'What works and why in community-based anti-corruption programs'

More documents

Recommendations

Info

What works and why in community-based anti-corruption programs4.3 External factorsExternal factors are the wider social, political, cultural 7 dynamics of the society and state.Organisations have limited to no control or influence over these factors. Yet these can be the factorsthat create an enabling environment for a community anti-corruption program. Recognising andunderstanding the local external environment is essential.• Trusted by the communityThis was a universal factor for the 15 case studies. Every implementing organisation or group neededto have the trust and support of the community before considering their actual anti-corruption program.This is a special factor, as it is perhaps both an internal and an external factor, and so is representedin Table One and Table Two as both an internal and an external factor. Gaining the trust ofcommunities is partly under the control and influence of the organisation. Organisations and groupscan do much to build trust, partnership and alliances with communities. Without that investment oftime to build community trust and then support, anti-corruption programs will be viewed as outsideimpositions and even resented by communities.However trust and support must come from the community; it cannot be inserted by an organisation orgroup. It is also easy to be misled into believing a community has offered their support, for example inattending trainings or workshops, when on closer inspection citizens have not seen the program as awelcome initiative that they wholeheartedly own or even support.• Public endorsement by an external supporterSome programs benefited from the public backing of an external supporter that championed theirprogram’s cause or publicly endorsed the implementing organisation. Textbook Count for instancewas greatly aided by the support of a senior authority in the Department of Education. TransparencyInternational Italia’s Ethics and Sport involved prominent sport stars whose profiles advanced theprogram. External supporters could be less high profile but still influential people in their owncommunity, for instance religious leaders or principles of schools who in their sphere of influencepromoted particular programs (Pesantren Anti-corruption Movement, Interfaith Coalition, Children’sMovement for Civic Awareness). Groups wanting to build coalitions and alliances across differentsectors of society are especially dependent on external supporters.• Different stakeholders recognise corruption as a problemParticularly for coalitions, the emergence of a corruption problem or situation that impacted ondifferent sectors of society was a factor for bringing groups and organisations together. The proposalof draft legislation mobilised support around the anti-corruption campaign of the Community CoalitionAgainst Corruption in PNG. Public corruption scandals and widespread community discord withgovernment response to corruption provided an opportunity for a national coalition such as K-PACT togain traction with government, business and the community. When establishing local anti-corruptiongroups (Committees of Concerned Citizens or the Loak Morchas established in anti-corruptionprograms of the Governance Coalition), recognition amongst different community members thatcorruption had a negative impact for the whole community was a driver in motivating people to join thegroup.7 There is evidence that economic factors also influence community-based programs, however there was nocapacity for this research to analyse economic factors.- 38 -
What works and why in community-based anti-corruption programs• Political will for reformPolitical will for reform is essential for sustained impact against corruption. But is it a necessary factorfor the success of community-based anti-corruption programs? In the long-term, the answer is yes.Communities (or the private sector) cannot make an enduring improvement against corruption withoutcommitment and genuine efforts by all levels of government to also address and solve corruptionproblems.Certain programs directly depended on government’s willingness to instigate reform, for exampleTextbook Count depended on a pro-reform climate. Other programs benefited from local government’swillingness to introduce or uphold anti-corruption laws, for example the Lamon Bay program.In the short-term, some community programs can navigate around a lack of political will. For programsempowering communities to fight corruption, a lack of political will can be a mobilising factor forcommunities to find their own methods of addressing corruption. Community programs can alsocompel government, especially local government, to introduce anti-corruption measures.• Communities are talking about corruptionIn many cases, communities needed to be at a stage where discussion was open about the problemsof corruption for anti-corruption activities to succeed.For instance the Interfaith Coalition and Pesantren Anti-corruption Movement identified thatcommunity tolerance to corruption would be significant challenges to any anti-corruption campaigns.But above the community tolerance was a growing level of ‘noise’ in the public domain aboutcorruption as an increasing problem. Communities were not at a place to mobilise in public collectiveaction or as social change activists, but neither were they intimidated about a discussion oncorruption. In these circumstances, methods such as education programs, creating a dialogue onethics and anti-corruption through faith-based communities, and working in schools or with childrenwere successful.• Communities are ready to take actionIn other situations communities faced a different obstacle to fighting corruption. People were angryabout corruption, ready and wanting to take a stand, yet were unable to, not knowing what to do orwho could help them. There was enough public discussion condemnation of corruption, and citizenswere arriving at the next stage of wanting practical assistance to become anti-corruption activists andagents of change. They were willing, eager, prepared to be involved and eventually take the lead inanti-corruption programs. Programs that offered campaign tools and assistance with collective actions,such as local volunteer anti-corruption groups and networks, volunteer coastal patrols, public meetingswith access to authorities and monitoring and watchdog activities all thrived in these conditions.• Vocal media against corruptionLocal media willing to report incidents of corruption was an enabling factor for a number of programs.Independent media’s interest in corruption enhanced other conditions, such as communities talkingabout corruption, which in turn fostered support for community anti-corruption activities. For example,the reporting of corruption incidents in Bangladeshi press has been used by TransparencyInternational Bangladesh to build a ‘Corruption database’. This has fostered community debate,raising the level of noise about corruption. Monitoring programs benefit from media reports on theircorruption surveys. Advice centres that produced reports on the trends and patterns of corruption alsodepend on a media willing and able to cover corruption stories.Building relationships and credibility with media could also be considered an internal factor, and manyorganisations did work to build good relationships with journalists or secure access to media outlets- 39 -
Page 1 and 2: TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALI
Page 4 and 5: What works and why in community-bas
Page 37: What works and why in community-bas

'What works and why in community-based anti-corruption programs'

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?