Defining graft and corruption

Ike Señeres

WE have to know our enemy in order to defeat it. In the case of graft and corruption, we have to really define what it is, in order to be able to defeat it. If we could not definitely define it or if we do not know what it is, we do not even have a chance to defeat it. In a manner of speaking, it could be said that those who profit from graft and corruption would rather keep the status quo of confused definitions. The more confused the definitions are, the more difficult it would be to fight the enemy.

You might be surprised to know that the Philippines has an Integrity Management Program (IMP) that is a joint project of the Office of the President (OP) and the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). You might be surprised further to know that within the IMP, the Philippines also has a National Anti-Corruption Framework and Strategy, under the theme of “Building a Culture of Integrity.” The framework defines corruption as “the use of public office and the betrayal of public trust for private gain”. The same framework also defines graft as “the acquisition of gain in dishonest or questionable manner.”

I do not know where the authors of the IMP are coming from, but I remember from Christian thinking that graft and corruption is a two way relationship between the corruptor and the grafter. As a matter of fact, the proper terminology should be “corruption and graft”, because the process begins with someone from the private sector corrupting someone from the public sector, wherein the latter ends up committing graft. In other words, graft and corruption is a cause and effect relationship, and it takes two to tango. In theory, there has to be a corruptor in order to have a grafter, but it is also possible for graft to have a life of its own. What I mean is that graft could possibly become systemic, such that grafters could actually “acquire gain in dishonest or questionable manner” on their own, even without the intervention of corruptors.

To a large extent, it could be said that the IMP definition of corruption as “the use of public office and the betrayal of public trust for private gain” is somehow limited in scope, because as a matter of fact, graft and corruption also happens in the private sector as it happens in the public sector. The only difference is that in the private sector, it is the money of proprietors and investors that get stolen, while in the public sector, it is the money of the citizens and taxpayers that get stolen. To be able to fully compare what happens in the private sector and what happens in the public sector, we have to know the difference between bribery and solicitation.

As defined, bribery happens when someone who wants something of value would offer some kind of gain, in exchange for a favor. On the other hand, solicitation happens when someone who is in a position to give a favor would ask some kind of gain from someone who wants something of value. Based on the Christian teaching, a believer does not commit wrongdoing if he is solicited for some kind of gain by someone who is in a position to give him a favor. On the other hand, a believer would commit wrongdoing if he offers a bribe (any kind of gain) to someone who is in a position to give him a favor. That is when the pure form of graft and corruption happens, when there is a completed exchange between the corruptor (the one who offers the bribe) and the grafter (the one who accepts the bribe).

As I see it (in my own opinion), there is a tendency for solicitation to happen more in the private sector, because those who need a favor would more likely hesitate to offer a bribe, thinking perhaps that the workers in the private sector would be less inclined to accept it. Conversely, there is a tendency for bribery to happen more in the private sector, because those who need a favor would most likely think that public sector workers are more inclined to accept a bribe. On the part of Christians however, it would be more prudent for them to wait to be solicited, instead of offering a bribe right away. That way, they would avoid committing wrongdoing.

Now that we know the enemy, we also need to know how it thrives and what makes it prevalent. Others might not agree with what I am about to say, but I will say that discretion is the root of corruption. Some might say that greed is the cause of corruption, but I would still say that discretion is the root of discretion. If there is no discretion on the part of those who could give a favor, then there would be no need to offer them a bribe, or to give in to their solicitations. Actually, if there is no discretion, there will be no need to ask for a favor, because as it is supposed to be, anyone could get any product or service for as long as he or she would pay the right price for it, regardless of whether he or she is dealing with the private sector or the public sector.

E-mail: bantaygobyerno-subscribe@yahoogroups.com