Conflicts of interests: Collette Schulz-Herzenberg

ENDLESS media accounts of conflict -of-interest situations among public officials reveal two broad failures of SA’s integrity management system. First, in the unregulated grey zones numerous opportunities for unethical conduct remain. Second, where regulations do exist they are often ineffective.

The first trend is seen with great regularity in media reports, where conflicts of interest are confused or equated with actual corrupt or unethical behaviour. In reality, conflicts of interest should be understood as a situation, not an action. Public officials may find themselves in a conflict situation without behaving corruptly. In other words, a conflict of interest does not refer to actual wrongdoing, but rather to the potential to engage in wrongdoing. Responsible reporting is mindful of the differences between noncompliance on the one hand and a genuine conflict of interests on the other. Similarly, when a potential conflict arises and comes to the public’s attention, it is an encouraging sign that ethics mechanisms are working. After all, conflicts of interest are an inevitable consequence of the fact that people occupy more than one social role. Attention should rather focus on those individuals who knowingly decline to remove themselves from a dubious conflict situation.

The other trend is found among politicians, who tend to adopt a narrow interpretation of what constitutes conflicts of interest. There is general agreement that bribes, kickbacks and extortion all involve a conflict of interest. Yet, the abuse of influence, such as nepotism, favouritism and misuse of state or public property, also constitute a conflict of interest — but those who hold positions of power are less accepting of these aspects. The ensuing confusion continues to hold up regulatory efforts, and the fight against corruption in the public sector. Until we reach a broad consensus about what should constitute minimum standards of ethical conduct for public officials, a number of activities that are ethically dubious will remain legal.

While the media and journalists play a vital role in holding elected members accountable, they face the same “access to information” constraints as that of the public. There are large- scale differences across government institutions in the ability of citizens to access disclosure records. It seems that mandating public disclosure by law is no guarantee that the public can access this information. Often, requests for information are met with resistance. Even when access is granted, records are not always up to date. Secret disclosure does little for accountability and the detection of conflicts of interest. A far greater commitment on the part of the government to transparency and access is necessary if the credibility of the disclosure regime is to be enhanced.

Source: Business Day