How to Improve Kenyan Corruption: A Swiss Manual

FIFA, the international federation that runs the affairs of football globally, is reputedly one of the most corrupt institutions in existence. It is not just a matter of deciding who the next President will be, or of allocating World Cups – the entire makeup of the institution is so opaque and unaccountable that it is almost impossible for it to not be shady.

The latest scandal surrounding FIFA is to do with the decision to allocate the 2018 and 2022 World Cup tournaments, to Russia and Qatar, respectively. The two countries were announced as World Cup hosts after the 2010 tournament in South Africa, and the manner in which the decision was arrived at has caused one of the most serious crises FIFA has ever faced in its history. Stories of underhand payments by representatives of some of the bidders; corrupt allocation of FIFA development funds on the basis of how countries voted; illegal swapping of votes between the 2018 and 2022 ballots – none of it would be out of place in Mobutu’s Zaïre, let alone the supposedly more hygienic surroundings of Zürich.

FIFA itself commissioned an investigation into the bidding process, but decided to dilute and redact its own report, which has led to allegations of a cover-up, and to even louder calls for reform of FIFA and the manner in which it is managed.

A quick aside, by the way: regardless of what you think of the bidding process and its probity, I think a rule should be passed about the suitability of World Cup hosts. A country without a football culture; and whose climate needs to be expensively and artificially controlled to ensure that fans and players do not expire during matches, should be disqualified. But that’s just me.

FIFA is not the only institution that has a high public sports profile and a dodgy record of rectitude – the International Olympic Committee, which is also coincidentally (or not) headquartered in Switzerland, also struggles to pass the morality and corruption test. The biggest scandal there was to do with the awarding of the 2002 Winter Olympics (which eventually went to Salt Lake City in the United States). Allegations were similar – expensive bribes paid, a total lack of transparency in how the bidding process was conducted, and officials of the body caught up in corruption charges. That one, incidentally, happened to ensnare the Kenyan representative at the IOC, Charles Mukora, who was forced to resign (and whose famous retort was to the effect that all publicity is good publicity, as long as they spell your name correctly).

But this column is not about corruption in sports, as juicy a subject as that may be. The real subject is how the IOC and FIFA can continue being so opaque, yet retain the ability to ensure that their core product is so beloved. No one has any doubt that Germany are world champions in football. No one begrudges Usain Bolt’s status as the world’s fastest human, a status that was confirmed in both Beijing in 2008 and London in 2012. How, if we were to use NGO-speak, have the two institutions been able to ring-fence their corruption?

The answer lies, partly, in what corruption they allow, and where they draw the line. And therein lies, perhaps, the answer to the Kenyan corruption question. If we were to be fatalistic in our anti-corruption fight, and acknowledge that we will never eliminate it entirely, what can we do to ‘improve’ our graft?

The answer lies back in the two institutions. The key products of FIFA and the IOC respectively is not host cities, or the identity of the presidents. It is in the sporting events themselves. Thus graft in football matches, or drug use among athletes, is cracked down upon severely. The bodies do not allow their products to be endangered by the graft, and thus we will continue to flock around television screens to watch the World Cup, or Kenyans beating the world at the steeplechase, safe in the knowledge that what we’re witnessing is a true reflection of sporting ability and competition.

The same logic is behind Asian corruption. Often, we’re told not to worry about corruption here, because countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia were fabulously corrupt in their growth phase. But they learnt to ring-fence (there’s that term again) their graft. It was allowed as long as the outcome meant competitive companies, and rapid economic growth. Where we have gone wrong is to have corruption that retards the economy. Corruption where the result of hard work and entrepreneurship is a rapacious public official who doesn’t care whether the business fails.

A friend of mine gave me an anecdote of a government contract he was trying to win.  The contract was worth a hundred million shillings, and his margin was 30% (meaning he was going to make thirty million shillings in gross profit). His government interlocutor was demanding a ‘cut’ of forty million shillings, and would hear nothing of my friend’s protestations that that would actually destroy the business, and would make the contract not worth applying for in the first place. Such is the nature of our graft – policemen who overlook near-certain death-traps or dead-drunk drivers in the quest for another fifty-bob note.

Maybe we need to re-think our approach to Kenyan corruption. And Zürich would not be a bad place to start.

Also published in the Business Daily on November 18 2014, at http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/Opinion-and-Analysis/We-need-to-re-think-Kenyan-approach-to-graft/-/539548/2525490/-/tt96hoz/-/index.html