Your work in the coming days to promote integrity, honesty, and efficiency in the public and private sectors is a critical part of the fight against poverty. This is very much a global effort and it involves all sectors of societies, all countries, and many different kinds of intellectual approaches. You will be touching on many different dimensions here. I am sorry that I cannot be with you in person to learn from you all, but am honored to share my reflections with you and I look forward to learning of your work over the next days and your vision of the important work still to come.
My address takes the example of one important constituency involved in international development: spiritual and religious leaders. An important emerging story today is that of faith and secular leaders and institutions joining together on poverty and development issues. My hope is that these partnerships and alliances will take on frontally the anticorruption and governance agenda.
Should religious leaders and institutions be more directly engaged in both national and global efforts to define and raise standards of public governance? To what extent are they already doing so? Can they participate effectively, and if so, how? What is needed to reinforce and expand alliances between faith and development institutions, and to reinforce a culture and practice of integrity, both so essential to fighting poverty? These are significant questions in debates about how to fight corruption in development work, and about the relationships between religious and secular, church and state.
While in other parts of the development agenda, for example in the worlds of health and education, religious leaders are playing increasingly critical roles, this trend is far less evident in the area of governance. There is a large untapped potential for leadership on governance and corruption issues. The growing attention today to ensuring high standards of governance everywhere invites faith leaders and institutions to go beyond their traditional focus on personal and community values to play even more active roles in alliances against corrupt behavior—whether at the community, national, or global level. I am hopeful that your work in the next days will speak to some of these questions and trace some paths towards strategies for innovative alliances and partnerships on the “fifth pillar” and governance more broadly.
Speaking Truth to Power
Throughout history, faith leaders have raised some of the most courageous and effective voices in efforts to combat corruption and promote good governance. The religious world has long seen itself as having a classic prophetic role of “speaking truth to power,” and of setting and preserving social standards. While history and contemporary experience make it clear that faith communities themselves do not always live the values they aspire to, and that some leaders ally themselves more with the rich and powerful rather than with the poor and oppressed, the prophetic role of pointing towards what can and should be is a common ideal.
Indeed, faith institutions rank amongst the most trusted institutions and there is a common expectation that religious teaching and preaching will instill solid values, remind and admonish people to follow them, and raise voices in denunciation when and where standards are breached and public integrity fails. The morality of pulpit and temple are widely expected and understood, even if many would suggest that the lessons heard there too seldom travel far beyond the church or temple door. Parables and teachings of different faiths are common points of reference in debates about public ethics across the globe. Perhaps the most widely quoted teaching is “to do unto others as you would have them do unto youâ€: a “golden rule” found in virtually all faith traditions.
Likewise, personal values and ethics, and religious beliefs and teaching, are tied together in numerous ways, across widely different contexts and societies. Faith teachings help people define and monitor standards of behavior in many contexts. And private morality and values-whether or not derived from religious principles—link to public morality.
The developing world offers many contemporary examples of faith leaders working within a variety of partnerships to fight corruption. In 2003, the International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) in Seoul-in alliance with Transparency International, the global coalition and movement against corruption-included an unprecedented effort (within that movement) to involve both religious leaders and approaches explicitly in the dialogue. The upcoming IACC meeting in Athens this fall will also feature religious voices. Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maridiaga of Honduras offers an example of a widely respected leader within the Catholic Church who is well known and appreciated for his active role in working for higher standards of governance. He sits on many international bodies and speaks frequently to this end. John Githongo, a former Kenyan journalist and government official, and perhaps one of the world’s most resonant voices on the anticorruption agenda, is now Vice President of World Vision, a Christian relief, development, and advocacy organization.
Nonetheless, global movements and discussions on integrity and governance have involved faith leaders less than might be expected and there is significant room for additional engagement and partnership. And the spotlight now shining on the damage that corrupt practices inflict on development work has even more direct implications for faith institutions when they themselves are engaged in designing and running development programs. The question arises whether faith institutions are sufficiently sensitive to the potentially corrosive effects of “leakage”of funds and conflicts of interest, and whether they are well equipped to combat those problems. As faith organizations become more involved in relief operations, HIV/AIDS programs, and other development work, through both congregations and development institutions, new demands for accountability arise.
Policy Issues and Priorities in Religious and Ethical Approaches to Anti-Corruption
A Global Ethic and Common Religious and Ethical Teachings on Public Integrity
There are numerous areas where religious leaders and institutions play an important role on corruption issues. As a start, there is the idea of a Global Ethic and Common Religious and Ethical Teachings on Public Integrity: A century ago, discussions of public integrity and standards of behavior would, in most societies, have been permeated with religious language and led by theologians and religious leaders. Today, however, it is often the case that religious leaders are not at the center of public discussions about public integrity and ethics. One reason is a deliberate, conscious effort to separate religion from public discourse about public ethics. This tendency has various roots, including some squeamishness about the religious rhetoric of morality and fear that injecting religious arguments into debates about public ethics can be divisive in today’s increasingly plural societies.
Motivated in part by such motives, several “integrity alliances,” international and national, articulate their vision and motives in terms that stress that the values underlying good governance are common to all faith and secular traditions-that they are grounded in a common global ethic. The effort to focus on universal standards and principles is often seen as countering arguments that have arisen in widely different settings, that cultures and religions have different approaches to issues like public service standards, gifts, and sharing of benefits. There is often a fear that invoking the moral teachings of individual faith traditions could be divisive in societies with several different religious and secular communities. And some proponents of global ethics are frankly skeptical about whether all faith leaders and institutions truly live up to their own preaching and teaching on morality.
Thus most efforts to define common ethical values that underlie good governance have focused on a series of principles that cut across and thus unite different social and legal traditions. It is widely acknowledge that they encompass threads of many religious traditions, but this is rarely stressed. As an example, the final declaration of the 2006 International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC), entitled “Common Values, Different Cultures,” highlighted strong common values around integrity: “Convinced that corruption should be condemned and eradicated for the sake of the universally held value of integrity, participants declare that cultural and historical particularity should not be used as a pretext for justifying corruption, or conversely, for labeling certain societies as corrupt. At the same time, anti-corruption measures tailored to the specific circumstances of a particular society should be devised in order to effectively deliver practical solutions.”
The stress on international standards and on the strong common human values that they highlight has great merit and significance. Many of the basic values underlying principles of civic integrity stem from deep roots that come close to universal teachings, and reflect an important common consensus.
There is, however, considerable merit in acknowledging that these “common” values often have links to the teachings of various religions. As an example, a directive along the lines that theft is a serious offense appears in some form in most faith traditions, as do admonitions to be honest and, more broadly, to serve the common good. The attendant stories and parables can reinforce the messages as communication is a gift of many faith traditions. A flip side is that divorcing the global ethic from religious teachings can have significant downsides, if it strips the ethic from its theological roots and imagery and if it discourages the engagement of both faith leaders and communities in seeking to apply the concepts.
It is striking that the most extensive work to define and document the roots of a global ethic has been led by Hans Kung, the renowned Swiss Catholic theologian. Kung and his colleagues have traced a well-articulated set of public policy principles to core teachings of the world’s major religions. Kung has written extensively about the foundations of the global ethic, linking each of the clearly set out branches to core principles in all the world’s major religious traditions, for example in their teachings and core theology on the critical topics of honesty (‘thou shalt not lie’) and respect for property (‘thou shalt not steal’).
The basic message is that there is indeed a powerful common core of shared principles, which constitutes a Global Ethic. The work to articulate and promote this Global Ethic has among other things been the focus of the 1993 World Parliament of Religions meeting in Chicago and its successor parliaments, and of successive discussions by the InterAction Council, an assembly of former heads of state.7 Innumerable conferences and discussions, including those of the International Monetary Fund and the World Economic Forum, have also considered the concepts and specifics. And the Global Ethic features prominently in university ethics curricula.
Framing a persuasive case that common ethical norms bind cultures together and offer a basis for universal standards can offer a powerful counter to cynics and doubters who argue that corruption is embedded in specific cultures. The Global Ethic can also be an effective instrument for finding common ground and promoting public education. It thus offers a potentially powerful tool for dialogue and teaching in a wide range of settings, and a positive mechanism for highlighting the importance and strength of shared values and norms against a perception of diversity and difference among individuals and communities. And it can be clearly and effectively tied to its clear religious roots.
Common and Diverging Approaches to Corruption
Likewise, there is room for discussion about common and diverging approaches to ethics and morality discussions. Questions of ethical values are, however, not always as straightforward and simple as the Global Ethic would suggest. Public debate often emphasizes cultural differences that impede institutional arrangements to ensure integrity. And different faith traditions as well as cultures do bring shades of difference to interpretations of public morality and integrity.
Yet fairly simplistic assumptions sometimes underlie supposed differences in policy approaches, and holding these assumptions up to the light can be beneficial. As an illustration, thoughtful analysts, including World Bank economists, at one stage suggested that Confucian family values militated against effective public norms of accountability and objectivity, for example with their perceived emphasis on hierarchies in society which might militate against entrepreneurial behavior and concern that family loyalty would always trump objectivity in hiring. These analysts were pessimistic about the development prospects of Asian societies as a result. Of course, history has prompted a sharp reassessment of these contentions. Similar arguments have been advanced relative to traditional African religions with the high value they accord to traditional hierarchies and obligations to the community.
Similarly, some see honesty as a culturally varying virtue. However, when experience is examined and people are actually asked about their values, such differences often fade or decline in importance.
Nonetheless, differences-and above all perceptions of difference-are worth examining. Significant benefit might be drawn from deeper exploration of traditions, teachings, parables, and practice among different faith traditions related to ethics, accountability, and integrity. The benefits of such exploration might include both drawing on deeper understandings, accentuated by stories and other teachings, and material that would allow thoughtful discussion about subtle differences in approach and traditions that might underpin a stronger consensus and argumentation for change.
At least two dimensions bear scrutiny. First, a comparative exploration, drawing on theology, of how different faith traditions approach corruption in their traditions could yield useful insights. The objective would be to define not only areas of common ground but also significant differences, and matters that deserve closer examination. For example, there could be merit in exploring faith teachings about conflicts of interest and hierarchies of values in personal and professional relationships. In several African societies where different faith traditions are interwoven in most communities (Christian, Muslim, African traditional religions) the varying approaches to the obligation to give gifts and the responsibility of the leader to give direct benefits to followers might help to forge consensus on pitfalls involved in traditional practices and appropriate standards in a modernizing setting.
Second, little systematic exploration has occurred of how religious traditions, leaders, and institutions have confronted governance issues in development programs, particularly with a comparative focus. Examining how Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, and Hindu leaders have diagnosed problems of corruption in a range of countries and communities, and how they have dealt with them, could prove instructive.
Thoughtful faith leaders from different traditions could usefully reflect on norms of public behavior and their links to faith traditions. Such exercises have yielded important insights on poverty, labor standards, and health care. A similar set of consultations on public integrity and accountability could produce significant insights and guidelines for setting standards and guiding public officials. Differences among traditions-both obvious and blunt, and deep and subtle-can also suggest solutions well-honed and adapted to local settings, as well as avenues for constructive dialogue.
Mobilizing the Organizations of the World’s Faith Traditions
There is also significant potential in mobilizing the organizations of the world’s faith traditions. Faith organizations have vast networks and infrastructure at their disposal, including communications channels that are often sophisticated. While these institutions have sometimes actively mobilized to address corruption and public integrity, as was the case in Malawi, Zambia, and Kenya during critical times of political change, their potential has not yet been fully tapped. It would be useful to explore why faith leaders and networks have sometimes proved somewhat reticent to highlight these problems, and what kinds of training might help mobilize them against corruption.
As an example, a June 2006 conference on corruption was organized by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace, aimed at focusing the attention of the vast network of the Roman Catholic Church on fighting corruption and indicating specific programs and measures that could combat it. Such events, combining both pragmatic experience and prophetic voice, might find echoes in other faith organizations. Other options include finding ways to build on the individual moral and practical voice of individual spiritual leaders, many of whom command vast communications networks. Ensuring more explicit dialogue and focus by faith-based NGOs, churches, and spiritual movements might also spur them to engage more actively in “integrity alliances.”
Leaders like Father Henriot, a Jesuit priest with many years experience working in Zambia, illustrate the powerful voice that faith can add to what can be the rather dry debates about governance. At two 2007 events, he argued strongly that the moral dimensions of corruption cannot be left aside, that public and private morality is indeed at issue. His is a voice for strong leadership. He also highlights with great clarity the relationship among different forms of corruption – large scale corruption that dissipates funds, the “middling”corruption that saps administration, and the corrosive effects of petty corruption (payments to teachers, policemen, for registering a birth) which erodes public trust. His voice is compelling and voices like his deserve to be amplified. His central conclusion? “Good governance for sustainable growth, is for me not simply an economic and political issue (bureaucratic and technocratic), but a moral and ethical issue, profoundly a matter of social justice.”
The major global interfaith organizations-including the World Conference of Religions for Peace, the Parliament of the World Religions, the United Religions Initiative, and the WFDD-could offer important vehicles for addressing public integrity and accountability, if they chose to make those challenges a priority. Each organization is increasingly engaging in practical and prophetic work on social justice, so public integrity and good governance would seem to offer a logical extension of this work.
Education and Religious Teaching
Faith institutions play significant roles in many dimensions of education. Churches and mosques run extensive school networks directly, they offer Sunday or Friday religious education classes to both children and adults, and they influence public school curricula in important ways. A recurring theme in discussions among faith organizations is the importance of enhancing the ethical content of public and private education.
An important question is how faiths can build on these efforts and on their central interest in education and ethics to advance the cause of integrity and good governance. Model programs, case studies, and best practices in effective teaching of ethics in educational systems at all levels-especially those that illuminate the roles that faith institutions can and do play-could provide the answer. Potential arenas for such activities include teaching through preaching, programs in faith-run schools, direct and indirect contributions to teaching values in public school systems, the curricula of theological training institutions, and communication through faith-led media at local, national, and international levels.
If faith leaders and institutions are to fight corruption effectively by both influencing public policy and engaging in activities such as monitoring development programs, those involved need good information. This includes information on what works in fighting corruption, and access to information on effective monitoring efforts. Workshops on governance would equip faith leaders and communities with better tools and foster more active engagement. There are obvious issues around how far faith institutions can and should enter into the core of development programs, but where their roles are active it is imperative that they be equipped with appropriate knowledge and skills.
Integrity within Faith Communities and Programs
Another difficult issue is the degree to which religious leaders and institutions are willing to examine their own practices. To preach and teach about corruption, one’s own house must be in order, and that applies equally to faith leaders and communities. One practical avenue for action is more transparent record keeping and clearer mechanisms for accountability within religious communities themselves. Exemplary cases of clear public accountability and monitoring of community resources within faith communities do exist. However, the accounts, audits, and reports of many organizations, especially but not exclusively small institutions, are often fairly rudimentary. Demands by development agencies for adherence to strict procurement, monitoring, and reporting practices in faith/development partnerships, for example HIV/AIDS programs, can generate resistance.
Faith communities often maintain that such processes are too cumbersome and intrusive, and that they constitute a breach of the trust that binds their communities. However, demands for greater accountability are becoming more important as faith communities become more active in programs to fight poverty, like malaria and public education, and receive external funds on a much larger scale.
Focusing on “corruption-proofing” faith-run programs also offers the potential for teasing out some reticence among religious leaders to address corruption. While some religious leaders in Africa are unambiguous about the evils of corruption, for example, others tend to see the problem in more nuanced ways-holding that both “briber” and “bribee” share responsibility. The concern of these religious leaders is that critics of corruption have focused unduly on those who accept bribes, who normally reside in poor countries, and too little on the patterns and mechanisms that allow those in rich countries to bribe with impunity. Debate about the issues and their consequences would be healthy all around.
Faith Engagement in Monitoring Poverty and Public-Sector Expenditures
In several countries, faith institutions have actively participated in the poverty reduction strategy process supported by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, sometimes as a direct outcome of prior activism on debt relief (such as in Zambia). Such engagement involves faith leaders in key policy decisions on poverty and social spending, and opens pragmatic avenues for monitoring public programs.
This engagement is an essential part of the widely acclaimed participatory approach to creating the anti-poverty strategies. However, much remains to be done to make this engagement more effective, including both an opening to effective participation by faith leaders and enabling faith actors to gain the knowledge and confidence that they need to be well positioned to discuss issues in terms of economics and finance, where they might lack training and experience.
Several prominent African religious leaders are taking active roles in public alliances to fight corruption and raise standards of integrity. At the national level, examples include Malawi and Kenya, where such leaders include Rev. Mulava of the Kenya Council of Churches. At the regional and continent level, the nascent Africa Monitor, inspired in large measure by Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town, offers significant promise. Africa Monitor aims to tap clear local roots and the respect accorded to the Anglican Church to develop effective mechanisms for monitoring public services and expenditures.
Integrity, Ethics, and Accountability: HIV/AIDS and Gender-Linked Violence
As a final thought, let me broaden the discussion of ethics, accountability, and integrity. In institutional settings, treatment of “ethics” commonly focuses primarily on rules, for example governing spending, procurement, and conflicts of interest. This is even truer today, in light of the intense spotlight on lapses in public honesty. Discussions with leaders and thinkers from different faith traditions underscore, however, the extent to which some communities find the rule-grounded framing and definition of ethics and integrity wanting. For example, a discussion of flawed procurement with religious leaders can turn imperceptibly toward questions of equity, and touches raw nerves that turn on fairness. Are the rules of the game truly open to all or are they stacked against local and small participants? Norms, standards, and rules are vitally important. But so are honest and forthright efforts to address the broader ethical issues embedded in contemporary debates about globalization.
A broader framing of ethics, accountability, and integrity can help open dialogue on central issues and allow for linkage among pragmatic concerns about the management of public finances and the drive for equity and social justice, including wider access to health care. A broader framing can also encourage a willingness to confront, boldly, long-hidden problems such as domestic violence, and discriminatory treatment of women within households and communities. The countless ethical issues posed by the HIV/AIDS pandemic are illustrative of the perils inherent in of taking a stove-pipe or overly technocratic approach to a multi-faceted public policy issue.
Corruption is indeed an evil, aptly termed a cancer, as it eats away at public confidence as well as the quality of public programs; its reach and pervasiveness in all cultures is remarkable. Lessons of successful experience suggest that multifaceted approaches are what work best. Leadership, in many forms, to model behavior and trace a path-fire from above-together with citizen and community mobilization and vigilance-fire from below-can together achieve impressive results, often in a quite short time frame.
But recognition that corruption is rarely simple to eradicate, whether by moral discourse or administrative fiat, is also important as it is a problem deeply embedded in human social traditions and practices. Too often lacking in public debates is a desire to promote greater understanding, respect, and curiosity-to seek out common concerns and values, and to explore areas of significant difference. Given the present-day urgency of fighting global poverty, which is so closely linked to international peace and security, we can no longer afford such divides. All must come to the table to devise and agree on ethical standards, and mechanisms for enforcement and accountability. And religious voices and organizations can and must be vital players.
Even after religious leaders are recognized as important partners, a number of challenges must be overcome, namely building on common religious teachings (finding a Global Ethic) to enhance public integrity, pursuing purposeful dialogue on areas of difference and disagreement so that real differences are aired more honestly and solutions sought; exploring the potential for mobilizing faith organizations more directly to combat corruption; concentrating on religious education and teaching to encourage integrity and public ethics, strengthening fiscal management and accountability within faith communities and programs, and, finally, engaging religious communities in multi-sector monitoring efforts focused on poverty programs and public-sector expenditures.
All of this work will ensure a deeper and more substantive approach to corruption and governance issues.
Congratulations on your work to date on these critical issues and my best wishes to you for a successful meeting.
