IS SA more corrupt today than it was under apartheid?

A great deal of public attention has been focused on instances or allegations of corruption by public representatives in SA. The allegations surrounding the strategic defence procurement package, African National Congress MP Tony Yengeni and the Daimler-Benz controversy, as well as corruption within the home affairs department and National Parks Board are some issues in the spotlight.

Apartheid was a corrupt system of government that was inherently secretive and sought to disclose as little information as possible about the workings of the state. No information was publicised regarding corruption within the public service or by public representatives.

We therefore cannot identify the pre-1994 level of corruption. We can only say with certainty that corruption existed at a high level, given that it sustained the corrupt apartheid machinery.

At the truth commission hearings, South Africans heard of excesses committed by the apartheid state.

The previous government could only have sustained such excesses by diverting resources to areas that the public did not know about and when it was clearly illegal to do so.

There is evidence that the apartheid government siphoned money from state coffers to entrench its ideology. This corruption reached into the highest echelons of government and state institutions and to the functionaries down below.

In a political climate where the media was restricted and was not permitted to report on many issues, it was relatively easy for the state to further its aims without being accountable. There was a particularly low level of accountability where spending of public money was concerned.

Official corruption at all levels was high, particularly in the "homelands", where it was more overt, and where governance, administration, and distribution of public goods and services was based on patronage.

Along with the transition to a constitutional democracy came a greater degree of openness and transparency. The media is now free to report the news without restrictions. In addition to the new constitutional values, new laws create an atmosphere within which corruption cannot flourish. These laws include the Administrative Justice Act, the Promotion of Access to Information Act and the Protected Disclosures Act.

They have been instrumental in fostering the new culture of openness.

As a result of SA's re-entry into the international arena, it has taken on various responsibilities under United Nations treaties. These have compelled government to raise its standards with regard to combating corruption and graft within its ranks.

Public servants are also subject to certain regulations and a code of conduct.

MPs face scrutiny regarding the gifts and donations they receive by means of a Register of Members' Interests, as do local councillors.

The new laws, together with the openness of the media, have made it near impossible to obfuscate issues of corruption.

It is perhaps here that the apartheid state differs most materially and fundamentally from post-1994 SA.

Today, citizens are increasingly insisting on their constitutional right to information and are becoming more aware of the way in which the state uses resources.

The key question, however, is how government will react when faced with allegations of corruption on the part of one of its members.

We have seen this to be the Achilles heel of government in recent days, particularly with the arms deal scandal.

It is the the degree to which government holds itself accountable to the electorate and the way in which it implements its laws that will ultimately determine whether SA can free itself of corruption.

However, it cannot be said that SA is a more corrupt country today than it was prior to 1994.

February and Fakir are parliamentary analysts at Idasa's political information and monitoring service.

With acknowledgment to Judith February and Ebrahim Fakir.