East African
Tanzania
28 September, 1998

Is Tanzania Really So Corrupt?
from
our special correspondent in Dar es Salaam

TANZANIA'S disastrous showing on Transparency International's 1998 corruption perceptions index (CPI) - ranking 81st out of 85 countries polled - prompts a number of questions. Is Tanzania really on a par with Nigeria, for many years considered (along with the former Zaire) as one of the two most corrupt countries in Africa? Is Tanzania really more corrupt than Kenya - the pace-setter in grand corruption in East Africa - or Uganda for that matter? Is Tanzania really one of the five most corrupt countries in the world, or at least in TI's sample of countries?

Those who would answer "no" to these questions point to the high profile that President Mkapa has given to the corruption issue since coming to power three years ago. The report of the Presidential Commission against Corruption was published as soon as it was completed - an unprecedented move by any standards. The report pulled no punches, documenting the extent of both grand and petty corruption throughout the state machinery, among politicians, police, government officials at all levels, and the law courts. Washing its dirty linen in public - so the argument goes - may have affected public perceptions, making corruption appear to be worse in Tanzania than in countries less prepared to be open about the issue. Tanzania may be being punished unfairly for having the courage to raise the corruption issue in the first place. Those who would answer "yes" to the above questions argue that, although President Mkapa has taken a principled stand on the corruption issue, there is a widespread feeling that he is unwilling to confront the issue head-on since very few of those in high office are clean, and even those in the system who are relatively clean are reluctant to distance themselves from the relatively (or absolutely) dirty. An opinion poll of 500 Dar es Salaam citizens undertaken by TADREG last December showed that around two out of three of those interviewed thought that the police, the ruling CCM party, ministers, and top government officials were not doing enough to fight corruption. The poll painted a picture of a President more or less totally isolated from his fellow party and government leaders in his anti-corruption efforts. Both Kenya and (particularly) Uganda have taken anti-corruption initiatives, and it is not at all self-evident that these have been less successful than those in Tanzania. It was the Auditor General who first revealed the Goldenburg scandal in Kenya. In Uganda the Minister of Education was recently censured for corruption by Parliament, an event virtually inconceivable in Tanzania, where the National Assembly is still widely seen as a rubber-stamp institution for the government of the day.

But the above argument still does not address the question of whether Tanzania deserves to be so far down the list of corrupt countries, and significantly below neighbouring Kenya and Uganda. The CPI measures perceptions, not actual levels, of corruption. These are both local perceptions, including those of local businessmen, and those of foreign investors and risk analysts who advise on investment opportunities and risks. There is a relatively high degree of agreement between both locals and outsiders on the degree of corruption in Tanzania. Part of the problem with comparing levels of corruption is that the type of corruption which dominates or has the greatest visibility in country A may be different in country B. Grand corruption and looting, for example, have long been associated with the higher echelons of the Kenyan state, whereas Tanzania has a President still widely considered to be "Mr Clean". This does not mean that looting is not practiced in Tanzania, of course. It may simply be that the looters are more dispersed and have a lower profile in Tanzania than elsewhere. Added together, however, the total amount of looting of tax revenues and aid receipts may not be significantly lower in Tanzania than in other hugely corrupt countries, including Kenya. Also, and perhaps related to the above, many perceive petty corruption among government officials in Tanzania as being more widespread than in the other East African countries. A third factor may be the predictability of officials delivering on bribes which they receive. There's a joke to the effect that you pay bribes in Tanzania at your own risk, since the system is so complex that nobody can guarantee that a bribe, even a big one, will be effective. In this respect, there is no reason why Tanzania should not be a greater risk from the point of view of investors than, say, Nigeria or Kenya. Lastly, foreign investors are clearly concerned with the bureaucratic obstacles encountered and legal protection which they enjoy for their investments, and compare countries on these criteria. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Tanzania loses serious investors in key sectors on these two scores, as well as on the amount of kickbacks expected by senior officials.

While the controversy surrounding the CPI's verdict on Tanzania will no doubt continue, at least one thing is clear. The perception that Tanzania is riddled with high levels of corruption of all kinds, which gravely undermine the country's development potential, threaten human rights, and deepening poverty, is essentially correct. This perception is unlikely to change until the Tanzanian government, with support from the general public, the business community and aid agencies, wake up to the fact and try to do something about it.