Discretion: An Invitation To Corruption

One of the main causes of corruption is the excessive degree of discretion afforded to government officials, coupled with a nearly non-existent level of true accountability. In simple terms, "discretion" means having the authority to decide how money is spent. Some countries limit discretion by implementing very detailed budgets, and extremely clear regulations on how funds may be used. The more regulatory control a government exercises over its funds, the less corruption it experiences. "Accountability" is synonymous with "responsibility". It simply means that a government official who has control over a certain fund is responsible for either properly spending that money or returning it to the National Treasury. The word "accountability" also carries an implied consequence for failure. If a government official fails to properly control money for which he is accountable, there must be a consequence. Corruption-watchers use an embarrassingly simple equation to describe this concept:

DISCRETION - ACCOUNTABILITY = CORRUPTION

The beauty of this formula lies in the fact that it not only describes the problem, but also gives the solution:

LESS DISCRETION + MORE ACCOUNTABILITY = LESS CORRUPTION

The answer to the problem of corruption, in the Philippines or any other country, is simply a matter of reducing the discretion that government officials have to spend money, assess fees, and award contracts, and increasing accountability by holding those officials responsible for every peso under their control. There are basic procedures, used by governments and private businesses around the world, that force people to account for the money they control. Simple things, like requiring a receipt for every purchase, or tightly controlling cash advances. Countries that practice this sort of fiscal accountability do not experience the level of corruption seen in the Philippines. But enforcing these procedures requires challenging the assertion that government officials are inherently honest and that their word is the only verification necessary. This philosophy has been the shield behind which many dishonorable people have taken refuge over the years.

Because it is such a powerful force in daily interactions, and because it often overrides written procedure, the "shield of honor" serves to effectively cancel out any effort to enforce accountability. This is part of the self-sustaining nature of corruption in the Philippines. Any leader who tries to challenge the shield of honor is said to be lacking in delicadeza, and thus is considered arrogant and dishonorable himself.

This brings us back to something I said previously -- the phrase "political will", that is tossed around so often as both an excuse and an accusation, really means nothing more than "just do it". Any government official who says "I can't control corruption in my department" is actually saying "I'm not willing to do what is necessary to control it". No one has to wait for a new law to be passed before they can start fighting corruption in their own area of responsibility. Any government official, at any level, can implement a local policy requiring his people to submit receipts. This is what I mean by "just do it." And while we are on the subject of "willing", it must be clearly understood that it is absolutely not possible for a government official to spend money illegally or to award a contract in violation of government guidelines unless someone at a higher level allows it, either by specific action or by intentional inaction. That decision-making power, free from oversight from above, or in collusion with those above, is the discretion I am referring to.

When we talk about discretion we're not only describing one person's ability to make decisions without supervisory approval or oversight. We're also talking about decision-making groups that create the illusion of a working checks and balances system. Such a group might include only two or three people, such as a taxpayer, tax-collector, and the auditor who checks the work, or it might include an entire city council. It's even possible that a decision-making group might include the entire chain of a national government department, as well as the auditors from a completely separate agency. All it really takes is an agreement to work together in committing a corrupt act.

Whenever government officials are accused of corruption, they often respond by saying that they could not possibly have done anything illegal since their actions were approved at various levels, and that checks and balances within the system would have detected any irregularities. Government itself frequently makes this same assertion, in an effort to deflect arguments that it is not effective in controlling corruption. In reality, if all members of a decision-making group are in collusion, corruption is not only easy, it is also nearly risk-free. And in an environment where corruption brings very little risk and very high reward, coupled with a general belief that there is really nothing wrong with it, it becomes very easy to co-opt the entire group. This is a direct result of the informal way that government operates, as I described before. One of the reasons that procedures and regulations exist is to prevent just this kind of problem.

Of course, some discretion will always be necessary, to allow government to respond to situational changes, but for now that flexibility is far less important than the need to control corruption. All government processes can be charted to determine where discretion is necessary, and where it should be prohibited. This should not be seen as an indication of mistrust. It is simple accountability. Anyone entrusted with the responsibility of handling someone else's money should be able to accept this, whether he is a clerk or a congressman.