Mutumwa Mawere

The anti-colonial movement gathered momentum not only because there was a general feeling that colonialism was immoral but the issue acquired weight in the public mind and attracted remarkable individuals who were willing to devote time, creativity and energy towards ending the system.

Although issues of race continue to be central to post-colonial African historiography, it is astonishing how little of Africa's political, social and cultural origins of moral capital is brought to bear on analyses of the contemporary world.

What would Africa have been if colonialism had not visited it? It cannot be denied that settlers had an impact on African societies and economies but equally natives had their own business model that was not dependent on European textiles, iron or firearms.

African concepts of property and the relationship between human beings and property informed the choices made by Africans. The moral capital that was inherited at independence remains the reference point that informs the choices and decisions made in Africa.

Morality in commerce is real and substantial in that it helps enhances security of person and property and promotes the keeping of contracts in commercial activities.

With respect to laws that protect person and property and that enforce the keeping of contracts, it is important that we locate the origins of the moral rules that underpin the construction of capital in Africa as well as the foundation of what we can describe as commercial civilization.

The complex history of Africa has posed a challenge to building a sustainable moral order in which members of the community live voluntarily by the morals that were inherited from the very system that was generally regarded as immoral.

In understanding the commercial civilization of Africa and its rules, the concept of capital has to be unpacked.

Generally understood, capital consists of resources owned by individuals and juristic persons that are applied in the production of goods and services.

The concept of capital can also apply to non-transactional activities and it need not be owned by individuals and firms but can be collectively owned.

This non-transactional form of capital is what conferred advantages to settlers in colonial Africa. It gave settlers a framework and a constitutional order in which race played a key role in its construction and execution.

Morality, therefore, falls within this extended meaning of capital as it can be seen from the viewpoint of the individual and society in general.

Colonial morality had its own challenges in that the beneficiaries from its order had to suspend their sense of general morality to allow for the creation of a dualistic political, social, cultural and economic order that was unjustifiable.

Within this dualistic setting, settlers gained a reputation for trustworthiness that induces others to deal with Africa and this form of capital encouraged more people to consider Africa as a home.

However, to the extent that natives were alienated from property including land and natural resources, they did not acquire the same reputation.

Morality has a bearing on transaction costs. Trading can best be lubricated by a moral order that is reliable and enforceable through self-help or third party intervention in the event of breach of obligation.

At independence, Africans had a choice to make whether to create an order that encourages rule breaking or rule observance.

After more than 50 years of independence, we have to ask whether an investment in moral capital has been made.

To what extent do the rules in post-colonial Africa owe their existence to the moral conduct of the continent's citizens?

On Friday, 2 July as the world was waiting for the historic match between the remaining African soccer team, Ghana, and Uruguay, the world also got the news that South Africa's former police chief, Mr. Jackie Selebi, was found guilty of corruption.

As some people celebrate the conviction of Selebi, a danger exists that his experiences as a post-apartheid state actor whose history and background did not prepare him to hold such a position in an environment that values access to material wealth will not be used to reflect on what kind of Africa we want to see.

The colonial state was interest-based and yet many of the post-colonial actors were placed in the state as a consequence of a civil and political rights struggle.

The transformation of anti-colonial moral order actors into administrators of a state that they were not prepared economically to work for was seamless.

Selebi like many of his contemporaries had a long walk to freedom and yet when they became free they did not have the means to enjoy the freedom.

The piece of legislation that was used to nail Selebi is a post-apartheid construction suggesting that he his comrades were the authors of his demise.

The morality that informs our reaction to corruption has to be interrogated.

What is clear in the Shaik and Selebi trials is that it is no longer safe for any businessman to assist or fraternize with a state actor whose remuneration as a state actor may not be sufficient to support a lifestyle that is generally expected and enjoyed by fellow former comrades who took the decision to join the business ladder.

To who should state actors turn to when they need financial assistance? Is there a case to be made that a negotiated moral capital order has to be crafted to deal with the challenges of constructing a post-colonial order that is zero tolerant on corruption?

The role of the state in prosecuting the national democratic revolution has been recognized as critical and facilitative. The state needs to be capacitated by human capital whose conduct is generally expected to be above the norm.

Human existence is generally corrupt. Human beings are inherently subjective in the choices they make.

They can discriminate and, therefore, can choose who to communicate with and not.

In making the choices, human beings end up favoring people who have access and in so doing corrupt the processes of the state in a manner that we all condemn.

What was the morality of the colonial order? What is the morality of state actors who hold power universally? What was the relationship between state and non-state actors during the colonial era? What was the perspective that informed notions of corruption? How was the vice of corruption handled during the colonial era?

The origins of the moral capital that we now see or want to see in Africa may easily be missed in the confusion of the personal experiences of Africa's post-colonial state actors.

The need to understand human behavior in a holistic sense cannot be overstated.

Every human being wants a better life and many would want to jump a queue while condemning the people who do so.

If a short walk to a bank is more preferable than a long walk to freedom, it is important that the ideology that underpins the post-colonial moral order reflect the challenges of the day.

It is not accidental that the relationship between Agliotti and Selebi has its own racial context.

When Selebi needed help he had no black person to turn to. He may have been naïve to trust his personal relationship with Agliotti as harmless and proceeded to confide in a friend not only what the friend was doing with the intelligence gathered.

People tend to share information with close associates and, therefore, it is always a challenge for anyone to know in a relationship to establish conspiracy without knowing the state of mind of the players.

The convictions of Selebi and Shaik have raised the bar for doing business in Africa and the role of lobbyists in the value chain.

It is time for reflection and not celebration as the victims in the chain will grow daily and the people who preside over such matters particularly in Africa may lack the understanding of the state of mind of a native when he/she interacts with lobbyists.