Civil Society Anti-Corruption Report –

The Portfolio Committee On Public Service and Administration

Parliament, 26 March 2003

1. Introduction

"Civil Society must be educated to regard itself as an equal partner with the public sector institutions, and citizens must jointly take steps to uphold the moral fabric of our society."

- Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference, 1998

Governments commitment to combating corruption is welcomed and indeed it has become rather commonplace to hear public sector officials, both elected and appointed, take position on what must be done to tackle graft. Public Sector anti-corruption initiatives which are vigorously implemented, with the support of the executive are something not to be taken for granted and should be supported. The private sector in turn, we are told, is also waking up to the role it plays in challenging business as usual – as corporate governance issues increasingly make their way on to the agenda, so too do private sector consulting firms offer research and opinion of what ethical norms of practice are expected from the private sector.

Increasingly, however a passing observer may ask why is it that Civil Society trails in setting the anti-corruption agenda in South Africa – measured at least against government sponsored anti-corruption initiatives. Does this simply reflect a pro-active public sector, has the traditional agenda setting role of Civil Society been usurped by the Public Sector, or are the reasons perhaps more complex. A recently released study by the Centre for Civil Society at the University of Natal indicates that by 1999 South Africa had as many as 98 000 Non-Governmental (NGO) and Community Based Organisations (CBO). What are these organisations doing – or not doing - to tackle corruption in all spheres of governance, including the third sector? This paper will attempt to tackle some of these issues, however they have to be seen within the context of the role that many CSO’s have had to struggle with post-1994: the ability to be critical of injustice while supporting a democratic system of governance which has came to represent freedom from apartheid era tyranny.

How does one confront allies in position of legitimate authority who are involved in corrupt activity without being seen to question the integrity of our fragile democracy– particularly given the sensitivity of some members of the executive to allegations of corruption? CSO’s – as well as the media – are confronted with the dual challenges of promoting necessary dialogue with government (and the private sector) to promote transparency, while having to fulfill the role of a critical partner in that debate. As will be discussed, the National Anti-Corruption Forum (NACF) could prove an important vehicle for promoting dialogue between Civil Society and the Public and Private Sector - necessary if corruption is to be effectively tackled.

This paper will examine some of the activities of organisations which grapple with these issues as well attempt to assess their relative achievements. Furthermore, national sectoral and cross-sectoral anti-corruption initiatives will be highlighted where CSO’s have the potential to play a key role. Corruption has also blighted the reputation of many not for profit organisations and this is briefly addressed. Lastly a set of recommendations are made as to how both CSO’s and the NACF can be made more affective in combating corruption.

2. What is the potential contribution of CSO’s in fighting corruption?

By its very nature Civil Society is a dynamic force, and is often much more adapt to change than counterparts in the private sector, or public sector bureaucracy for that matter. Although CSO’s often fulfill a myriad of different functions, let us look at four roles which CSO’s have the potential to fill in order to combat corruption:

1. Promoting Accountability

Civil Society can play both a creative role in promoting democracy by educating and _socialising citizens into a democratic modus operandi which includes for example ethics training, and secondly, by remaining critical and vigilant of the state apparatus lest it abuses its monopoly on power. CSO’s can ensure that a state remains accountable to its citizens, in this way sustaining democracy. No democracy is possible when the institutions of civil society simply act as conveyor belts of the ruling part ideology. Because of their independent and autonomous nature CSO’s can play a role in checking and balancing the power of the state.

 

2. Blowing the Whistle

One of the more obvious roles which civil society actors can play in fighting corruption includes a critical monitoring "watchdog role" to promote public sector accountability and service delivery. The media are particularly well placed as an organ of civil society to do this. CSO’s may also choose to "expose" corrupt practice by either the public or private sector (or a combination of both) by working closely with the media to ensure that ‘the story is told’.

3. Promoting Service Delivery

In terms of promoting service delivery, the international research community as part of civil society has played a crucial role in fighting corruption in this area. Service Delivery Surveys (SDS) which monitor consumer satisfaction with basic services such as housing, healthcare, transport, water have been conducted in a number of countries to monitor the nature and extent of corrupt practices which occur within these systems.

4. Sharing resources in the fight against corruption

Often civil society has resources and the capacity that the state does not. This resource dependency is drawn from a situation where government relies on specific expertise which a CSO has – often not monetary by nature but rather reflective of their close association with a particular community, understanding of very specific local context or independent research expertise. These are ‘skills’ which the public sector can choose to tap into should it wish to increase its capacity in fighting corruption.

3. CSO Anti-Corruption activity

South Africa is fortunate to have a number of CSO’s which have as their primary focus, or one of the their top focus areas, that of promoting transparency and accountable governance. It has been suggested that in the past one of the challenges facing these actors is that they often do not know who is doing what and this possibly indicates the need for more active networking amongst these organisations working in the following areas:

1. Advocacy

• The South African ‘Promotion of Access to Information Act’ (POATIA) and the ‘Protected Disclosures Act’ (PDA) have given SA what is considered ‘state of the art’ whistleblowing legislation. The Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC) was established during 2001 to offer training and advisory services on this important new legislation. This legal advice centre is an initiative of the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (IDASA), in partnership with the University of Cape Town Law Department and the Black Sash Trust. Civil Society activists involved in establishing ODAC also made substantial contributions to the drafting of the act through a parliamentary submission process. ODAC offers training and assistance on the why, how and what of putting in place a Whistleblower Policy, as well as tailor-made training on the PDA and POATIA. ODAC is currently under contract to assist, and to offer training to the Public Service Commission nationally on the PDA and the implementation of a whistleblowing mechanism in the Public Service. ODAC also launched a hotline in 2002 to assist whistleblowers in the process of disclosure.

3.1.2 Transparency South Africa (T-SA)

• As part of an international network of NGO’s working to promote systemic reform, Transparency South Africa (T-SA) is the only national NGO with anti-corruption efforts at the core of its activities. Operating from Braamfontein, T-SA has great potential to be a key in mobilising CBO’s and NGO’s active at a local level to become "watchdogs". This would no doubt be welcomed by many organisations once TSA completes its current process of internal reorganisation. With access to international good practice from other NGO’s, a board of directors and patrons who are influential in shaping the anti-corruption debate, and a good network particularly amongst CSO’s.

• The PSAM, based at Rhodes University is a provincial initiative, which follows individual cases of reported misconduct in the public sector in the Eastern Cape and makes its findings public – particularly through its publicly accessible website. Since its inception in 1999, PSAM has developed a searchable internet-based database, which is regarded as an innovative approach and has drawn much attention both locally and abroad as a model to emulate. Although respected by many in the provincial government, much of the whistleblowing and subsequent monitoring activity is regarded with suspicion by some quarters of the public sector in the Eastern Cape. It released a survey in 2002 of Public Officials Perceptions of Corruption in the Eastern Cape which gauged officials’ perceptions and experience of corruption. Shortly after the release of this report government intervened to deal with what some consider to be rampant corruption in certain provincial government departments.

• The PIMS is an Idasa programme based in Cape Town with a focus on advocacy, research and training and has contributed to the development of legislation combating corruption and promoting accountability. Most recently PIMS has been particularly active on the issue of political party funding- working together with the ISS and other CSO’s in exploring new ways in which to regulate private of funding of political parties. Concurrently it is involved in gaining access of private funding from both political parties and private donors working together with ODAC.

1. Research

3.2.1 The Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR)

• The Center for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) conducts research including a specific focus on corruption in the South African Police Service (SAPS). It was one of the only Civil Society organisations to publicly question a decision to close down the Police Anti-Corruption Unit in January 2003 – thereby forcing members of this dedicated unit to merge with the Organsied Crime Unit. They now work side by side with members of the same unit that was under investigation by the Anti-Corruption Unit.

3.2.2 Institute for Security Studies (ISS)

• Although academic institutions and CSO’s such as T-SA (in co-operation with the Community Agency for Social Enquiry –CASE) have undertaken sporadic research work, the ISS is the only applied policy research organisation with a dedicated anti-corruption programme that also has a regional focus. Located in Cape Town, the Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Programme has undertaken an expert panel survey on the perceived nature and extent of corruption in South Africa as well as authoring a review of anti-corruption agencies in South Africa and numerous papers with relevance to combating corruption in SA. The ISS also regularly proposes strategies for the public sector to combat corruption more effectively including comment (and submissions where relevant) on policy and proposed legislation. Currently implementing a three year donor funded project with a focus on anti-corruption diagnostics, the ISS is also establishing an electronic resource center which will hopefully contribute to the capacity of NGO’s to ensure both effective advocacy work, but also promote research into corruption both in South Africa, the SADC region. The corruption programme also organised a seminar on the issue of regulating private funding of political parties (a possible vehicle for corrupt activity) in November 2002 on behalf of a campaign group also consisting of the SACC, Idasa and Black Sash. The ISS is also currently completing the South African edition of Transparency International’s National Integrity Study (NIS) in co-operation with Transparency-South Africa.

• Central to community life in many parts of South Africa, faith based organisations have been involved in some of the networking initiatives amongst CSO’s.

• The NRLF is constituted of representatives of all major faith communities in South Africa . Represented on the NACF, the NRLF used the opportunity of its bi-annual meeting with the President to raise its concern with the very slow progress the NACF had shown in taking up its activities. This contributed to the Minister of Public Service and Administrations involvement in attempting to reconstitute the NACF in late 2002. Although not directly involved in anti-corruption initiatives the NRLF promotes many ethical values associated with combating corruption through the activities of its constituent members.

• Furthermore faith based organisations were well represented at the government initiated Moral Regeneration Summit which took place in May 2002 and also focused on the need to combat corruption. The Summit, which also saw the launch of the Moral Regeneration Movement (MRM) followed the 1998 Moral Summit, where former President Nelson Mandela spoke of the need for an 'RDP of the Soul'. The MRM is now planning provincial initiatives, which will specifically look at establishing partnerships to combat corruption.

4. Membership organisations

• Organised labour the world over has a rich history of promoting whistleblowing amongst its membership. In South Africa, when exploring this issue with activists it appears that very little is being done to educate workers of the role they can play in whistleblowing and the protection afforded them by recent legislation. This despite a detailed submission made by COSATU (the Congress of South African Trade Unions) on the Open Democracy Bill. The reason for singling out Unions amongst membership-based organisations is that they have the potential to be a key partner in CSO anti-corruption work, with an organised membership that accounts for a large percentage of this countries workforce employed in the formal sector – they are a key partner to involve. It should be noted that Unions are well represented as amongst the Civil Society members of the NACF.

• The South African National NGO Co-alition (SANGOCO) has over 2000 members and is the largest membership based NGO body. Other than developing a specific code of ethics for NGO’s it has also adopted resolutions at an NGO week in January 2001 which amongst other promotes the idea of establishing an anti-corruption hotline specifically for NGO’s as well as other initiatives to combat corruption including an ombudspersons office to deal with complaints of corruption with the Civil Society Sector. According to SANGOCO there has unfortunately been little follow-up on these statements of intent and it has thus far also been impossible to monitor the implementation of the NGO code of ethics.

3.5 A silent majority of ‘other’ actors?

• Singling out the handful of CSO’s with a specific focus on anti-corruption issues is a relatively easy task, but may only give us part of the picture. There is likely to be good work which is being done in the in the field which we know little about – these are the stories of a local CBO which is attempting to hold a crooked council official to account for irregular expenditure in a rural community which receives scant national media attention – regardless of the nature of the story. There are in fact probably many NGO’s that are involved in aspects of anti-corruption activities such as whistleblowing, demanding access to information or ethics training but who see combating corruption as a task undertaken by government agencies. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many NGO’s are concerned with the effect that corruption has on development . Corruption is seldom seen as the single biggest developmental concern rather one that will ultimately undermine efforts by NGO’s to promote social justice.
• A recent IDASA/Co-operative for Research and Education (CORE) survey of ‘the State of Civil Society in South Africa’ notes that 62% of respondents run programmes and projects in an area defined as "Transparency and Governance". This was three percent less than those working specifically with "democracy" related issues and performed substantially better than "Land"(44%) and "Housing" (43%). Who are these organisations and what are they doing – the experiences of such CSO’s may provide rich material of good practice from other organisations in South Africa and the region to draw on. These organisations could also be included in an organic database, managed by the NACF, which would provide a structured approach towards sharing information of what is happening in the field.

Perhaps the single biggest source of whistleblowing – the South African media continues to play an important watchdog function - exposing abuse of power by the private and public sector in particular. Often accused of only seeking to sensationalise a story to ensure newspaper sales, South Africa is fortunate to have a largely free press which has – albeit with some difficulty – weathered the allegations of being "unpatriotic" or harbouring a more sinister agenda when tackling the abuse of public office.

A recent survey quoted in the press reveals that Civil Society is responsible (excluding the media) for uncovering 18.4% of corruption in state structures, the official process (government) 60.2% and investigative journalism only 8.4%. Although this is a clear indication of government’s commitment to combating corruption – it should be remembered that although investigative journalists only contribute a small part of the number of reports these are often the ‘politically sensitive’ cases that would otherwise struggle to come to light.

Increasingly also, and perhaps reflective of what is happening on the ground, the press are reporting on "good-governance" related stories. However one gains a sense when engaging sectoral actors such as the Media Institute of South African (MISA) that journalists are often under pressure from both interest groups as well as those who are alleged to be involved in corrupt activity to report the "right angle" – a task which is unlikely to be made easier with the growth of media ‘monopolies’. Another concern raised by commentators is the pressure placed on some journalists regarding reporting on the controversial arms deal. Political pressure is also likely to exacerbate the practice of not following up on stories for which the media is often criticised (i.e. a ‘sensationalist’ style of reporting on allegations of corruption.)

Diversity of representation in the media, both in terms of the gender/race/class make-up of commentators but also in the terms of promoting alternative voices is essential to ensure that the next generation of journalist are well-balanced and informed, as well sufficiently independent to be critical of corrupt practice. In a telephonic interview MISA indicated that it would welcome efforts to build the capacity of journalists to responsibly report on corruption related issues.

2. Sectoral Initiatives

As previously indicated there have now been two CSO National Anti-Corruption Summits as well as a number of regional workshops organised by TSA in the run-up to the most recent Summit. When viewed somewhat critically it is unclear what these meetings have achieved other than networking. Broad resolutions were accepted at the most recent summit against which deliverables will be difficult to measure. Sectoral initiatives have the potential to be a catalyst for developing a network of CSO’s active in combating corruption, who share both experience and actively co-operate in reaching mutually defined goals. This however requires a level of commitment from CSO’s and a shared vision of clearly defined goals which are to be achieved – a feature which appears to have been lacking in recent discussion. The National Anti-Corruption Forum (NACF) could be key in achieving this aim.

3. Cross-Sectoral Initiatives
1. National

When the Minister of Public Service and Administration spelled out her vision for the National Anti-Corruption Forum (NACF) in Langa in June 2001,as not a "fancy talk shop, but rather as a very powerful body...an institution (which) will reflect new ways of organizing networks..." – she could not have realised just how wrong she would have been proven within the first year of this bodies existence. Blame for this should be equally borne – including by Civil Society.

However, as earlier indicated it was partly through intervention from the National Religious Leaders Forum (NRLF) that the NACF has been reconstituted. One of the issues, which Civil Society – given its size and scope- still needs to grapple with is a mechanism to ensure that civil society representatives on the NACF are accountable to the sector, they represent. At the NACF meeting held on 21^st November 2002 it was agreed that the Civil Society would meet before the end of January 2003. This meeting was never called and has as yet not taken place. The responsible person transferred from the civil society sector to business.

It would no doubt be helpful to facilitate a meeting between key civil society stakeholders including those explicitly involved in combating corruption. This could provide an important network linked to the NACF and thereby both assist in guiding and supporting NACF initiatives.

Should financial resources be dedicated to an NACF Secretariat it could provide the locus point for involving Civil Society in this process.

2. Provincial

Civil Society organisations in the Eastern Cape were for a short period of time part of now defunct provincial Network Against Corruption (NAC). This body created in 2000 to "promote clean governance in all organs of state in order to improve service delivery in the Eastern Cape", could provide a model for cross sectoral good practice which involves CS as a partner. Membership was drawn from the following representatives of the legislature: the Presiding Officers, Chairpersons of Committees, Chairpersons of Standing Committees, Head of the Petitions Office as well as representatives of all other stakeholders which have an interest in fighting corruption. Essentially an attempt to involve NGO’s and oversight/anti-corruption bodies (i.e. the SIU, AG etc.) in ensuring that the legislature effectively deals with corruption, the NAC may have been a victim of its short lived success. Nevertheless it provides an interesting model of CSO intervention at a provincial level, which may well require further research to ascertain if this would also prove an effective model for replication at either provincial or at local government level.

6. Mobilising and Monitoring – a challenge for Civil Society

The fall-out from multi-billion dollar South African arms procurement deal has clouded the South African political landscape. Opposition political parties used the opportunity, rather predictably, to make political mileage out of the issue but somewhere in the hoo-hah the voice of Civil Society (other than the media) was lost. With perhaps the exception of a few NGO’s who questioned the morality of massive weapons procurement by a government confronted by few threats and widespread poverty amongst its citizens, the allegations of corruption were never seriously picked up as an issue by Civil Society. This may rather speak of the function, which many civil society functions don’t fill, that of monitoring allegations of corruption. Systemic reform, informed by independent research is an imperative for the public (and private) sector to be successful in fighting corruption. However, when CS monitoring does not take place (with perhaps the exception of the PSAM in the Eastern Cape) a key actor is removed from the frontline of sustained, whistleblowing leaving behind political parties (with their own agenda’s) and the media which often lacks the necessary resources –and grassroots public support - to tackle the issue in a sustained manner.

Civil societys’ lacks cohesion in its approach to corruption is exacerbated by a concern of being seen as overly critical (by government) that seldom leads to any sustained action on the issue. The allocation of resources is central to securing social justice in South Africa – and this alone should be reason enough for the issue of corruption to be one of the major rallying points for CSO’s as is the case in many other countries. Corruption threatens democratic gains, impedes development and further skews the divide between rich and poor. Any social movement does not emerge overnight. However, as the Treatment Action Campaign, through its alliance with COSATU and with a leading personality like Zakkie Achmat at the helm, has shown in its battle with pharmaceutical companies and others - civil society can be a force to be reckoned with.

7. Corrupt as a phenomenon affecting civil society

CSO’s although often performing a watchdog function are often afflicted by corruption from within. This sort of news is less likely to receive much media attention unlike high profile cases involving public sector officials – with some

exceptions such as that of Rev. Allan Boesak who defrauded donor funds provided by the Foundation for Justice and Peace. Generally however, these stories are perceived to be less newsworthy possibly enabling CBO’s to act with less fear of media scrutiny. CSO’s are in part regulated by the requirements of the Non Profit Organisations (NPO) Act as well voluntary codes such as the SANGOCO code of ethics adopted in September 1997.

A suggestion made within SANGOCO is the establishment of a Civil Society Ombudsperson’s office to act as a resource for NGO activists wishing to raise allegations of corruption. CSO’s will never be free of graft and the recent case of a trade Union activist who allegedly fleeced the South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union of R14 million shows – there are rich pickings to be had in the not-for profit sector.

Although there is little indication of what percentage of CSO’s have implemented effective mechanisms to minimise internal corruption (such as an internal reporting structure and mandatory code of ethics) some initial survey work has been completed. According to a survey undertaken by T-SA, the Public Service Commission and KPMG 88% of CSO’s surveyed have a Code of Conduct comparing favourably with the same figure in the Public Sector and 80% in the Private Sector. Nearly three quarters (72%) of CSO’s also indicated that they have a reporting mechanism to protect employees who report ethical or legal violations (the score for the Public and Private sectors is 80% and 71% respectively). This is an indication that many CSO’s have taken measures to increase internal accountability particularly in financial management. The King 2 report has also had a major impact on governance in non-profit organisations.

8. Key CSO Challenges

As discussed earlier a number of key tasks decided upon at the Civil Society Anti-Corruption Summit have not been realised. This may in part reflect a failure by T-SA and SANGOCO for various reasons that perhaps reflect the problems of the non-profit sector in South Africa at the present time. These include:

• the bleeding of leadership skills from the civil society sector to business and government has been severe. Many leadership figures who learned all they know in the NPO sector have been grabbed by business, the various legislatures and structures of government and the administration;

• the diversion of donor resources from civil society organisations to bilateral government to government agreements as well as a general reduction in the proportion of aid monies flowing to South Africa since the demise of apartheid;

• civil society organisations have their own very specific areas of concern and, while corruption is often an issue, it does not feature as a major problem in the work they are doing. They are more concerned with government inaction and inertia in the fields in which they work.

9. Recommendations and Conclusion

This paper has attempted to outline the positive impact many civil society organisations have made in combating corruption. This can be measured through their contribution in policy discussions, research expertise, monitoring, awareness raising and assistance in keeping the issue of corruption on the public agenda, despite a host of pressing competing needs. Helping to stimulate debate on what ‘ethical norms’ should be, in a democratic society left morally bankrupt by apartheid is no doubt an unenviable task. However it is appears clear that CSO’s, despite the good contribution made could do much more in combating corruption. The trick will be in all sectors of society being comfortable and in fact encouraging critical civil society engagement. In this ideal situation CSO’s act as watchdogs but also attempt to engage with, and welcomed to seek dialogue by, the public and private sectors concerning broader systemic approaches to combating corruption. The NACF, if made workable could be the platform for achieving this.

Beyond what may be considered a long-term goal the following recommendations may be considered to promote CSO participation in combating corruption in South Africa:

1. Political Will

Combating corruption is central to any broad developmental goals and CSO’s should be encouraged to include anti-corruption measures in there activities. Combating corruption effectively will require the political will from CSO’s to do so – this is a necessary requirement to ensure broad ownership of the issue, and not only a few ‘expert’ organisations.

2. Knowing who is doing what

There is little evidence of what many NGO’s and CBO’s are doing at a local level to combat corruption – research is required outlining not only who is doing what but also sharing this information amongst other CSO organisations. The previously mentioned HSRC/TSA database could provide the foundation for an organic database which could be managed by the NACF providing an overview of who all the CSO actors are active in this field. Good practice is a tool that can stimulate CSO’s into considering new approaches to combating corruption.

3. Building CSO capacity

A lack of resources, expertise and skills is detrimental to CSO involvement in anti-corruption activity. The NACF could play a role in looking at ways in which CSO’s could be supported to ensure broader involvement by their organisations in combating corruption.

4. Building CSO Anti-corruption capacity

Whistleblower training, media workshops and information regarding new anti-corruption initiatives (i.e. blacklisting guidelines and prevention of corruption legislation) should be encouraged. CSO’s have great potential to act as ‘multipliers’ throughout society and have the ability to reach citizens who not only belong to an elite strata of society. CSO’s can make an important contribution to raise public awareness of what can be done to combat corruption – essential if one wishes to avoid the emergence of a cynical electorate.

5. Internal Accountability

NGO’s and CBO’s in co-operation with donors should be encouraged to ensure that internal anti-corruption measures are effectively implemented.

6. Grow the networks

CSO’s need to utilise existing networks to ensure that corruption keeps it place on the national agenda as well to encourage co-operative research and advocacy campaigns. Nationally CSO’s have a role to play in ensuring that initiatives such as the NACF are functioning effectively. This will require greater co-operation amongst CSO’s on a sustained low-key basis (i.e. not only high profile sporadic conferences)

7. Monitoring implementation

The measure of success for any new piece of legislation (such as the Prevention of Corruption Bill) or policy document (such as cabinet endorsed National Anti-Corruption Strategy) must be effective monitoring of implementation by civil society institutions. This is not only likely to give real affect to these documents but also lends them a sense of legitimacy, as they become instruments with which the public actively engages.

8. What next – the role of research

Appendix 1:

X. Strategies to combat corruption

1. Build stakeholder forums at local level to share information and report corruption and mal-administration
2. Build Networks Against Corruption, situated in the provincial legislature, to share information and report corruption and mal-administration in provincial departments and facilitate the oversight function of legislature standing committees
3. SANGOCO (national, provincial and local offices) to take responsibility for implementing and monitoring the SANGOCO code of conduct and to establish a database of cases of corruption involving their own members, members of the public sector and the private sector in their locality
4. Set up independent research and monitoring groups to collect information on cases of corruption and mal-administration to share this information with SANGOCO affiliates. An example is the Public Service Accountability Monitor in the Eastern Cape, which has set up projects to monitor individual cases of corruption, the performance of public service departments, and to advise citizens of their rights to proper services, the responsibilities of officials and mechanisms for reporting poor service and corruption.
5. Establish a campaign to encourage the public to blow the whistle on corruption and nepotism and to report all cases to the media.
6. To lobby government for the review of the national electoral system and to adopt alternative processes that establish greater accountability and right to recall of elected public representative

XI. Resources required to implement strategies

7. TSA and SANGOCO to facilitate the provision of financial resources.
8. TSA and SANGOCO to promote establishment of Networks Against Corruption in national parliament and provincial legislatures.
9. TSA and SANGOCO to facilitate the establishment of stakeholder forums and programmes
10. SANGOCO to regulate and monitor member NGOs.
11. SANGOCO and TSA should be responsible for the dissemination of information on relevant corruption cases to member organizations.
12. TSA and SANGOCO should be responsible for educating people on role of Chapter 9 institutions and South African Constitution and Bill of Rights.
13. SANGOCO and TSA ensure that their members be part of interview panels for posts within government departments and NGOs.
14. SANGOCO and TSA to provide capacity building for data capturing, research, advocacy and lobbying, reporting of cases of corruption to media, to capacitate organisations of civil society with monitoring, evaluation skills and case-handling skills on corruption.
15. Raise community awareness about existing institutions through the mass media, e.g. radio.
16. We should struggle for the popular management of state assets.
17. Civil society should share information on corruption.
18. Every sector should take responsibility for fighting corruption, i.e. civil society, government and the private sector. Where government fails to combat corruption, civil society should assist government in disseminating information, implementing policies and empowering communities.
19. We should have community awareness on laws that combat corruption and corruption prevention mechanisms.
20. We should encourage community involvement in anti-corruption activities so that we build community empowerment.
21. Infrastructure should be provided in rural areas so that we have community empowerment.
22. We need community report backs on what causes corruption to ascertain whether the system is working.