democracy and development are specified areas of concern and action, which can never be satisfactorily addressed, in a corrupt society with a corrupt government. They are about fundamental changes in the system of governance, including, but transcending the formalities of going through the motions of casting votes behind curtains.

These features of the original agenda of the authentic Movement for Multi-party Democracy are as different as day and night from the programmes actually undertaken during the last ten years. For this, it would be unjust and unhelpful to lay sole ahd personal blame on former president Chiluba.

This agenda was, in some critical ways, distorted or abandoned over the ten years of the MMD, led and supported by not only Frederick Chiluba, but also many others, including those now vociferously calling the head of our former leader, whom they misled through sycophancy, dishonesty and “mercenarism”!

Thus, the original agenda needs to be reviewed and addressed directly, specifically and frankly, with no sacred cows, without fear or favour, and, above all, with all a command of personal honesty that has not yet been applied to the question of corruption.

In the underlying theme of the original (1990) agenda for democracy and development is the assertion that “people participation is an inalienable right” in governance, economy and society, not just in voting every now and then. The 1998 Annual Report of the Anti-Corruption Commission states that: “in November 1996, the government repealed the Corrupt Practices Act, No. 14 of 1980 and replaced it with the Anti-Corruption Commission Act No. 42 of 1996.

The Anti-Corruption Commission Act created an autonomous and strengthened institution, which was not to be ‘subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.”

But, this autonomy, like that of the Electoral Commission and the Judiciary, is much undermined by lack of adequate and independent channels of funding, as well as the ignored fallibility of integrity dependent of personal quality rather than effective institutionalised counter checks. The end result is that corruption has continued unabated, as Professor Michelo Hansungule has put it, whereby ” institutions, which are used to govern interrelations between citizens and the state are used to govern for personal enrichment.”

It remains to be seen, if the stated improved budgetary allocations in the 2002 Budget shall be effected and whether they shall effect a change for the better in the war against corruption. In any case, the fate and future of the original agenda democracy and development, including impact of corruption, need to be reviewed, with the aim of trying to restore, but not to replicate the dream of freedom, justice, equality and a clean government.

In this regard, the agenda for establishing an open, free and fair electoral process, as part of the over all agenda for democracy.

The Post (Lusaka), July 9, 2002