The Sunday Mail
Wendy Nyakurerwa-Matinde
Assistant Editor
In his inaugural speech in November 2017, President Emmerson Mnangagwa pledged to cure the nation’s cancer of corruption. That was our first step towards a corruption-free Zimbabwe.
He went on to establish institutions tasked with dealing with the scourge and to give oomph to the waning ones. That was our second step.
However, despite the President’s exploits, Zimbabwe is miles away from kissing the insidious creature goodbye. Here is why.
Corruption is a deep-rooted culture and the President is not under the illusion that it can be wished away overnight. In addition, the public sector in Zimbabwe is characterised by many ethical violations, lack of accountability, abuses of public office, and incompetence in completing the most basic jobs.
However, despite the malfeasance that has seen most State-owned enterprises and parastatals going down on their knees, the number of officials that have resigned from their posts for any of the aforementioned reasons can be counted on one hand.
In essence, the implicated individuals have no remorse over the alleged crimes. If given another chance, they will do it over and over again.
Therefore, this instalment seeks to question what pushes an individual to maintain a public office against multiple failures and scandals as well as the dishonour that accompanies their work.
Well, both career and appointed officials in Zimbabwe are yet to embrace resigning as a moral act. Accepting responsibility after erring and owning up to it is the crucial missing link in resuscitating the ailing SOEs and parastatals.
When an official is embroiled in abuse of office or corruption scandals for instance, or they are incompetent and dismally fails to achieve the company’s objectives, they need to step aside with grace. That move, which is a basic moral decision for individuals of integrity, can be considered as a remorseful apology.
Zimbabwe has lost huge resources through various public sector scandals. Recent cases include the Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority, Hwange Colliery Company, Zimbabwe National Road Administration and Cottco scandals, among others.
Yet in all these cases, the officials stayed put, continuing to drag the organisations down with them.
Following damning allegations of corruption and criminal abuse of office, all the hullabaloo was not sufficient reason for the former Zesa chief executive officer, Engineer Joshua Chifamba, to offer his resignation. He had to wait for the board to push him out.
The former First Lady’s doctorate raised a lot of dust, with abuse of office allegations levelled against the University of Zimbabwe Vice-Chancellor Professor Levi Nyagura. Again, the good Professor had to wait for a suspension first before offering his resignation.
In a democratic system of government, accountability is multi-dimensional and a public office is limited by laws and ethical codes.
But while scandals have been awash in the public sector, the private sector has not been any different. There is actually a great possibility that private sector officials are equally, if not more corrupt, than their public sector counterparts considering that they are not obliged to make their financial statements available to the public, except for listed firms.
In the NGO sector, a recent audit unearthed serious mismanagement and fraud involving millions of United States dollars at Amnesty International Zimbabwe, leading to its suspension from its mother body.
Implicated in the forensic report were country director Mr Cousin Zilala and chairperson Mr Takesure Musiyiwa. Mr Zilala did the noble thing and resigned while Mr Musiyiwa held on and waited to be suspended.
Therefore, the carefree attitude has been the same in both the public and private sector.
Public officials implicated in scandals have clung on to their offices, with President Mnangagwa’s administration having to dismiss those who unwittingly fail to resign before getting fired.
Officials should have the capacity to take a reflective stance towards their roles and actions, and make sense of how they cohere. Their moral status of holding those offices is their promise to live up to the obligations of office. The moral relationship between a person and an office is the obligation to live up to the office’s responsibilities.
Once these integrity-related capacities erode and the corrupt executives have violated their integrity and the norms of office as well as their effectiveness in carrying out the obligations of their offices, it is time to resign. At least this will buttress their moral responsibility.
Contrary to many beliefs, resigning is not an act of weakness. Rather, it is an ethical action in response to inglorious events that happen while governing.
In Britain, for example, Prime Minister Mrs Theresa May had to resign last month over her failure to deliver the Brexit deal and losing the support of her own MPs. Mrs May wanted her legacy to be that of taking Britain out of the European Union, but her plan was defeated three times in the House of Commons as she tried to push through the Withdrawal Agreement Bill.
And prior to her departure, Mrs May faced a number of front bench resignations over the Brexit discord. Perhaps the opposition MPs who are so opposed to every policy being implemented by government should take a leaf out of the British treatise.
Sadly, most of the local chiefs are so rooted in their offices. They will not resign under any circumstances.
Even the embarrassment that comes with media coverage does not move them. Yet personal disgrace or dishonour undercuts the credibility of the persons to uphold the legitimacy dimensions of an office.
Disgrace is good grounds for resigning, even when the dishonour is not related to the office itself. In 1967, American finance official Mr John Fedders had to resign and leave a successful career in finance behind after the media had revealed that he had physically abused his wife.
However, on our shores, dishonour does not seem to count. Many continue to hold office although they have been implicated in a myriad of scandals and accused of abuse of office.
In our House of Assembly, there are plenty of Members of Parliament who have been embroiled in corruption scandals. They continue to walk with their heads high in our Parliament, without a grain of remorse. Given the chance, they will do it over and over again.
Most think of living out their term in office and will wait for the sack when things get really tough.
Yet these are not their only choices. Incompetent and corrupt officials can choose to resign to salvage whatever is left of their integrity. Perhaps financial security is one of the main reasons pushing public servants to fight with all means to maintain their posts.
Today, more than ever, we need public servants with character.
The door is wide open for all the dishonourable ones.
