by Matthew Olapade
There was widespread controversy a few years ago when former President Goodluck Jonathan said that “stealing is not corruption.” Such a saying quickly became a campaign tool in the hands of the opposition as much as it raised contempt among well-meaning Nigerians who perceived the President’s utterance to be the height of corruption. In years that follow, the former President has had to explain himself. In his explanation, what he had intended to communicate was that calling stealing corruption minimizes the very bad act of stealing, that to call stealing corruption was to beautify it, remodel it so that it becomes less of a crime in its new colouration.
In all truth, if considerable thought is given to his further explanation, it will become clear that this conversation is a serious one that we need to have. Therefore, one of the ways to start the conversation is by trying to understand the semantic and pragmatic workings of language. Language works the way we want it to work. We give it the effects we want it to have, depending on our speech intentions. There is no point digging deep into language theories or linguistic terminologies, but the best way to contextualise this fact is by looking at the literary term Euphemism. A common definition of Euphemism is that it is a figure of speech that pleasantly expresses an unpleasant phenomenon. For example, instead of saying a person is drunk, we can say the person has had too much to drink. Instead of saying a person is dead, we can say the person has passed on or kicked the bucket. In these two examples, what we have simply done is minimize the actual effect of drunkenness and death through the use of Euphemism.
Having given that explanation, we can then make a case for corruption as a minimized version of stealing in the euphemistic sense. We may also want to ask; Are these words in any way synonymous? A ready answer is a yes. They are. But on the other hand, English scholars have told us that there are no perfect synonyms in English. And if their injunction is anything to go by, what it teaches us is that even in the similarity of both words, there are distinctions, contextual distinctions that can only be filtered through careful pragmatic exploration. So, for emphasis, to quickly dismiss the controversies that greeted the former President’s saying is to undermine the synonymous implication of both stealing and corruption. However, contextually, they can be mutually exclusive.
However, this is not an attempt to make way for any word above another, there is also no attempt to exonerate anybody. What this article strives for is to question our psychological perception of corruption which is important because most of the time, we consciously or unconsciously politicise the two words in conflicting ways so that our attitude to either of the words and their usage becomes bias and one-sided.
Earlier this year, I was in a conversation with a friend. In our conversation, he complained about a cooperative society his parents were part of and how in his same word “the thief who called himself the leader of the cooperative society stole all the money in his possession and travelled out of the country.” As he said this, there was aggressive anger in his voice, a sense of concern that told me he was pained by it. Our conversation slipped to other things. We talked about Nigeria and at a point, also in his words, he said, “the corrupt former governor is just doing what he likes with the money of his state.” In this other saying, there was no energy unlike the first, even when in reality he was aware of a proven case of theft against the former governor in question. It felt normal to him and this perception of normality I was able to infer from his possible unconscious use of the word “corrupt” and the phrase “do what he likes.” In my inference, his choice of words is the euphemistic reality of the excuses we give for stealing. It was a very well-meaning and unconscious way of saying that there is a difference between stealing and corruption. Otherwise, why didn’t he use the same word as he used for the leader of the cooperative society? It may not have been deliberate, but his attitude and choice of words in the first and second expressions reflected his psychological distinction between stealing and corruption.
Sadly, like him, many of us create similar double standards without even realising it. So when somebody in our neighbourhood or organisations steals, we admit it is stealing and psychologically perceive such a person to be a thief. However, the story is not the same when people in the government steal. Even when we know and we are sure that the person has stolen, we may admit they have stolen but psychologically, most of the time, we do not perceive them as thieves. We sing their praises, ask for donations from them and allow them to continue living with us without making them feel the guilt of stealing the way we do to those who have done the same but not in government covers.
There may be other issues around corruption that are not necessarily euphemistic, but the present usage of the word regarding stealing calls for careful observation. Many people may have criticised President Goodluck Jonathan and perhaps will continue to criticise him for saying stealing is not corruption, but if only we care enough to listen to his explanation then we will discover it’s really not. Corruption minimises the crime of stealing and it is even worse than corruption is more often used when we talk about political theft. The word stealing is more conventional outside of politics and that, as it were, is a variant of corruption, a form of bias.
It may be said that the least of what we should be concerned about now is clarifying words, but we should because it is words that guide us and make us act. Therefore, if we have some psychological bias for certain words in a vague way, it will prevent us from acting as we ought to. It carries more weight when we call political office holders that have stolen thieves than call them corrupt. Perceiving and calling them thieves carries some sense of guilt. In fact, in a way, it can impress on our and their psychological awareness in a way in which we will be careful of those we associate with and those we ask for donations, and they are less bold after being fraudulent. Maybe this is the actual way to start things out.
In conclusion, and more importantly, there is no reason why we should have different treatment for the same crime. If people have stolen, whether in government covers or not, such people should be treated and perceived the same way. Thinking of stealing or perceiving stealing to be excusable in certain quarters and unacceptable in another quarter and painting one with euphemism is not in any way progressive. Perhaps, having conversations around the psychology recognition and conception of words like stealing and corruption is one of the first things we need to do in our strive for a true country.