A detailed analysis of the rationale and potential benefits of choosing a Commission of Enquiry as a reform measure has been made by Kirya (2011) in ‘Performing “good governance”: Commissions of Inquiry and the Fight against Corruption in Uganda’. Here is her overview:

‘The findings suggest that the global anti-corruption framework signified by the good governance agenda is hindered by various factors such as the self-interest of donors, the moral hazard inherent in aid and the illegitimacy of conditionality; all of which contribute to the weak enforcement of governance-related conditionalities. This in turn causes aid-recipient countries such as Uganda to do only the minimum necessary to keep up appearances in implementing governance reforms. National anti-corruption is further hindered by the government tendency to undermine anti-corruption by selective or non-enforcement of the law, the rationale being to insulate the patronage networks that form the basis of its political support from being dismantled by the prosecution of key patrons involved in corruption. Ad hoc commissions of inquiry chaired by judges, which facilitate a highly publicised inquisitorial truth-finding process, therefore emerge as the ideal way of tackling corruption because they facilitate ―a trial in which no-one is sent to jail. …
They also served to appease a public that was appalled by the various corruption scandals perpetrated by a regime that had claimed to introduce ―a fundamental change and not a mere change of guard in Uganda politics. Nevertheless, while they enabled the regime to consolidate power by appeasing donors and the public, they also constituted significant democratic moments in Uganda history by allowing the public – acting through judges and the media – to participate in holding their leaders accountable for their actions in a manner hitherto unseen in a country whose history had been characterised by dictatorial rule.

Working at sector level allows the detailed corruption issues and the political dynamics to be unpacked, so that remedial work can be focused at an appropriate scale and level of detail. Our experience – and belief – is that the differences between sectors are large and significant. First, many of the particular corruption types in a sector are specific to that sector (e.g. the various pharmaceutical-related corruption types within health). Second, even when a corruption type is common across sectors, such as diversion of salaries from the ministry to the worker, the ways that this happens and the ways that it can be stopped, can be very different from one sector to another. These sector differences are often bigger than the corruption differences between one country and another. Sector corruption issues also share much similarity internationally, to the point where there are now sector-specific international collaborations and sources of expertise: in mining, in defence, in education and in other sectors. There is much to be learnt from comparing the corruption experiences in one sector in one country with the same sector in another country.

SECTOR DEFINITION

When we talk of sectors, we mean the separate structures and functions through which national life operates. ‘Structures’ includes the legislature, the judiciary and the civil service. ‘Functions’ includes public sector functions(the health sector, the education sector, police services, public financial management, public procurement, state-owned enterprises, etc.), economic functions(telecommunications, mining, construction industry, shipping, etc.) and the multiple public-private systems that span both public and private (sport, infrastructure projects, national heritage, land & property, etc). Our classification of economic sectors comes, with adaptation, from the Industrial Classification Benchmark.

We consider private industry as a sector, in addition to considering its role within each of the functional sectors. We also pragmatically consider sub-national governmentas if it were a sector, though it shares the multi-sector responsibilities of a national government. This is because the specificities of tackling corruption in local governments, especially in cities, often have more in common with other cities and local governments around the world than within their country.

If ever there was a contest for the most over-used word in language, ‘strategy’ would be on the short list.

The word came originally from the Greek word for ‘leadership in a military context’, and war has been the source of much thinking about leadership, as in how to conceive and craft a successful strategy against your enemy. You may have read quotes from the 6^thcentury BC Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu (advocating strategies of insurgency and deception)[1], Genghis Khan in the thirteenth century AD (strategies of attacking the psychology of the enemy population through rapid manoeuvre and terror) and 19^thcentury western thinkers such as the German Carl von Clausewitz (strategy is the employment of battles to gain the end of war).

Sticking with the military understanding of strategy for a little longer, the US definition of military strategy has some helpful elements for us: these include concentrating your resources, surprising your opponents by unexpected actions, and simplicity (not making complex plans, so they can be thoroughly understood).[2]

‘Strategy’ has long since permeated the world of governments, civilian organisations and companies, and in doing so it has become more sanitised. It tends to be used now to mean the overall programme of activities to achieve a desired objective, presenting these as simply a mechanical set of actions for getting from point A to point B.[3]This is a pity, because the essence of the original meaning – how to achieve something that will be resisted – is important.

We suggest that you think about your strategy in three parts

[1]The book attributed to Sun Tzu, ‘The art of war’, has thirteen chapters that together act as guidance on strategy: Laying plans, waging war, attack by stratagem, tactical dispositions, use of energy, weak and strong points, manoeuvring, varying tactics, moving forces, situational positioning, incendiary attacks, use of spies. See Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War

[2]See Wikipedia on military strategy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_strategy.

[3]Bureaucracies have a habit of squeezing the ‘conflict’ aspect out of project proposals. As a result, the final strategy consists of little more than wish-lists of technical actions that are unlikely to achieve the desired outcome. This problem is especially common in corruption reform, where organisations often present their reform strategies as technocratic, whereas in fact they ought to be recognising possible conflict in shifting power away from the status quo.

You can most probably operate this plan within your Ministry and independent of the rest of your government. This might be the best way to proceed, if for example your Ministry is doing much more than others, or if the rest of government has other priorities. It is also possible that the rest of government does not yet have a strategy or is taking its time. In this case, we suggest that you go ahead regardless. On the other hand, countries have shown they can make progress via a more coordinated effort. For example, Poland is one country that has made significant progress against corruption in the period 2005-2013 (see diagram); one of the Ministries that led these efforts was the defence ministry.

There are several angles to this linkage with national government that you should consider. First, alignment across government:

• Alignment across government: You will probably have a greater chance of success and sustainability if your efforts are aligned to a wider government effort. This is especially the case if the government has got a broader anti-corruption plan running and is pursuing progress on it across the whole of government. In this case you will need to ask your project management unit to link up with the various cross government coordination activities.
• The quality of the national anti-corruption strategy. Most national anti-corruption strategies are of rather poor quality (see Pyman et al 2017, Pyman et al 2018). There have also been recent calls from the G20 for the countries at the ‘top’ of the CPI to set up robust national anti-corruption strategies (see here)
• The presence of a full-time cross-government coordination unit. Governments are always limited in personnel, and they often look to set up anti-corruption strategies without any champion and without any coordinating or monitoring unit. If your government has such a unit, then do engage with them. If it is all being done without dedicated personnel, probably better to press ahead on your own.

The text for this snippet should be added here, the title of the snippet is not used, so if you want to add a heading, add it here…

As a header in the Snippet body

Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Quisque vel mollis magna, ut suscipit ligula. Proin congue, dui ac iaculis fermentum, purus nunc pulvinar ligula, nec dignissim justo ex sed ex. Praesent blandit enim dui, sed tincidunt lacus ullamcorper id. Morbi eu ex ac quam semper ullamcorper. Nulla at urna consequat, faucibus ante et, interdum metus. Integer consectetur efficitur nibh, ut venenatis nisl placerat at. Aliquam ultrices sagittis orci non fermentum.

• Duis a diam erat.
• Phasellus pellentesque tempor urna, vitae semper nibh cursus sed.
• Maecenas erat mi, dapibus a aliquet ac, tincidunt vel turpis.
• Praesent cursus feugiat eros, id blandit nisl mattis id.
• Suspendisse et vehicula quam.