**6. Why has corruption persisted in our communities despite numerous efforts against it?**

A lot has been written about corruption as there exist several endeavors at global, national and local levels to fight corruption, but these measures fail to achieve set goals leading to the persistence of corruption. These reasons for the persistence of corruption include:

Williams [41] argue that the use of mere rhetoric without actions was identified as one of the reasons for the persistence of corruption. Several attempts and strategies have been put in place across the world by international organizations such as the G20 Osaka Leaders' Declaration (2020), transnational bodies, individual countries and institutions to fight corruption. However, another school of thought by Hutchinson et al. [42] believes that these strategies have had fewer actions than rhetoric. Their report on fighting corruption in the health sector notes that there has been much talking with very little action. This they argue is responsible for the persistence of corruption.

#### *Media and the Uncertain Fight against Corruption DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107827*

Lack of political will is also cited as key in frustrating the fight against corruption because the political classes, including those in charge of the government, are believed to be key beneficiaries of the vice. Hutchinson et al. [42] blame a lack of political will to enforce the arrest and prosecution of the corrupt, especially on the political class who practice grand corruption. Faisal and Jafri [43] believe this failure by the political class to clean their own house has made them resort to arresting small government officials who practice administrative corruption involving a little amount of money while those stealing in billions and trillions are left to enjoy and in some cases, the powerful perpetrators offer support and protection to the small perpetrators, hence the persistence of corruption at all levels.

The absence of true democracy, coupled with a bad political system in a country, has been identified by Rose-Ackerman and Palifka [44] as being responsible for the setbacks always encountered in the fight against corruption. They enumerate other reasons for the persistence of corruption as being the size and structure of governments, democracy and the political system of a country, economic freedom/ openness, the quality of institutions, salaries of the civil service and culture of a given community among others. A big cabinet with many unnecessary bodies most of which are set to reward political supporters end ups duplicating work and devising means of defrauding the public and levying multiple taxes on the citizens to maintain their statuses and power. In the thoughts of Rose-Ackerman and Palifka [44], liberalized economy with no or very little state intervention is also a great breeding ground for corruption as the rich can connive and hoard certain supplies and overcharge the people for the little available ones. This can be worsened in a situation where civil servants are paid meager salaries when they preside over huge government resources. To make ends meet, they can resort to corrupt means to enhance their pay, thereby promoting corruption as seen in Uganda and many developing countries.

However, Rose-Ackerman and Palifka [44] believe that Press freedom and that of the judiciary is very instrumental in the fight against corruption. When the media is legally freer to investigate report and agitate for the tackling of corruption without being curtailed by unfriendly laws such as libel, defamation and slander among others, they would expose corruption and call for action without fear.

According to Cai and Zhu [45], this also means the judiciary should be allowed to independently adjudicate corruption-related cases without being directed by the political class and the wealthy, whereas Faisal and Jafri [43] believe that failure by the state to take stringent actions against the corrupt has also motivated and encouraged the corrupt to continue practicing corruption since there is no deterrent factor or punishment for it.

The use of old and ineffective strategies to fight corruption besides adopting generic approach to fight all forms of corruption irrespective of their varying levels of effectiveness has not helped arrest the situation either. Clarke [46] points out that, 'the current legalistic anti-corruption measure for health systems, such as prohibition, criminalization, legal reform and capacity building, are not up to the job, and it seems likely that this is the case in other sectors where anti-corruption interventions have also been spectacularly ineffective'.

To reduce the incidences of corruption as discussed above, the use of mere rhetoric or use of words of mouth without taking serious action against the corrupt, lack of political will, use of old and ineffective strategies to fight corruption, absence of democracy, absence of press freedom, the bad political system in a country and the meager salary of the civil service should all be addressed.
