As we continue waiting for President Uhuru Kenyatta to fulfil his promise for a comprehensive response to the Pandora Papers leak, it is worth noting the exposé rejuvenated the fight against corruption conversation.
Even though the journalists involved said there was no evidence to prove the billions of dollars stashed in tax havens are proceeds of crime or corruption, in the court of public opinion, the debate rages about the sources of that money here and abroad.
The clarion call against corruption is not alien in Kenya. Therefore, in this article, we interrogate the role of citizen participation in the war on graft. The term “citizen participation” has gained traction over the past decade since the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.
The Constitution envisages members of the public co-governing with leaders in making governance decisions.
This is a legal requirement buttressed by international treaties such as the 2001 Aarhus Convention on Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Information.
The discourse of public participation has been all about allowing members of the public to take part in decision-making.
Arguably, citizens' voices have been operationalised in the democratic process in different ways such as through voting, budget making and suggesting how government policies can be improved, among others.
Public participation with reference to the anti-corruption campaign involves approaches and methodologies that may be distinct from citizen engagement in other democratic processes like the aforementioned.
This is so because the government may not be lenient to citizens to access space and information in relation to fighting corruption.
Corruption goes against the tenets of a democratic society as it violates the principle of democratic inclusion by excluding those who do not take part in the vice.
It is in this regard that citizens’ role in the fight against corruption can best be understood from a social accountability perspective.
Citizens should play a critical role by vehemently opposing corruption, keeping in check those in office, demanding effective countermeasures, and being at the forefront in exposing corruption-related activities.
Leveraging the advent of technology, citizens’ ability to document and report cases of corruption to the media or independent anti-corruption watchdogs has been enhanced and made much easier than before.
In addition, refusing to take or give bribes would be yet a stronger sign of resistance.
Taking part in and supporting campaigns and training programmes to cultivate a culture of zero tolerance for kickbacks and upholding integrity would go a long way in changing attitudes, not only in the current generation but also in future descendants.
As a country, we risk normalising corruption due to citizen apathy brought about by high levels of corruption, poor governance, and lack of trust in public institutions.
On the other hand, those who continue to take advantage of a weak accountability environment to amass illicit wealth will continue to do so, and in turn, use what they acquire to evade accountability.
Citizens can play a role in supporting and defending accountable institutions against assault.
This means citizens need to stop being bystanders or observers in the accountability space by taking their role in governance seriously.
Therefore, there is a need to invest in innovative approaches to report corruption activities, increase awareness on corruption consequences such as inequalities, and justice is seen to be served to those found guilty.
Equally useful are social sanctions that disapprove of dishonest and corrupt practices.
Samuel Kimeu is the executive director, Africa’s Voices Foundation, while Derick Ngaira is the communications Assistant