The phenomenon of corruption is now literally an integral component of our lives in this country. It must be acknowledged that it obtains in all parts of the modern world. So there are bad people, as it were, everywhere just as good people are distributed indiscriminately over the earth’s surface. There is the temptation to interpret this casual opening reference to imply our suggesting that because corruption is heavily pervasive at the top echelons of the Nigerian economy and polity, the individuals at the helm of affairs must be bad people. That scenario is not our immediate concern for now, correct as such an extrapolation may be. Here, we restrict our consideration to the more general level of exploring the differences and connections between greed and corruption.
Operationalizing the concept of corruption hardly calls for much academic effort in the Nigerian milieu where egunje is already available, as an all-purpose robustly functional code. So we may as well just go ahead and explore greed, even in realization of a logical need to have to return, no matter how briefly to the subject of corruption. One dictionary opens its definitional line on greed with the note that it is usually applied derogatively; it is a strong desire to obtain a lot or more than what is fair, especially of food, money or power. Another small dictionary employed almost the exact words, defining greed as strong desire for more food, wealth etc, especially more than is right or reasonable.
Taking these similar definitions together, we confront the thick walls of value judgement. For how easily can we secure consensus on what is fair or right! But, thick as the walls may appear, they must be broken down, for the sake of peaceful co-existence. This is because, if what is fair or right is left to whimsical interpretation, conflict is likely to be the outcome. Thus, what appears to be so deeply subjective and value-laden must be given some objective codification in practice, so as to minimize arbitrariness in behaviour. After all, the purpose of having laws, rules and regulations in any society, from the country’s constitution, down to bye-laws of social clubs, is to ensure conformity with minimum standard.
Two events forced the issue of greed on to the consciousness of yours sincerely. One is the standard refrain from a colleague, in whose character it is to remind us, as occasion demands, namely that greed has no limit. The second factor again involves the same friend, for it happened that after the TV series The Rich Also Cry, we both agreed to do a jointly authored slim philosophical text, to bear the title The Rich Also Die. Unfortunately, this conceived book-project did not, and may never, come to fruition. I recall that yours sincerely was to have done a chapter on Greed. The relevant point in this: now that we were instigated to put our pens to paper on the mutual recognition of the coincidence of thoughts, broadly, on the futility of seeking to conquer the whole world through the acquisition of wealth- Greed has no limit! Which is saying that, the greedy seeks to acquire a lot, not out of need, but out of a negative instinct of intense, perhaps uncontrollable, desire to have more! Now my mind wanders to kleptomania, a disease of the mind causing an uncontrollable desire to steal. To be greedy is evidently suggestive of abnormality. After all, recall that the second dictionary also identifies greed as being what is beyond the boundary of reasonableness.
Now, let us return very briefly, as earlier promised, to the familiar case of corruption. The early studies on corruption, especially as they concern Africa, tended to limit the application of the concept to the public sector; this was premised on the misconception of inducements being of exclusive relevance to public officials, necessary to secure accelerated action on contracts, usually bloated to mutual advantage. We now know that the public sector has been under the searchlight precisely because of the need and demand for transparency in governance, as opposed to the recognized but rarely mentioned practice of such extreme practices, as business espionage in the private sector. The fact is that, historically, corruption has been part and parcel of the operational logic of the private sector. Indeed, the argument can be made that it is the private sector which infested the public sector with the bite of the corruption bug. Of course, it has since become a symbiotic relationship of uncertain genesis, in specific instances, when we cannot authoritatively pronounce on which party was the initiator: the business mercenary in search of easy but fat profit or the civil service bureaucrat targeting a post-retirement life of comfort and security. It used to be the case that corrupt behaviour was condemned and censored but its pejorative garb has been radically moderated over time, for good or evil. And so, today, our youths proclaim, boldly, before our very eyes as inscriptions on their vests: Egunje Spoils Nothing.
Now, we can attempt to establish the differences and connections between our specific categories. From what we have explored so far, a few definitive statements can be made about demonstrative differences between greed and corruption. But first, we recall the difference, however thin, between kleptomania and greed. The former is a clearly established pathological case, characterized by a compulsive instigation to violate the sanctity of property, public or private. Acquisition is the profit but actualized through the illegality of stealing. It is clear from what we have here that, greed is not as extreme as kleptomania, legally and medically speaking. As to greed and corruption, the differences between them would appear to manifest at two levels, namely: personality and social history. For sure, greed is a veritable basis for illegitimate, unreasonable desire to usurp the right of others, even if not with blatant illegality. It is essentially a complex, manifestation of a dysfunctional personality; hence it is ultimately a socio-psychological problem. Corruption, from our experience, is not restricted to or essentially determined by personality; rather it proves to be a socio-historical behaviour. This can be seen in the changing status which it has assumed over time, from public condemnation and disapproval to popular indifference bordering on tacit approval. It carries minimal stigma, as it is increasingly being taken for granted as the norm, and it is a question of whose turn, that is, whose opportunity it is at a given point in time. In fact, those who have missed their opportunity now live to regret it.
In spite of those critical differences between greed and corruption, a connection tends to assert itself. If one is basically greedy, he will be recklessly corrupt, in particular, as a top, middle or low but opportune official, be it in the public or private sector. On the other hand, a bureaucrat who was not naturally greedy but now has access to facilities for self-enrichment will be modestly corrupt. This translates to being reasonably or carefully so, remembering that there may be a day of reckoning in the court of the people. Those functionaries who are recklessly corrupt are typified by top officials who divert funds or materials earmarked for public projects almost totally to their private pockets without beating an eye-lid. Through their actions the sufferings of the people, who number in millions and whom these greedy officials were called to serve in the first instance, get compounded. It is this category of leaders whose greed evidently knows no bounds and whose activities share close affinity with those of armed robbers that remind us of the need to insist on an active code of conduct which accords some recognition to moral decency. We can moderate corruption by imposing some boundary on greed, or is it the other way round?
Comments powered by CComment