Kleptocracies are generally associated with corrupt forms of authoritarian governments, particularly dictatorships, oligarchies, military juntas, or some other forms of autocratic and nepotist government in which no outside oversight is possible, due to the ability of the kleptocrat(s) to personally control both the supply of public funds and the means of determining their disbursal. Kleptocratic rulers typically treat their country's treasury as though it were their own personal bank account, spending the funds on luxury goods as they see fit. Many kleptocratic rulers also secretly transfer public funds into secret personal numbered bank accounts in foreign countries in order to provide them with continued luxury if/when they are eventually removed from power and forced to flee the country.
Kleptocracy is most common in third-world countries where the economy (often as a legacy of colonialism) is dominated by resource extraction. Such incomes constitute a form of economic rent and are therefore easier to siphon off without causing the income itself to decrease (for example, due to capital flight as investors pull out to escape the high taxes levied by the kleptocrats).An early phase of this is driven by tenderpreneur elites who seek to capture resources for personal benefit.
The effects of a kleptocratic regime or government on a nation are typically adverse in regards to the faring of the state's economy, political affairs and civil rights. Kleptocracy in government often vitiates prospects of foreign investment and drastically weakens the domestic market and cross-border trade. As the kleptocracy normally embezzles money from its citizens by misusing funds derived from tax payments, or money laundering schemes, a kleptocratically structured political system tends to degrade nearly everyone's quality of life.
In addition, the money that kleptocrats steal is often taken from funds that were earmarked for public amenities, such as the building of hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like - which has further adverse effects on the quality of life of the citizens living under a kleptocracy. The quasi-oligarchy that results from kleptocratic elite also subverts democracy (or any other political format the state is ostensibly under).
IN the old Rhodesian days, many whites expressed the view that Independence under a majority rule government would bring chaos and collapse. Their justification for such a view was based on experience in other newly independent states in Africa where the post-colonial experience had been pretty disappointing.
The war that led to majority rule started in earnest in 1972 and by 1976 the Smith government had all but collapsed and a transition was accepted as being inevitable. The problem was how to hand over a relatively sophisticated government and economy to people who had not run anything bigger than a cash box in a bush camp. Many of the new leaders became friends and I found that between them there were considerable intellectual and professional capabilities. I had confidence that this team of men and women would take up the reins of power and make good use of their new opportunities. In particular there was this aloof intellectual in the form of Robert Mugabe who spoke eloquent English and was clearly well tutored in all aspects of public life.
Assisted by the major nations of the world, the transition came and went and the new leadership took control of the state. The transition itself was unexpectedly smooth, despite tens of thousands under arms, not a shot was fired and on April 18 1980, minority rule ended and the new government under Mugabe was sworn in.
Restrained by many different elements in the complex situation of the day, the Mugabe regime was slow in its expected lapse into chaos and anarchy but when challenged by newly emerging democratic forces in the form of Zapu in the south west of the country in 1983 and the MDC in 2000, the reaction was the same — a savage, unbridled attack on the leadership of these opposition elements resulting in thousands of deaths and widespread abuse of human rights.
In 1983 the campaign to wipe out Zapu did not lead to a national collapse, being confined to the region in the south west of the country, but its deep wounds remain unhealed and will haunt us for many years to come. However the campaign to crush the MDC was in a different league.
By 2000, 20 years of profligate spending and unsustainable deficits in the budget funded by printing money had begun to sap the resilience of the economy. The international community had got beyond its early belief that Mugabe and his band of not-so-merry men could do no evil and were in less of a mind to look the other way as they had in 1983/87.
The consequence was a rapid collapse of the domestic economy with GDP declining by more than half and exports by two thirds associated with the withdrawal of support by the majority of the international community. What is less well documented is the parallel slide into what has become a well entrenched kleptocracy.
In the beginning, the new elite that made up the Zimbabwe government and corporate executive class behaved in an exemplary manner. There was respect for the rule of law, property rights were observed and contracts awarded with very little graft and corruption. Gradually this changed; first the rights of Zapu and its membership were abused and the law simply brushed aside. Then creeping patronage and corrupt practices in government contracts and business in general started to gain momentum. By the time the conflict with the MDC was launched in 2000, the Reserve Bank had become the bank of the Zanu elite, printing money at artificial exchange rates had begun to strip away the assets of established business and citizens and the looting of national resources had started. By my own estimates, when the final collapse came in late 2008 and Zanu was forced into a coalition government with the MDC by regional leaders, the Zanu elite were stealing a third of annual GDP.
This was achieved in many different ways: fuel imports were subjected to huge premiums that were channelled into private accounts overseas, pension funds were looted and the State Social Security Agency used as a private savings bank. Through the Reserve Bank the Zanu elite literally stole the gold stocks and siphoned off the accumulated national wealth created by a 100 years of enterprise and hard work. Connected individuals were able to acquire assets for virtually nothing.
Zimbabwe, once regarded as a promising middle income developing state, became the second poorest country in the world in a decade, one of the only countries to experience such a decline without being engaged in a war. A tiny (no more than 2 000 people) criminal cabal became some of the wealthiest individuals in the world. Zimbabwe abandoned any pretext of being a law abiding state and the theft of state and individual assets was only curbed when finally regional leaders imposed a coalition government on Zanu PF.
Stripped of access to the Reserve Bank, fuel resources and the artificial blood supply created by the printing presses in Harare, the criminal elite concentrated their efforts on what was left. The alluvial diamond fields in the eastern areas of the country were taken away from their rightful owners, handed over to an international criminal cabal drawn from Israel, South Africa and China. Where the elite still controlled the administration (mining and agriculture) the looting simply accelerated and broadened its base fuelled by the international appetite for all raw materials.
A similar process has crippled many African states; the book It Is Our Time To Eat published in Kenya reveals the depth of state-led corruption and the difficulty of rooting it out. The Congo is our Brazil, but remains one of the poorest and most brutal states in the world where life is pretty dreadful for all but a few. Zambia is only slowly climbing out of the hole that it was left in after former President Kenneth Kaunda.
South Africa shows frightening signs of a similar slide into theft and corruption on a scale seldom seen on other continents. In Angola the elite steal a third of oil revenues and nobody takes any interest except the banks that become host to this flood of wealth that bleeds Africa, and for which the aid inflow is simply a rather bloody band aid.
In early 2004, the anti-corruption Germany-based NGO Transparency International released a list of what it believes to be the ten most self-enriching leaders in recent years.
In order of amount allegedly stolen (in USD), they are:
Former Indonesian President Suharto ($15 billion – $35 billion).
Former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos ($5 billion – $10 billion).Former Zairian President Mobutu Sese Seko ($5 billion).Former Nigerian Head of State Sani Abacha ($2 billion – $5 billion).
Former PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat ($1 billion to $10 billion) (These numbers do not come from Transparency International).
Former Yugoslav and Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic ($1 billion).
Former Haitian President Jean-Claude Duvalier ($300 million – $800 million).
Former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori ($600 million).
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko ($114 million – $200 million).
Former Nicaraguan President Arnoldo Alemán ($100 million).
Former Philippine President Joseph Estrada ($78 million – $80 million).
The Question we should ask ourselves as Zimbabweans is what are we going to do about the money, that Robert Mugabe, stole the money he used to build that huge mansion in Borrowdale? What are we going to do with the Land that Grace Mugabe as accumulated as a result of this kleptocracy? Now is the time for Zimbabweans to address these issues, the money recovered should be used to rebuild the country. Mugabe and his hangmen know that the writing is now on the wall, they know their days are numbered. The removal of Mugabe from office will not be a beauty pageant or a picnic but a wrestling match with the gods that only those leaders with the jihadist ingredient and suicidal element need to attend. Too much love for life or too much fear of death are qualities that are not needed in the political theatre that will uproot the titanic tyranny in Harare.
Kleptocracy is most common in third-world countries where the economy (often as a legacy of colonialism) is dominated by resource extraction. Such incomes constitute a form of economic rent and are therefore easier to siphon off without causing the income itself to decrease (for example, due to capital flight as investors pull out to escape the high taxes levied by the kleptocrats).An early phase of this is driven by tenderpreneur elites who seek to capture resources for personal benefit.
The effects of a kleptocratic regime or government on a nation are typically adverse in regards to the faring of the state's economy, political affairs and civil rights. Kleptocracy in government often vitiates prospects of foreign investment and drastically weakens the domestic market and cross-border trade. As the kleptocracy normally embezzles money from its citizens by misusing funds derived from tax payments, or money laundering schemes, a kleptocratically structured political system tends to degrade nearly everyone's quality of life.
In addition, the money that kleptocrats steal is often taken from funds that were earmarked for public amenities, such as the building of hospitals, schools, roads, parks and the like - which has further adverse effects on the quality of life of the citizens living under a kleptocracy. The quasi-oligarchy that results from kleptocratic elite also subverts democracy (or any other political format the state is ostensibly under).
IN the old Rhodesian days, many whites expressed the view that Independence under a majority rule government would bring chaos and collapse. Their justification for such a view was based on experience in other newly independent states in Africa where the post-colonial experience had been pretty disappointing.
The war that led to majority rule started in earnest in 1972 and by 1976 the Smith government had all but collapsed and a transition was accepted as being inevitable. The problem was how to hand over a relatively sophisticated government and economy to people who had not run anything bigger than a cash box in a bush camp. Many of the new leaders became friends and I found that between them there were considerable intellectual and professional capabilities. I had confidence that this team of men and women would take up the reins of power and make good use of their new opportunities. In particular there was this aloof intellectual in the form of Robert Mugabe who spoke eloquent English and was clearly well tutored in all aspects of public life.
Assisted by the major nations of the world, the transition came and went and the new leadership took control of the state. The transition itself was unexpectedly smooth, despite tens of thousands under arms, not a shot was fired and on April 18 1980, minority rule ended and the new government under Mugabe was sworn in.
Restrained by many different elements in the complex situation of the day, the Mugabe regime was slow in its expected lapse into chaos and anarchy but when challenged by newly emerging democratic forces in the form of Zapu in the south west of the country in 1983 and the MDC in 2000, the reaction was the same — a savage, unbridled attack on the leadership of these opposition elements resulting in thousands of deaths and widespread abuse of human rights.
In 1983 the campaign to wipe out Zapu did not lead to a national collapse, being confined to the region in the south west of the country, but its deep wounds remain unhealed and will haunt us for many years to come. However the campaign to crush the MDC was in a different league.
By 2000, 20 years of profligate spending and unsustainable deficits in the budget funded by printing money had begun to sap the resilience of the economy. The international community had got beyond its early belief that Mugabe and his band of not-so-merry men could do no evil and were in less of a mind to look the other way as they had in 1983/87.
The consequence was a rapid collapse of the domestic economy with GDP declining by more than half and exports by two thirds associated with the withdrawal of support by the majority of the international community. What is less well documented is the parallel slide into what has become a well entrenched kleptocracy.
In the beginning, the new elite that made up the Zimbabwe government and corporate executive class behaved in an exemplary manner. There was respect for the rule of law, property rights were observed and contracts awarded with very little graft and corruption. Gradually this changed; first the rights of Zapu and its membership were abused and the law simply brushed aside. Then creeping patronage and corrupt practices in government contracts and business in general started to gain momentum. By the time the conflict with the MDC was launched in 2000, the Reserve Bank had become the bank of the Zanu elite, printing money at artificial exchange rates had begun to strip away the assets of established business and citizens and the looting of national resources had started. By my own estimates, when the final collapse came in late 2008 and Zanu was forced into a coalition government with the MDC by regional leaders, the Zanu elite were stealing a third of annual GDP.
This was achieved in many different ways: fuel imports were subjected to huge premiums that were channelled into private accounts overseas, pension funds were looted and the State Social Security Agency used as a private savings bank. Through the Reserve Bank the Zanu elite literally stole the gold stocks and siphoned off the accumulated national wealth created by a 100 years of enterprise and hard work. Connected individuals were able to acquire assets for virtually nothing.
Zimbabwe, once regarded as a promising middle income developing state, became the second poorest country in the world in a decade, one of the only countries to experience such a decline without being engaged in a war. A tiny (no more than 2 000 people) criminal cabal became some of the wealthiest individuals in the world. Zimbabwe abandoned any pretext of being a law abiding state and the theft of state and individual assets was only curbed when finally regional leaders imposed a coalition government on Zanu PF.
Stripped of access to the Reserve Bank, fuel resources and the artificial blood supply created by the printing presses in Harare, the criminal elite concentrated their efforts on what was left. The alluvial diamond fields in the eastern areas of the country were taken away from their rightful owners, handed over to an international criminal cabal drawn from Israel, South Africa and China. Where the elite still controlled the administration (mining and agriculture) the looting simply accelerated and broadened its base fuelled by the international appetite for all raw materials.
A similar process has crippled many African states; the book It Is Our Time To Eat published in Kenya reveals the depth of state-led corruption and the difficulty of rooting it out. The Congo is our Brazil, but remains one of the poorest and most brutal states in the world where life is pretty dreadful for all but a few. Zambia is only slowly climbing out of the hole that it was left in after former President Kenneth Kaunda.
South Africa shows frightening signs of a similar slide into theft and corruption on a scale seldom seen on other continents. In Angola the elite steal a third of oil revenues and nobody takes any interest except the banks that become host to this flood of wealth that bleeds Africa, and for which the aid inflow is simply a rather bloody band aid.
In early 2004, the anti-corruption Germany-based NGO Transparency International released a list of what it believes to be the ten most self-enriching leaders in recent years.
In order of amount allegedly stolen (in USD), they are:
Former Indonesian President Suharto ($15 billion – $35 billion).
Former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos ($5 billion – $10 billion).Former Zairian President Mobutu Sese Seko ($5 billion).Former Nigerian Head of State Sani Abacha ($2 billion – $5 billion).
Former PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat ($1 billion to $10 billion) (These numbers do not come from Transparency International).
Former Yugoslav and Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic ($1 billion).
Former Haitian President Jean-Claude Duvalier ($300 million – $800 million).
Former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori ($600 million).
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Pavlo Lazarenko ($114 million – $200 million).
Former Nicaraguan President Arnoldo Alemán ($100 million).
Former Philippine President Joseph Estrada ($78 million – $80 million).
The Question we should ask ourselves as Zimbabweans is what are we going to do about the money, that Robert Mugabe, stole the money he used to build that huge mansion in Borrowdale? What are we going to do with the Land that Grace Mugabe as accumulated as a result of this kleptocracy? Now is the time for Zimbabweans to address these issues, the money recovered should be used to rebuild the country. Mugabe and his hangmen know that the writing is now on the wall, they know their days are numbered. The removal of Mugabe from office will not be a beauty pageant or a picnic but a wrestling match with the gods that only those leaders with the jihadist ingredient and suicidal element need to attend. Too much love for life or too much fear of death are qualities that are not needed in the political theatre that will uproot the titanic tyranny in Harare.
Ingen kommentarer:
Send en kommentar