Problems and Purpose

Image 1 Credits: (Isilow, 2018) 

When looking at South Africa, it is clear that good governance and development within the national economy have gravely been constrained due to the vast amount of corruption present within the state. The growth of corruption within the state may be attributed to factors such as the South African political design. With the majority elected party within South Africa being extremely vast and consuming politics, it has been the cause of declining stability and trust within the state’s government officials at all tiers of government. The majority elected party within South Africa has since 1994 been the ANC and due to their self-serving agenda, they have diminished democratic values and principles. Corruption has been defined in numerous ways, however, within this case study it refers to any act taken by government officials/leaders which may be considered an abuse of the position they hold, public power, or public resources. [4] Corruption threatens good governance, erodes public trust, undermines the state’s rule of law, declines the accountability of government officials, as well as jeopardizes government and societal ethics. Effective governance within South Africa thus faces severe difficulty as a result of Corruption. [10] In an interview, the director of Corruption Watch revealed that corruption is not a phenomenon restricted to any social demographic, it is a phenomenon affecting the entire South African nation whether it be in suburban areas or rural areas. Corruption should therefore be viewed as being widespread. [7] 

The design of South African institutions is constructed in a way that should control corruption but does not. For example, the state has a judiciary independent from the executive, media broadcasters are robust in reporting and investigating state matters and civil society participates actively. [3] These are mechanisms that have been implemented and suggested within varying countries as a means to combat corruption, but South Africa as a state rich with these mechanisms remains corrupt. These mechanisms working within other countries and not South Africa bring to question what factors are influencing the extensive corruption within South Africa. [3] 

One of the factors influencing the extensive corruption within the state is the relationship between government officials and businesses. Often South African politicians are bought by business leaders to prioritise business interests during policy development and state decision-making. In doing this, officials enhance their wealth, whereas businesses are prioritised when policies and decisions are made within the state that may negatively influence the private vendor. Public policies aimed at protecting the public thus end up severely influencing state corruption via emanating the need for businesses to have political connections to further their revenue. [3]  

Minimal political competition in South Africa forms the second factor contributing to the immense corruption within the state. [3] South Africa has for decades been able to determine who will be the political party elected by the majority of South Africans within national, provincial, and local government. This certainty stems from the ANC being the largest party within the state and its roots in the liberation of South Africa from apartheid. Businesses and corrupt politicians having this certainty allows for investment into the political party that they will later benefit from. [3] Having political connections within the majority elected party means that the corrupt individuals, be they businesspeople, government officials, or civil society, would now be granted access to exploit public resources for their gain. 

Established in 2012, Corruption Watch has worked endlessly to create a South Africa free from corruption by assuring that those who are responsible for distributing public resources do so in a way that reflects the interests of the public. Corruption weakens government institutions; criminalises the individuals involved and undermines social solidarity. The organisation has thus made it its mission to ensure that all corrupt acts within South Africa are prevented and prosecuted to establish a society that is fortified. Whistleblowing is defined as the unapproved reporting of organisational information regarding acts that may be considered illegal or illicit in terms of a state's rule of law, to an individual or organisation that holds the power to take action against the wrongdoing. [10] By holding government officials accountable, Corruption Watch enhances the quality of democracy experienced within the state, as it fortifies the state's rule of law as a means to establish a just society. Through the encouragement of active public participation in the form of whistleblowing Corruption Watch strives to combat corruption via public accounts of corruption. [1] 

According to Qobo (2023), it is thanks to Corruption Watch that corruption has been placed under a spotlight within South Africa, as well as bringing awareness to the public regarding the dangers of corruption. Qobo (2023) acknowledges that as long as accountability within the state remains weak, Corruption Watch will always have an important part in the anti-corruption fight promoting change within public institutions. By using publicly procured information, Corruption Watch reduces state corruption while holding South African leaders accountable for unconstitutional behaviour. Corruption Watch has created a whistleblowing platform that is safe, secure, and confidential. The platforms utilised are their official website, social media, email, and postal address. By taking this route, the organisation can protect whistleblowers from those who would not have them testify. Once the public has reported acts of corruption, it is the responsibility of the organisation to analyse the information to identify patterns and hotspots for corruption within South Africa. This is followed by the forwarding of the analysis conclusions to state authorities, the media, non-government organisations, and all public bodies which may be affected by the corrupt acts. The purpose of Corruption Watch is thus to combat corruption through the inclusivity and motivation of the public, community organisations, and other organisations such as trade unions [1]. Corruption Watch identified corruption as an act that has severely declined the quality of democracy experienced within South Africa and has a negative effect on the distribution of public resources. The organisation has identified a problem within the state and taken on the responsibility to create a platform for all South Africans to engage and hold those who violate the Constitution of South Africa accountable.

Background History and Context

Image 2 Credits: (Haden, 2015) 

Zwelinzima Vavi, the head of the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), and various COSATU office bearers were in conversation regarding the influx of whistleblowing reports they had received, and this sparked the idea of Corruption Watch. The whistleblowing reports were majority from members of COSATU, but there were instances of the South African public making these reports. COSATU has been very outspoken regarding corruption within South Africa, and they had numerous successful investigations into corrupt activities. The union had seen various negative repercussions as a result of combatting corruption; however, this did not deter their will to address the whistleblowing reports they had received. Due to the scale of these whistleblowing reports, COSATU had acknowledged the need for an institution to address these allegations of corruption, and thus the idea to establish Corruption Watch was brought to light. [1] 

The transformation from South Africa being under the Apartheid regime to South Africa becoming a democracy was a sudden and decisive constitutional break from the past. Despite the developments of the South African constitution, state institutions that were under colonial and apartheid rule remained. What this meant was that due to these institutional designs not changing, a gateway was opened for the development of contemporary corruption. According to the Auditors general, corruption within South Africa is not limited to any sphere of government and results in the decline of service delivery within national, provincial, and local government. The reason behind the escalation of contemporary corruption within South Africa stems from the ANC as the majority elected party in South Africa exploiting the majority they hold within the state to undermine state institutions. This means that the ANC capitalises on the fact that they have had no real opposition in any area of governance and can undermine institutions aimed at assuring that all spheres of government are accountable and transparent within financial matters. The ANC has thus become dependent on the public sector funds meant for essential services as well as government tenders. [5] 

Around the world, corruption has been a phenomenon plaguing society for decades, however how South Africa came to need an organisation such as Corruption Watch is of grave concern. Corruption within South Africa is more than just an issue of vast criminality present within the state. It is a social issue in need of the public to address it efficiently. The strength of South Africa’s police force and its capability to combat corruption is not enough to address the grey area which corruption is categorised into. Corruption may not always be against the South African rule of law but may go against what South Africans would deem as moral in terms of public norms and perceptions. It thus becomes critical for the public to report these instances for further investigation and for them to be addressed by the designated authority. South Africans have been gravely concerned regarding the effect corruption has on the distribution of public resources and it has become one of the great concerns alongside violent crime. [3] The inability of state entities to address corruption efficiently has led to the public influx of whistleblowing which sparked the establishment and necessity of Corruption Watch. 

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Images 3 Credits: (Corruption Watch, n.d) 

Corruption Watch is a non-profit organisation with 19 total funders and partners, however, the organisation is mainly funded by South African philanthropic foundations, as well as private family foundations. The organisation has prioritised utilising South African sources as a means to address the problem of corruption within South Africa. [3] These funds are also utilised for educating the public, legislation submissions, litigation, outreach events, investigation, campaigns, raising awareness, governance, research publications, and policy advocacy. International funding the organisation receives is from the Open Society Foundation and Sigrid Rausing Trust, who have supported organisations aligned with a similar objective to Corruption Watch, both within South Africa and globally. COSATU, business leaders, and South African corporations have all contributed financially towards Corruption Watch’s capital. Corruption Watch has attempted to primarily be funded by South African sources, as the director of Corruption Watch notes that he believes it to be important for non-governmental organisations to steer from dependence upon international funders. [3] 

Being a small organisation with just over 20 operational staff members, Corruption Watch will always be an organisation that does not have enough resources to address the elaborately scaled problem of corruption that they try to combat within South Africa. As a result of its limited resources, the organisation utilises and depends on its relationship with media outlets to leverage the knowledge Corruption Watch gains through whistleblowing to the public. The organisation is also very dependent upon the relationships they create with Non-Governmental Organisations, South African state bodies, and constitutional bodies. These relationships become pivotal to supplementing the lack of resources the organisation faces, as well as creating a large network for the organisation to join and reach out to when necessary. [3] Through outsourcing, Corruption Watch has established a system to efficiently combat corruption, investigate reports of whistleblowing, expose acts of corruption, and assure that the guilty parties are prosecuted. 

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Corruption Watch being an organisation of just over 20 operation staff members means that they do not have the resources to investigate every report of corruption they receive. Considering this Corruption Watch reviews cases based on their definition of corruption and whether it falls within their mandate to act on it. The organisation thus takes on cases that they believe would have the greatest positive impact on the fight against corruption in South Africa. Once a case has been selected through this process, Corruption Watch begins its investigation. The first step is for the organisation to draw comprehensive documentation that includes details regarding the problem areas, the impact it has, and the organisation's recommendations. These documents form what will be presented to government authorities or departments for further action. Corruption Watch then makes sure to take the necessary legal or political action to ensure that the incident is reported to the authorities for further action. The case of corruption and all the necessary documentation are forwarded to a government authority such as the Public Protector or the South African Police Service. It is the responsibility of the Corruption Watch team to add the report to a batch of cases that centre around a similar topic. This is followed by the publication of a report about the case on the official Corruption Watch website to create encouragement for people to whistleblow cases of a similar nature. Information from the case is then referred to a journalist to expose what occurred in the media and encourage anyone with more information to step forward and report it to Corruption Watch or the authority taking the case investigation further. Ought an individual case not fall within the scope of the Corruption Watch definition of corruption and its mandate, the organisation will refer the case to an organisation or government authority with the resources to take the case further. [1] 

Methods and Tools Used

Image 4 Credits: (Corruption Watch, 2016) 

Overarching Methodology  

Through whistleblowing, Corruption Watch utilises information distributed by the public to combat corruption and hold state leaders accountable to their electorate. The organisation has strived to create a South Africa where corruption is no longer a phenomenon plaguing the state. Corruption Watch utilises integrity, transparency, openness, and accountability when reviewing all whistleblowing reports. Through correspondence with diverse organisations, businesses, the public, and state institutions, Corruption Watch assures that all those within South African society, despite their race or social class, are represented by the organisation and will have their reports of corruption listened to, as well as investigated. [3] 

Tools and Techniques 

Corruption Watch communicates. The organisation has created a platform for all South Africans to report acts of corruption or suspected corruption, i.e., whistleblowing. Whether one has personally experienced an act of corruption, or observed it, the organisation has assured that whistleblowers have a secure, safe, and confidential platform. These platforms include their official website https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/report-corruption/ , their WhatsApp number (0825795220), Email ([email protected]), post (Corruption Watch (RF) NPC, 8th Floor, South Point Corner, 87 De Korte Street, Braamfontein 2001 Johannesburg, PO Box 30630 Braamfontein 2017) and social media. [1] 

Corruption Watch investigates. Through careful selection, the organisation investigates reports of corruption with a special emphasis on those reports which run the risk of having severe negative effects on South African society. Once the report has been investigated, the organisation forwards the relevant evidence and findings to an authority that has the power to take the necessary action and monitor every investigated case. Through mainstream and community media, the organisation assures that once the findings have been forwarded to the authorities, they are entirely exposed through Corruption Watch’s investigative work. [1]     

Corruption Watch does research. Through the gathering and analysis of the information provided through whistleblowing, the organisation identifies patterns and corruption hotspots. Once completed, the organisation can prepare the needed report to expose and find solutions to the findings. By utilising Corruption Watch’s communication platforms and the media, the organisation can distribute its research to the public, non-governmental organisations, and public sector entities, such as trade unions which may be negatively affected by the corrupt acts. [1] 

Corruption Watch mobilises. By establishing a campaign, the organisation grants the South African public leverage to stand up against corruption. The campaigns are inclusive of the public, community groups, and organisations such as trade unions. [1] 

Corruption Watch Processes 

Image 5 Credits: (Hutchings/Reuters, 2020) 

Corruption Watch began as an organisation with processes specifically designed to investigate individual acts of corruption reported to COSATU. [3] The organisation was set out to be a civil society shadow police force aimed at investigating reports of corruption they had received from COSATU. Once the organisation had investigated the case to the limitations of its capabilities, it would transfer it to the Public Protector or the South African Police Force. This process would allow for Corruption Watch to follow up and monitor the actions of the Public Protector and the police after they have transferred the case. The utilisation of this specified process grants Corruption Watch the opportunity to be better situated for the demand of answers from the designated authorities and the individuals accused of being involved in corruption. South Africans commonly associate the consequence of corruption with the imprisonment of the parties involved and Corruption Watch sought to aid this process to the extent of its capabilities. However, for the outcome of the Corruption Watch investigative processes to be the imprisonment of the involved parties, the organisation would have to be very selective regarding the cases it accepted to investigate, and it would have to have a good working relationship with law enforcement. [3] 

The processes utilised during the early establishment of Corruption Watch are still of importance and utilised within the organisation, however, the organisational processes have adopted an approach more inclusive of the South African public's experiences of corruption. Corruption Watch has become an organisation amplifying the voice of the public through its whistleblowing initiative. Through the various Corruption Watch platforms, South Africans can confidentially and securely report acts of corruption they have experienced or witnessed. The processes used by Corruption Watch thus make it possible for the organisation to unify the report and information received from the South African public, as well as the material received from the Auditor General’s reports, research institutions such as the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), and the media. This is followed by the process of Corruption Watch analysing the data and identifying patterns and hot spots for corrupt activities. After the investigation and analysis of the report of corruption, the information is then issued back to the public. This grants South Africans the opportunity to act in a way that they believe would be appropriate toward those involved in corruption and the public is further given an opportunity to act collectively against corruption. The public participation of South Africans is not limited to Whistleblowing within Corruption Watch, but as part of civil society, it becomes the responsibility of South Africans to respond to the public report issued by Corruption Watch and provide solutions that they may have to combat corruption. [3] The processes implemented by Corruption Watch centre around holding those who indulge in illegal and illicit activities accountable to the public for the exploitation of public resources and how they do this is through the encouragement of public participation in the form of whistleblowing and providing feedback on reports generated by Corruption Watch. The processes implemented by Corruption Watch centre around holding those who indulge in illegal and illicit activities accountable to the public for the exploitation of public resources and how they do this is through the encouragement of public participation in the form of whistleblowing and providing feedback on reports generated by Corruption Watch.   

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Image 6 Credits: (Henderson, 2016) 

Whistleblowers form a valuable part of South African society, as through their reporting of illegal or illicit activities occurring within the state, they directly enhance the quality of democracy. By providing tipoffs regarding corruption, health and safety risks, coverups, and various issues plaguing the state, whistleblowers assure that wrongdoers are held accountable for violating the South African rule of law. With the fragile state of South Africa’s democracy, by reporting illicit behaviour, whistleblowers grant Corruption Watch the opportunity to investigate and bring an end to illegal activities, and protect the public, and state resources. Whistleblowing is an act of raising concern regarding something that may negatively affect the nation and its economy. It is therefore important that this public participatory mechanism be supported and prioritised by organisations such as Corruption Watch which have the processes to further investigate, analyse, and report cases of corruption to the designated authorities. [9]     

Example 1 

In October of 2012, Greg Dinwoodie attempted on multiple occasions and platforms to whistleblow on Mpumalanga’s JS Moroka local municipality. Dinwoodie is the owner of an import and distribution company known as Selectech. The municipality utilised Selectech for approximately two years as its supplier for water quality testing materials. Dinwoodie had issued the municipality an invoice of R2000 for a pack of 12 glass vials. However, he had received an invoice of R22000 from the municipality, showing a clear overcharge in comparison to his original fee. When in contact with Mpumalanga’s JS Moroka local municipality, he was told he should not worry about it as the error would be corrected. It was revealed that the invoice was for a third-party vendor overcharging the municipality for the basic goods provided and this party would purchase the products from Selectech and Selectech would no longer be the municipality's direct supplier. It became clear to Dinwoodie that this was corruption in the form of bad business practices between the municipality and the party vendor. [9] 

Dinwoodie called the national anti-corruption number multiple times to report the bad business between the municipality and a third-party vendor, but his calls remained unanswered. Despite the obstacle Dinwoodie was presented with, he persevered to try and report the case to the National Prosecuting Authority. His second attempt to report the act of corruption ended up as another dead-end, as the agency had informed Dinwoodie that it does not investigate cases of the nature he described. On the verge of despondence, Dinwoodie came across Corruption Watch. He had attached all the required documentation to report an act of corruption after filling in a virtual report. After countless attempts at utilising state institutions aimed at combating corruption, Corruption Watch was his last resort. The organisation was where he found the necessary investigative and analysis processes to investigate the case. [9] During Corruption Watch’s investigation into the case, it was uncovered that the municipal procurement officer had awarded the contract to her husband who had inflated the price for the 12 glass vials by R20000. Corruption Watch had turned the findings of their investigation over to the procurement manager, municipal manager, and the mayor. However, as weeks passed after Corruption Watch was promised answers regarding the case, the municipality’s public liaison person refused to reveal more information than what she could reveal was limited due to it being an internal investigation. [1]  

Example 2  

Sibongile Mtuki is the deputy principal of Thunelihle Intermediate School in White City, Soweto, however, she was gravely concerned about the quality of school resources issued to students. With half the classroom desks being broken and a fluorescent light hanging on by a wire, she worried about her students who needed to prepare for final examinations. The school’s principal Nonzwakazi Usiba was during this time under investigation by the Gauteng Department of Education for fraud and corruption. The principal who was under investigation for corruption had a close relationship with Isaac Ngwenya, a former school governing body chairman. During Usiba’s period as principal, the school’s finances were in disarray, as the principal's relationship with Ngwenya meant that the principal had direct influence over who was likely to be employed within the School Governing Body and it ended up having Ngwenya continuously re-elected as the chairman despite not qualifying. Educators had written a letter to the School Governing Body district office which was followed by an investigation and the removal of Ngwenya. Only half of the problem plaguing the school was solved, leaving the staff to request the school’s financial records from 2009 to 2011, sparking the whistleblowing to Corruption Watch. [9] 

The school’s deputy principal Mtuki was one of eight staff members whistleblowing the principal's suspected corrupt acts to Corruption Watch in February 2013. Educators felt despondent as school finances were exploited by the principle and his accomplice Ngwenya. Students in need were left yearning for basic amenities to pursue their education and prepare for final exams. This created a powerless feeling amongst educators who longed to see students in a safe environment and to have their interests represented within the School’s Governing Body. These educators turned to the education department for answers regarding the maintenance of their school but ended up finding out that the school receives additional funding from a private funder in Norway for the school to address infrastructure needs. The lack of resources due to the exploitation of school-allocated finances and the inability of the school staff to be heard within the School Governing Body led to an investigation by Corruption Watch into the circumstances surrounding the school's principal, Ngwenya, and the allegations of corruption. [9] 

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Image 7 Credits: (Crime Hub) 

Example 1 

Government structures aimed at addressing corruption within South Africa ended up failing Dinwoodie when he reached out to report the case. Whistleblowing can be a very dangerous process, with the individuals/organisations who are being reported seeking to silence the whistleblower. By the government initiatives portrayed in the media not being able to aid Dinwoodie in holding the municipality and their third-party vendor accountable for their bad business practice, Dinwoodie was placed in danger, and a situation that gravely affected his faith in initiatives aimed at protecting the public. He longed to see good ethical standards within the public service system and for that reason continued to search for initiatives and organisations providing investigation and analysis of whistleblowing cases. Although Dinwoodie acknowledged that the amount overcharged was not millions, he believes that corruption starts somewhere and that these minor amounts could lead to something of a much larger scale. [9]   

Dinwoodie coming across Corruption Watch ended up with him seeing the long-awaited accountability of state officials, for partaking in corruption and exploiting public resources. Through further investigation, analysis, and exposure by Corruption Watch, the case resulted in three municipal employees being suspended. The findings by Corruption Watch are a result of the whistleblower’s resilience and dedication to holding state officials accountable for violating the state’s rule of law and exploiting public resources. Dinwoodie’s report resulted in the implementation of a full forensic audit to occur yearly within the municipality, thus protecting public interest and resources.[9] In this instance, through holding state officials accountable for their transgressions against the rule of law and the establishment of a yearly forensic audit within the municipality, whistleblowing through the organisation Corruption Watch has ended up improving the quality of democracy experienced within South Africa.  

Example 2 

The investigation into the teachers' claims by Corruption Watch commissioned a forensic probe through an independent firm. R134 487.56 was cashed out as 41 cheques to the principle Usiba, however, there were cheques within this batch that did not meet the cheque requisition and had no supporting invoices to prove that these invoices were indeed for feeding the school learners. 10 cheques valued at R41 059.30 were issued to Ngwenya and these cheques had no corresponding invoices. The school had also issued cheques to pay fake invoices issued by unknown individuals to the school, i.e., R48 064.74 for calculators, pens, and other stationery to Solly’s Packaging and Stationery Distributors. Upon further investigation, it was revealed that the invoice issued to the school was indeed not from Solly’s Packaging. Corruption Watch found many illicit invoices received by the school and many cheques paid without corresponding invoices. The findings were forwarded to the Gauteng Education Department which launched its investigation. [9] In this case, whistleblowing educators stood firmly to hold those in charge accountable for violating the South African rule of law. The exploitation of public resources was thus brought to light and with corruption in the school being investigated and ended, the quality of democracy experienced within the state was enhanced via the improvement of children's right to education.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Image 8 Credits: (Cele & Cohen, 2020) 

Participatory democracy is defined as a system that promotes the inclusivity of citizens within the decision-making process of the state. [6] It grants citizens the opportunity to reclaim power and influence over governing decisions that affect their lives. This is done through public participation, as within the citizen participatory mechanisms introduced through participatory democracy, citizens' inputs and views become critical within matters of state governance. Through participatory democracy and public participation, a non-hierarchical passageway opens for citizens and government officials to discuss, consult, and interact in a means that does not feed into the agenda of the political party that currently holds the majority within a state. [6] The citizen participatory mechanisms should therefore be included within public democratic spaces used to discuss public policies and concerns, as it is how the public may influence the decision-making process and contribute towards the overall effectiveness of governmental institutions. This theory applies to the instances of the public participatory mechanism whistleblowing utilised by Corruption Watch to attain information that can be investigated and analysed to hold state officials accountable. In a similar way, the theory assures the accountability of state officials to the electorate via incorporating the public within state decision-making, and so does public participation in the form of whistleblowing holds state officials accountable for their illicit and illegal behaviour within a state.  

A quality democracy in accordance with Diamond and Morlino (2005: xi) is defined to be one that "provides its citizens a high degree of freedom, political equality, and popular control over public policies and policymakers through the legitimate and lawful functioning of stable institutions”. Within a quality democracy, residents' expectations for the governance of the state ought to be upheld, as a good democracy prioritises equality and liberty. Per the rule of law, residents within a quality democracy are given the right to assess whether the government provides liberty and equality that is considered satisfactory. Democratic quality within a state is significantly improved through participation in civil society organisations, citizens' involvement in policy discussions, and the public’s demand for accountability from elected state representatives. Vertical Accountability is the responsibility of elected political leaders to answer for the political decisions they have made when asked by citizen-electors or other constitutional bodies. In terms of the rule of law, a quality democracy assures that state laws are vigorous in terms of assuring that the law is equally enforced, as well as ensuring that corruption within the state is minimized, detected, and punished. [2] Corruption Watch through its whistleblowing processes enhances the quality of democracy experienced within South Africa. The South African Constitution is the rule of law within the state that should be strictly adhered to, to assure that each South African's basic needs are met, that there is equality, peace, freedom, and security, and that factors influencing the standard of living experienced within the state are minimised. When the rule of law within the state is upheld, the functionality of the state flows, government officials can efficiently provide public essential services, the economy is not in crisis and the state sees progress in terms of the quality of life and democracy experienced by all. However, corruption goes against the South African rule of law and when state officials partake in these illicit activities, it reduces public accessibility to essential services. This calls for state officials to be accountable to the public who votes them into office, as without accountability for violating the rule of law, the state will be in anarchy. The public therefore participates to ensure that officials are held accountable and that the South African rule of law is upheld.  

When looking at the case of Greg Dinwoodie’s attempt to get a response from multiple state organisations and platforms as a means of whistleblowing on the Mpumalanga’s JS Moroka local municipality, it becomes clear that when the state failed to protect the quality of democracy within the state, public participation became the means to hold state officials accountable. By remaining resilient to hold the municipality accountable for its bad business practices, Dinwoodie ends up enhancing the quality of democracy within South Africa. Participation, accountability, and the rule of law being the dimensions determining a quality democracy, as well as being the concepts supporting Corruption Watch, it becomes possible to influence the state's quality of democracy. By Dinwoodie being persistent to whistleblow, he was able to ensure that all parties who have violated the state's rule of law, i.e., behaved corruptly, were accountable for their unconstitutional behaviour. The same can be said for the deputy principle, Sibongile Mtuki, and the eight staff members who had taken the case of corruption to Corruption Watch. Corruption Watch has the networks to investigate and analyse the extent of corruption that had occurred within the school and once it was identified, the school was able to rebuild its facilities without illegal invoicing and cheque issuing which declines the funds available for public resources such as desks.  

What can be learned is that the public holds the power within a democracy. There may be a majority elected party within a state that has a national, provincial, and local scope, but this party and the government officials who partake in corruption may only severely decline a state's quality of democracy if the public becomes beneficiaries of governance who wait on the government to provide services which may never arrive. It is therefore important for South Africans to acknowledge public participation in the form of whistleblowing within Corruption Watch. South Africans are given a stable, secure, and confidential platform by Corruption Watch to report acts of corruption. However, these cases will be assessed and prioritised based on the negative effect it has on civil society. It becomes the responsibility of the public to report all instances of corruption they have observed or experienced to have the case investigated. The investigation grants Corruption Watch further context and information surrounding that which has already been provided by the whistleblower. In doing this the organisation can pinpoint patterns of corruption and hotspots, as well as individuals involved in the corrupt activities. Once the report has been drawn, accountability for violating the rule of law comes through Corruption Watch distributing the findings to the necessary authorities and monitoring the progress of the case. Therefore, through whistleblowing it becomes possible to link Diamond and Morlino's dimensions to illustrate how the quality of democracy within South Africa could be enhanced.

References

1. Corruption Watch, n.d. Corruption Watch- fighting corruption in South Africa. Available: https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/ [2023, September 24].  
2. Diamond, L. & Morlino, L. 2005. Assessing the quality of democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 
3. Grould, C. 2012. On the Record: Interview with David Lewis, Director of Corruption Watch. South African Crime Quarterly. 39: 41-46.   
4. Gyimah-Boadi, E. 2002. Confronting Corruption in Ghana and Africa. CDD Briefing Paper. 4(2): 1-6.   
5. Koelble, T. 2017. One-Party Dominance and Public Sector Corruption in South Africa: Consequences of Democracy. In Parties, Governments and Elites. P. Harfs, I. Kubbe. & T. Poguntke, Eds. Springer VS Wiesbaden. 281-300.   
6. Pateman, C. 2012. Participatory Democracy Revisited. Perspectives on Politics. 10(1): 7-19. 
7. Pillay, S. 2004. Corruption- The challenge to good governance: A South African perspective. The International Journal of Public Sector Management. 17(7): 586-605. 
8. Qobo, M. 2023. Mzukisi Qobo: Corruption Watch set to set up the pace of justice. News24.Available:https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/opinion/2023-04-06-mzukisi-qobo-corruption-watch-set-to-step-up-the-pace-of-justice/ [2023, October 28]. 
9. Talane, V., Sedupane, K. & Erasmus, J. n.d. The Whistleblower’s Handbook. Available: https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/reading-and-media-room/toolkits-and-handbooks-2/ [2023, September 24].   
10. Uys, T. 2008. Rational Loyalty and Whistleblowing, The South Africa Context. Current Sociology. 56(6): 904-921. 

Notes

Image 1: Isilow, H. 2018. South African provincial PM resigns over corruption claims. Available: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/south-african-provincial-pm-resigns-over-corruption-claims/1154797 [2023, October 29]. 

Image 2: Haden, A. 2015. South Africa knocks Nigeria off its perch as “most corrupt” African country. Available: https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/south-africa-knocks-nigeria-off-its-perch-as-most-corrupt-african-country/ [2023, October 29]. 

Image 3: Corruption Watch, n.d. Funders and Partners. Available: https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/about-us/people/funders-partners/ [2023, October 29]. 

Image 4: Corruption Watch. 2016. How to stop corruption: key ingredients. Available: https://www.corruptionwatch.org.za/how-to-stop-corruption-5-key-ingredients/ [Available: 2023, October 29]. 

Image 5: Hutchings/Reuters, M. 2020. Corruption: South Africa’s undeclared pandemic. Available: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/7/2/corruption-africas-undeclared-pandemic [2023, October 29]. 

Image 6: Henderson, R. 2016. Survey ‘highlights a marked increase in bribery and corruption in SA’. Available: https://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2016-09-22-survey-highlights-a-marked-increase-in-bribery-and-corruption-in-sa/ [2023, October 29]. 

Image 7: Crime Hub. Corruption. Available: https://crimehub.org/topics/corruption [2023, October 29].  

Image 8: Cele, S. & Cohen, M. 2020. The strike exceeded expectations, the country’s main labour group says. Available: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/south-african-unions-strike-protest-corruption-job-losses-cosatu-b882271.html [2023, October 29].