But what about bribe's source?

The release last week of Transparency International's corruption perception index was timely, considering escalating suspicion of wrongdoing in the multibillion-rand arms deal.

SA was ranked 38 out of 91 countries with a score of 4,8. The score, ranging from zero to 10, is a composite measure based on surveys of independent institutions. It gauges perceptions of bribe-taking or extorting bribes in the public sector by politicians and public servants. Ten implies a non-existent perception of corruption.

Top-ranked Finland scores 9,9, while Bangladesh scrapes the bottom on 0,4. It's difficult not to notice that perceptions of corruption grow the less developed a country is.

That's exactly the perception Transparency SA, the local chapter of the international watchdog body, would like to blow open. If you're going to point fingers, single out the countries making the bribes, too, it believes.

Transparency International has a bribe-payers' index but does not release it with the corruption perceptions index - contrary to an undertaking to do so, says Transparency SA.

The local body alludes to the fact that Transparency International is under pressure from "powerful players in the North" not to release it. It says there is a bias against countries in the "South".

Transparency SA believes this leads to a skewed message.

Less-developed countries, particularly countries in the "South", emerge from the ranking with any kind of reputation of good governance in question - which can have a bearing on inward investment decisions. Developed countries, often the source of bribes, suffer no such damage.

It's not about shifting blame or lessening the culpability of bribe-takers, says Transparency SA.

Instead, it's about recognising that the problem is far more complex than a bunch of crooked politicians.  

With acknowledgement to James Eedes and Financial Mail.