It was a step unprecedented in the modern Saudi state’s history when it openly declared its determination to fight corruption differently and strikingly three years ago. It was not a simple mission, but it is not impossible, so long as the political resolve is there anyway.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has already revealed that the estimates suggest that ten percent of the money spent by the government every year is embezzled and unjustly taken, money that was appropriated for developing the country and the citizen. It is not an exaggeration to say that in Saudi Arabia the anti-corruption campaign is a heated battle led by the Crown Prince, one which garnered global attention for the boldness of the decisions being taken and their implementation, which will prevent anyone who is entangled in illicit enrichment from escaping accountability and punishment, no matter his rank and influence.
The danger of corruption lies in its soft prevalence and arguments for acquiescing to it, but it is dealt a deadly blow when efforts to confront it are made sustainable and institutionalized. Thus, here, the difference is made. Transparency, for example, suffocates corruption and dissipates the environment from which it develops in social awareness. This formula requires concerted efforts between state and society.
Serious global attention is being paid to fighting it. Though countries stand out, they are all working to curb this dangerous phenomenon whose contagion has spread in industrialized and developing countries alike. Praising what some states are doing to fight corruption is natural, as it pushes in the direction of obliterating the behaviors, concepts and practices, which, over time, become pervasive and tolerable customary practice that society gets used to and grudgingly accepts as a deeply ingrained part of its social structure, which means distorting social life, devastates the national economy and squanders rights.
The experience Saudi Arabia is undergoing today entrenches a new status quo and demonstrates that it is on the path of reform, radical solutions and calling things out by their name. Some are oblivious to the procedures and decisions being taken by Saudi Arabia on this important issue although it generated immense momentum, fortified the state's image and protected public money from embezzlement.
Some praised the Saudi move, while others interpreted it the way they wanted to and in line with their stances and political agendas, which has become an exhausted and futile practice. We are interested in presenting the issue objectively and realistically, conveying the image without adding a filter and abiding by the proverb: “He who saw is not the same as he who heard.” So, as neutral western media and activists have been saying and suggesting, we can put Saudi Arabia in the position that befits of its efforts, evidenced by Transparency International’s 2019 reports, which indicate that Saudi Arabia moved up seven places in the Corruption Perceptions Index’s global ranking.
Corruption leads to deficiency and division in social life and its development, reflects a state of disconnect among social classes and makes social relationships empty and bleak on the inside, because inequalities and the absence of social justice ravage the social structure.
The firm approach is not a slogan circulating among Saudis today. Instead, it is a material transformation in the methodology adopted by the state in dealing with any group that crosses the red lines by committing criminal acts. The aim of all these actions is to move towards the path of a modern civil state that applies the rule of law and ensures social justice. It is an anti-corruption awakening, though its success or failure is determined by the ability to root out the roots of this epidemic.
The efficacy and efficiency with which the issue of corruption is being dealt with in Saudi Arabia today, in my opinion, stems from the fact that it is not being addressed with ad-hoc decisions, but methodologically and measuredly, amid careful monitoring and the provision of evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which is done within a particular framework and an unchanging approach that has no contingencies and grants no exceptions to anyone. No one is above the law, as the Crown Prince emphasized in an interview with Thomas Friedman.
It is evident that at an earlier stage, corruption and illicit profiteering were natural consequences of not activating the supervisory bodies. Their role was limited or not as strong as it should have been. The deficiency, the way I see it, is administrative and legislative. It can be solved by establishing a clean and fair administrative and financial environment and clearly defined and stringent regulations that apply to everyone.
We must admit that confronting corruption before November 4, 2017 was different from what it has become since, as evident in the public and media’s positive engagement praise.
The current state of affairs deserves to be reflected upon and admired for the efficacy of the role being played by the new Control and Anti-Corruption Authority that emerged after the Control and Investigation Authority was merged with the National Anti-Corruption Commission. Observers can feel professionalism and high performance, and it is hoped that the legislative and legal gaps will be filled.
Our memories are brimming with the developments, especially with the battle’s initiation three years ago, when princes, ministers, judges, military officials and others were questioned. Since then, it has become commonplace to read about the issuance of official statements concerning suspicions of corruption cases and their referral to investigation and then to the judiciary if the charges were proven. Yesterday officials were referred for retirement, dismissal or investigation within the ongoing campaign’s framework for ridding out its disastrous effects, which are hindering development, stability and progress.
While the world was waiting for the coronavirus storm to abate, the anti-corruption winds were blowing again in Saudi Arabia, reiterating that change is not circumstantial, but a strategic decision tied to the state’s supreme interests and people’s aspirations.
