Money politics and the lure of Corruption

Money Politics and the Lure of Corruption

Victor E. Dike

Rhetorical exaggeration aside, the recent clash of the kings and the assault on paradise does not mean that Mr. President is serious with the anti-corruption crusade because his antecedents throw some doubt on the validity of his claim. The fraud perpetrated by his political handymen during the 2003 elections and the big money that exchanged hand is still fresh in our memory. Thus critics and supporters of the President would agree that big money in politics, used mostly to buy votes, electoral officers and political tugs to clobber the opposition has exacerbated the “kleptomania” in the society. Currently, politicians have the obsessive desire to steal to garner enough money for the 2007 politics. The money-induced political power struggle has corrosive effect on the political process. However, the relationship between money, politics and corruption could be summed up as - Moneybag + Politics = Corruption.

Presently, a specter is now haunting Nigeria - the specter of corruption fueled by moneybag. The Nigerian politicians have not yet imbibed the democratic principles that permit them to act as true democrats, except to steal and destroy others. Mr. President, who is now preaching the sermon of anti-corruption crusade, is the biggest beneficiary of political corruption in the society. During the 2003 politics the moneybags made billions of Naira donations toward his re-election campaign. Also, his party (PDP) served as conduit for corrupt governors and public servants to channel their loots to his campaign. And certainly, the failed “coup attempt in Anambra State” (organized by Chief Chris Uba (a protege of OBJ), with the assistance of Tafa Balogun and late Raphael Ige (former political handymen of OBJ), shows the ugly impact of moneybag in politics. According to ThisDay of March 19, 2005 Chief Chris Uba stupidly bragged during his testimony before the Panel investigating the Anambra crisis, that he used “his political acumen and structure” and “huge sums of money to execute the project” of election rigging in the state. He actually did the bidding of the President!

Nevertheless, whenever the President thinks that his administration is sliding into irrelevance he creates a ripple in the polity to drum his ineffectual reforms programs. But he should understand that his diversionary tactics would not tame corruption unless he first launches an encompassing crusade against the politics of “give and take” and “kleptocracy.” And that should begin with regulating individual and corporate contributions to parties and political campaigns and to sanitize his party drowning in cases of money-for-favor politics. For consistency, the President should desist from shielding known corrupt individuals from the hammer of the law.

Why does Nigeria find it difficult to regulate the influence of money in politics as other civilized democracies do? She should borrow from the United States in the method by which it regulates money in politics because unregulated money in politics corrodes good governance. The US has varied campaign finance reform laws in place to regulate individual and corporate contributions to elections. In 1925 the U.S Congress passed the Corrupt Practices Act, which placed limits on the amount of money that could be spent by candidates for Congress. In 1940 the Hatch Act, which placed limits on individual contributions to political parties, was passed. The Federal Election Campaign Practices Act of 1972 (replaced the 1925 Act) placed limit on advertisement expenses, etc. And the Campaign Finance Act of 1974 provides for public funding of presidential campaigns for candidates whose party drew at least 25 percent of votes in previous presidential elections (Saffell 1975). The National Assembly should enact similar Act, which will go a long way to controlling corruption in Nigerian politics. And such laws may reduce the plethora of political parties’ established solely for federal allocations and bring some sense of security and stability in the polity. It is in vain to talk of the desire to stamp out corruption from the system without taking appropriate step to achieve the objective. To avoid a repeat of the electoral fraud of 2003 in 2007 elections the society should begin now to purge Abuja of moneybag politics, which is the lure of corruption.

Another likely method to fight moneybag in politics is to brand “political corruption” an act of “terrorism.” Assuming that this postulation is granted, any person caught in the act should be treated as a terrorist. Recently, a panel set up by Kofi Annan at the United Nations unanimously agreed on the definition of terrorism, which is any act intended “to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians.” We are aware that corruption is equally deadly. It has ruined the economy of Nigeria and impoverished the masses thereby creating economic problems that have resulted in many deaths in the society. However, for this postulate to be legally bound it should have the backing of the law. This might sound very radical, but we should understand that the “happiness of the individuals” that makes a community, is their security, which comes from the state’s efficient application of the law of the land.

Another lure of corruption in the society presently is the immunity clause. It appears redundant to repeat here the havoc it has wracked on the society. However, as analysts (including Justice Mustapha Akanbi) have argued, granting immunity to those officials who should have it is not a problem in itself, but the diabolic politicians are abusing the “immunity clause.” But it no longer suffices to complain about the problem; solutions are required to solve them. Sadly, “the king” (President and Governors) whom the society thought would do “no wrong” if protected, is now sucking the system dry. The society has suffered grievously in consequence of the “clause” and should, therefore, expunge it from the Constitution. As a proverb says, “if the rod be [was] bent too much one way, in order to make it straight you must bend it as much the other [way]” (Bowditch and Ramsland 1961).

Nevertheless, instead of the corrupt rich individuals to bastardize the system with their ill-gotten wealth, they should put the money into useful purposes for the benefit of the society. They can invest in local infrastructures, such as “tele-centers,” roads, power generating plants, et cetera. Those who built roads in their communities should collect tolls from the users, if the government would not refund them what they spent. The benefits of such projects cannot be over emphasized, as they would have great impact on rural development. And instead of wasting the taxpayers money on a National Conference, which many people have dismissed as a mere “jamboree,” a more sensible thing would have been to determine how best to use the money to promote bottom-up development.

Sadly, Nigeria has continued to squander its oil revenues. The nation’s oil wells have yielded hundreds of billions of dollars that corrupt politicians have largely diverted into their private bank accounts. This action has denied the people the opportunity to enjoy the oil wealth. However, the most obvious principles of the science and art of “Political Economy” state that “the great object [ive] of society is, to obtain wealth, and to enjoy it” (cited in Voices of the Industrial Revolution). It is wrong to continue to allow a very few privileged ones to play politics with Nigeria’s oil wealth, while the majority of the population is struggling to make ends meet. Therefore, the true enemies of the people are the political gods that have been stealing their money without remorse.

Mr. President is currently treating the symptoms of corruption, rather than the underlying causes. There are many so-called “wealthy individuals” in the society who cannot give good account of the sources of their wealth, other than that they were “ex-this” and “ex-that.” If the President is serious with his anti-corruption crusade, the looters of the national treasury should be put in jail, where they belong, when, and if, they are tried and convicted in a court of law. This is one of the ways to put a stop to the “chop and go” politics and to ensure the survival of democracy in the society. More importantly, a high level of ethics and integrity should be required of the National Assembly and Ministers, and the society should demand that the politicians should abandon the politics of moneybag, greed, acrimony, and antagonism that are strangling Nigeria’s democratic political process, and adopt an ideology-based politics. The leaders should also understand that the relevance of the nation in the international community hinges on the outcome on its anti-corruption crusade and the actualization of true democracy. Bribery and corruption is Nigeria’s sore thumb!

Finally, Mr. President cannot reform Nigeria with brute force, militant tactics, or “proto-fascist” mentality, but with effective enforceable laws. With a consistent application of the law, taming corruption and the influence of moneybag in politics could come within the realm of a possibility. Otherwise, the anti-corruption crusade would appear like plowing furrows (using a spade) on untilled soil or prompting the TORTOISE to catch the HARE (has powerful legs for jumping).

Victor E. Dike, CEO, Center for Social Justice and Human Development (CSJHD), in Sacramento, California, is the author of Fraud or Democracy? The Presidency of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, 2003-2007 [forthcoming]