This is paper attempts to discuss the impact of corruption on democratic governance. However,
the paper will briefly define key terms such as corruption and democratic governance and
thereafter discuss the main content of the paper.
It must be noted that corruption is an old phenomena. For centuries in Africa, individuals have
looked for and found ways to unduly make profit of their power or to commit public resources to
personal uses. That is, the fundamental attitude known as corruption in the society. However,
Deryke, (2001: 79) said that corruption is in two main folds; first, it is an abuse of an influential
position for private gain, secondly; it is an exploitation of a system for securing unmerited
advantage.
Furthermore, Robert Klitgard et al (2002: 2), defines corruption as the misuse of office for
private gain. The office is position of trust, where one receives authority in order to act on behalf
of an institution, be it private, public, or nonprofit. Corruption means charging an illicit price for
a service or using the power of the office to further illicit aims.
On the other hand, democracy is the rule of the people by the people and for the people.
Therefore, democratic administration (Governance) is one in which the people, all the people, are
enabled to express a free choice on all matters affecting them. A simplification of the democratic
governance is that it allows the unrestricted exercise of the freewill of the people determining the
cause of their affairs by references to the will of the majority thereof demonstrably expressed. In
political terms it implies the right of the people to freely choose their representative, it being
recognized that there is no scope, except in the tiniest of the mini-states, for direct expression of
the will (Santosh, 2011).
According to Kututwa (2005: 9), democratic governance entails accountability, transparency,
enhanced public participation in decision making, strengthened public sector and civil society
institutions and greater adherence to the rule of law. In other words, democratic governance is a
fundamental right in a democracy and it implies transparency and accountability. Therefore,
Good governance entails “an administration that is sensitive and responsive to the needs of the
people and is effective in coping with emerging challenges in society by framing and
implementing appropriate laws and measures. It includes strict rules of accountability.
1|Page
Corruption exists in both democratic and non-democratic states, but it develops “into an
automatic by-product of the latter system and the chances for corrupt practices to be exposed,
protested against and punished become much diminished under it”. Therefore democratic
governance is a necessary requirement to fight corruption.
However, there are a number of impacts of corruption on democratic governance. Some of these
are discussed below:
One of the impacts of corruption is that corruption undermines the rule of law, democratic
governance, accountability and sustainable development. It breaches the contract between
citizens and public officials, and this has grave consequences for successful government.
Moreover, it is a consequence of a collapse of governance and is a cause of its continued failure.
Casac (2011) points out that “corruption is therefore an antithesis to democracy and the rule of
law. Corruption diverts resources that are needed to improve the lives of citizens to enrich a few,
at great cost to many.
Corruption prevents the state from fulfilling its constitutional obligations, erodes the legitimacy
of our democratic government and subverts the rule of law. It gnaws away at the ethical fabric of
our society, and stifles economic growth. It has a powerful negative effect on foreign investment
by destroying investor confidence”. In simple terms, national resources are diverted into the
pockets of public officials, and because development aid is mismanaged, misused or
misappropriated corruption distorts the government’s role in resource allocation. It affects not
only broad macroeconomic variables, such as investment and growth, but also income
distribution (Gupta, et al., 2002: 23).
Moreover, it presents a threat to democratic gains, impinges on development and worsens the
gap between rich and poor by reducing the level of social services for the poor. It also creates
incentives for higher investment in capital-intensive projects and lower investment in laborintensive projects. This in itself leads to a loss of confidence in public institutions which can
undermine the rule of law, security of property, respect for contracts, civil order and safety and
ultimately, even the legitimacy of the state itself. Therefore, legitimate state activities may be
undermined by this lack of public confidence.
2|Page
Lala Camerer (1997) posited that democratic governance largely depends “on the extent to which
the general citizenry perceives a government to be legitimate, i.e. committed to improving the
general public welfare ... deliver public services ... and equitable in its conduct, favouring no
special interests or groups.” Therefore corruption is “the antithesis of good governance.” Unjust
access to limited social and political goods caused by corruption may cause social and political
unrest, and corruption, at least in the public sector, is inherently undemocratic, since it involves
the exercise of a public duty contrary to the wishes of the electorate which has determined that
duty, and employs the relevant official to perform it properly.
Corruption also impacts on investment and growth, especially in countries in need of foreign
productive capital. Foreign investors, especially those likely to make long-term contributions to
development, are discouraged, although some investors looking to make fast profits through
questionable schemes may try their luck. Furthermore, corruption in aid programmes means less
for those most in need and may compromise future funding.
However, corruption is costly, not only for the general public but mainly for the poor as
resources are diverted away from them. Service delivery and related policy is distorted if
allocation and prioritization are determined by bribes. It means a few benefits at the expense of
many which reinforces existing socioeconomic inequality and makes the poor even more
vulnerable. Structural inequality leads to many being denied access to education, to information,
and therefore to knowledge about their rights that could enable them to challenge abuse of
power. Thus, Uslaner (2007) argued that “the roots of corruption lie in the unequal distribution
of resources in a society. Corruption thrives on economic inequality. Economic inequality
provides a fertile breeding ground for corruption and, in turn, it leads to further inequalities”.
Furthermore, corruption “denies development and quality of life to the most vulnerable members
of society.” It is especially harmful in developing countries, which have fewer resources and thus
are more vulnerable if those resources are wasted or not used effectively and equitably. Soaring
levels of corruption have the potential to lead to high poverty for two reasons. “First, evidence
suggests that a higher growth rate is associated with a higher rate of poverty reduction and that
corruption slows the rate of poverty reduction by reducing growth. Second, income inequality
3|Page
has been shown to be harmful to growth and if corruption increases income inequality, it will
also reduce growth and thereby limit poverty reduction (Gupta, 2002: 25).
Beside this, evidence suggests that corruption has a disproportionate impact on women,
especially when it comes to public service delivery. When corruption result in decreased
spending on basic services such as education, health care, family benefits and other social
services, women, children and the poor, who are most dependent on those resources, suffer most.
Marie (2008) contends that women, as primary users of public services, lose out particularly on
health and educational opportunities. Furthermore, women frequently face obstacles in accessing
institutions, and this can be compounded by corruption. Resources earmarked for poor women
are seen as especially vulnerable to being diverted as poor women are often seen as less aware of
their rights to public resources and less likely to challenge corrupt officials.
Corruption dominates political contest through the use of money and favours in politics which
undermines democratic processes and the rule of law. Political corruption cause public
disillusionment with democracy and its capacity to limit corruption. Corruption undermines the
rule of law when it is interwoven in the political development. Its effects are reflected in the
political instability of the government as its legitimacy is challenged hence compromising the
process of national development. It follows therefore that in such a scenario there can be no
effective long-term planning and hence the construction of democracy is threatened.
Corruption also impacts on the right to social security of the truly needy. Corrupt officials can
extend benefits to relatively wealthy population groups or drain off funds from povertyalleviation programmes and weaken their impact. According to Gupta (2002), this is significant
as social security programmes, regarded by many as the state’s main attempt to alleviate poverty,
often enable households to care for their vulnerable members and contribute significantly to the
household income of many of country’s poor.
From the foregoing discussion it can be deduced that corruption is an abuse of an influential
position for private gain. Consequently, it impacts the democratic governance negatively.
Corruption undermines the legitimacy of government, democratic values, human rights and
respect for the rule of law. The impacts of corruption on development have left many African
states grappling with what is today regarded as an international problem. Indeed, corruption is
viewed as an impediment on democratic governance and the rule of law in the country or nation.
4|Page
REFERENCES
Deryke, B. (2001). Corruption and Development in Africa. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Gupta, S., Hammid, D., and Rosa A. T. (2002). Does Corruption Affect Income Inequality and
Poverty? United Kingdom, UK: Econ. Gov.
Klitgaar, R. and Hope, S. R. (2002). Corruption and Development in Africa. New York: St
Martin’s Press.
Lala C. (1997). Poverty and Corruption: The Case of Social Security. Paris: UNESCO Press.
Kututwa, N (2005). African Anti-Corruption Commitments: A Review of Eight NEPAD
Countries Africa Human Security Initiative. Pretoria: UNISA Press.
Marie, C. (2008). Gender, Corruption and Education. Kenya: World Bank.
Santosh, H. (2011). Effect of Corruption on Good Governance. London: Macmillan.
Uslaner, E. (2007). Corruption and the Inequality Trap in Africa. New York: Afro Barometer
Working paper.
5|Page