In his response to questions posed by the opposition in the National Assembly during the State of the Nation Address debate on 15 April 2021 in the National Assembly, President Geingob rejected claims that corruption in Namibia is systemic. The President rather contended that corruption in Namibia is systematic. The President supported his assertion by arguing that Namibian corruption is systematic because ‘you do not need to pay for the system to move’ (indirectly quoted).
Although the President’s argument in regards to the delineation of systemic and systematic may be correct in their simplest connotation, it nonetheless needs to be interrogated further to determine whether corruption in Namibia is systemic or systematic – and to what extent. To achieve a clear distinction between the two concepts of systemic and systematic corruption, an exposition of the two terms is called for.
Systemic corruption refers to where corruption is deeply entrenched in society. In other words, it is an inherent and essential aspect of the social, economic and political system. It is a condition where corruption has become routine in transactions with government or businesses.
In his book, titled ‘Disrupting Incidental and Systematic Corruption’, the late Pakistani economist and governance expert Omar Azfar posit that actors within a systemically corrupt system do not act autonomously, but that they rather act ‘in concert’ with a number of players within this systemically corrupt system.
This system becomes so inherently corrupt that the typical customary institutions that are supposed to enforce accountability, such as the courts, anti-corruption commission and auditor general, do not perform their intended functions, as they too are captured within this systemically corrupt web.
In contrast, systematic corruption is used to mean when non-corrupt behaviour is the norm. A few individuals commit the act and it is easier to detect within the system. Corruption, in whichever form it manifests itself, is rooted in a country’s policies, bureaucratic traditions and political development and tends to thrive in the event that one or all three of these are weak.
When analysing corruption within the Namibian context, we will contend that Namibia is not holistically systemically corrupt, but rather that systemic corruption only persists in certain strata of Namibian society, with the inclusion of certain parts of the private sector. There are indeed segments within government and the private sector that can be deduced to be systemically corrupt.
For example, the coercive apparatus, in particular the Ministry of Defence and its subsidiary company August 26, is one such entity within government that is undeniably systemically corrupt. Just recently, the former Minister of Defence, Rear Admiral Peter Vilho, now infamously referred to as Abacha in reference to the late notorious Nigerian Army General Sanni Abacha, was forced to resign after a number of corruption allegations were levelled against him by Windhoek mayor Job Amupanda.
Peter Vilho is not the first official within the Ministry of Defence to have been implicated in corruption. The former Finance Manager at August 26, Paulus Moshana, together with his wife Ester Shimwandi, are accused of looting close to N$14 million from the company and splashing the money on vehicles and houses. Apart from these incidences, the entire coercive apparatus that falls under the Ministry of Defence in Namibia are systemically corrupt. There is no accountability over how public funds are spent inside this ministry, and it operates under a strict guise of secrecy.
Secondly, we contend that the fishing sector in Namibia is also systemically corrupt, for a number of reasons. One of the reasons why the Namibian fishing sector has become systemically corrupt is because the fishing sector was unfortunately strategically identified by politicians and BEE entrepreneurs post-independence as an industry that could generate quick wealth.
This wealth rush in the fishing sector inevitably led to one of the worst corruption scandals in Namibian history, whereby ministers and their businesses allies facilitated the looting of billions of Namibian dollars through our fishing sector.
This scandal that became known as Fishrot was made easier by the fact that our fishing industry is systemically corrupt, and that there is a wide network of corrupt people acting with a common purpose within the fishing sector.
Another sector that is prone to systematic corruption in the procurement sector. The Namibian Procurement sector is especially prone to corruption due to the monopoly of SOEs. By the same token, certain segments within the police, public services, land administration, customs administration and natural resources have all been compromised by corruption. The maxim goes: “It’s not what you know, but who you know,” proves that in Namibia, corruption is the oil that makes the wheel turn.
Of course, systemic corruption in Namibia is not only in the public sector. Pockets of the private sector are also systemically corrupt. However, private sector corruption is much more nuanced in Namibia and thus can slide through the guise of public criticism.
The private sector, in fact, plays a huge role in instigating corruption within the public sector, with the tendering system being the perfect example of this.
In conclusion, while we have established that systemic corruption is only prevalent within some segments of Namibian society, it can easily get out of hand and become the norm across the entire society. Hence, it is imperative that we develop stricter mechanisms and laws that stifle corruption in its infancy, and not let it grow.
* Maximalliant T. Katjimune and Roberto Dirkse are researchers and speechwriters for the PDM at the National Assembly of the Republic of Namibia.