The publication of the Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perceptions Index 2004 aroused a lot of political controversy in Mauritius with, in the forefront, the eternal reality-perception arguments. If reality is fact, perception is fact interpreted ? the two faces of the same coin ? although some contend that it is mere figment of the imagination. Perception may or may not be erroneous but it is certainly as important as reality and people are often judged and sentenced on the basis of perception...

An old and respected Imam of a local mosque, who had spent most of his life-time preaching the word of God to the community around, was in the dock, accused of consuming religiously-prohibited alcoholic drinks. Two ?reliable? eye-witnesses confirmed having seen him drinking in a nearby pub, one Friday afternoon after leading the congregational prayer. They described in the minutest details where he was sitting in the pub, the way he held his glass, the colour of the liquid he drank and even his facial expression after he put down his glass and left, leaning on his grandson?s shoulder.

On the basis of what they saw ? with their own eyes, since they were on the spot ? the two witnesses concluded that the Imam was drinking locally-brewed rum. They were so convincing that the whole congregation felt cheated by the Imam and asked for his indictment. The latter not only refused to defend himself but prevented also his grandson from giving any explanation for his behaviour.

It was only after the Imam?s death that the ?reality? was revealed. On that fateful day, after the Friday prayer, the Imam and his grandson walked straight into the nearest available shop ? which incidentally happened to be also a pub ? and ordered a bottle of fizzy water because the Imam, suffering from sudden acute gastric pain, thought it could provide him with some relief. It did not and he had to lean on his grandson?s shoulder until they reached home. He was to die two months later of stomach cancer.

The story, which leaves every one guessing about the reasons for the Imam?s refusal to deny the charges against him serves, however, to illustrate, in an eloquent manner, the reality-perception duality.

At the launch of the TI Corruption Perceptions Index 2004, on 20th October last, its Chairman, Peter Eigen, described Corruption in important public projects as a ?daunting obstacle to sustainable development (which) results in a major loss of public funds needed for education, health care and poverty alleviation, both in developed and developing countries?. TI estimates the amount lost due to bribery in government procurement to be at least US$ 400 Billion a year, worldwide. This explains Peter Eigen?s statement that corruption robs countries of their potentials.

The United Nations? Millennium Development Goals which were set a few years back aim to halve the number of people living in extreme poverty, by 2015. Every single country has, therefore, the moral obligation to join in the (...) war which is being waged for the elimination of poverty and the struggle for a corruption-free society should be seen as part of that strategy.

Mauritius has shown, in recent years, its political will and determination to come to grips with the problems related to poverty and has initiated several poverty-alleviation programmes. However, it requires more than the establishment of a Trust Fund for the Integration of Vulnerable Groups, which is no doubt doing a commendable job, to really fight poverty. The whole socioeconomic policies of Government should be geared towards the elimination of that scourge. In other words, the Poor should be right at the centre of development or, if you wish, development should be pro-poor.

The TI Corruption Perceptions Index 2004 gave Mauritius a poor rating of 4.1, which brought it down to the 54th rank out of a total of 146 countries, trailing far behind such SADC countries as Botswana, South Africa and the Seychelles. Not a bright performance, to say the least, the more so as we were ?perceived? last year to be doing better.

This perception result has been the cause of much embarrassment to the Mauritian Government and the Prime Minister took the opportunity of a PNQ from the Leader of the Opposition to enumerate the measures taken, including the setting up of ICAC, to curb corruption. Under provocation, he even challenged the Leader of the Opposition to come out with the name of any of his ministers who was allegedly involved in bribery or corruption. He also expressed, in Parliament, his utter disregard to the TI Corruption Perceptions Index 2004, while he stopped short of giving a bad name to Transparency International as an Organisation, and thus avoided shooting down the messenger.

What is the TI Corruption Perceptions Index (TICPI) and how is it arrived at? The TICPI is described as a poll of polls, reflecting the perceptions of business people and country analysts, both resident and non-resident. It draws on surveys carried out by independent institutions generally known for their objectivity...

In the case of Mauritius, the following three Institutions were the sources tapped for the Corruption Perceptions Index 2004:The Country Risk Service and Country Forecast of the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU); The risk ratings of the World Markets Research Centre (WMRC); andThe Global Competitiveness report of the World Economic Forum (WEF).

The first two Institutions based their findings on Expert Staff Assessment while the third one surveyed Senior Business leaders of both domestic and international Companies.The EIU survey dealt with the misuse of public office for private (or political party) gain.

The WMRC was interested in finding out the likelihood of encountering corrupt officials, ranging from petty bureaucratic corruption to grand political corruption.The WEF worked on the undocumented extra payments connected with various government functions.

The political class and the public officers are those directly responsible for the negative corruption perception index attributed to Mauritius by the well-respected Transparency International. We have heard the timid voices of politicians, both in Government and in the Opposition. The deafening silence of the accredited representatives of the civil servants, usually prompt to react, is quite worrying as is the absence of reaction on the part of our national ICAC. Could it be only a question of? perception ?