This article from International Peacekeeping suggests an understanding of corruption that combines ‘core’ universal features (actions, decisions and processes that subvert or distort the nature of public office and the political process) with acknowledgement of the importance of local norms. A primary task of peacebuilding is to create a shared set of rules and norms that will govern the exercise of public office in a context where multiple sets of rules compete. In post-conflict situations, corruption cannot always be either avoided or prioritised. While it should not be tolerated, strategic focus is required, and interventions must be realistic about what is achievable.
Current definitions of corruption focus on abuse of office – but what counts as ‘abuse’ is often left open. It is implausible to treat standards of public office as clear and universal, but it is also unhelpful to treat them as entirely relative and locally-determined; universal and local elements should be combined. An ‘objective core’ to corruption can be identified, centred on the subversion of the standards of the political process. There are always norms, rules and expectations associated with public office for the public interest; corruption involves the distortion of these in pursuit of private gain.
Peacebuilding contexts are particularly prone to corruption because of the existence of multiple competing sets of rules, norms and expectations of public office. In attempting to establish order, peacebuilders are essentially trying to enforce one set of rules. The challenge for peacebuilders is to develop and enforce standards for public office that have sufficient connection with local norms and expectations to command support, and that command legitimacy across group boundaries.
Corruption will frequently be a rational strategy for many in post-conflict , creating a vicious cycle that is hard to break. Peacebuilding may inevitably generate corrupt activity by setting standards of conduct that have few adherents in the community and lack adequate enforcement so that most people respond to those standards entirely opportunistically.
- Corruption is always bad in some ways, but it is not always the worst that can happen. It is sometimes the price that has to be paid (at least in the short term) for peace or other public goods, such as delivery of humanitarian aid.
- Not all corruption is equally bad. It is necessary to distinguish between different types on the basis of their reach, depth and entrenchment.
- It is also necessary to distinguish between corruption’s intrinsic costs and its knock-on impacts on other processes such as peacebuilding and reconstruction. Who gains from corruption and in what ways? Is the expropriated wealth salted away in foreign bank accounts, or does it remain in circulation in the country’s economy?
