From good to redemptive: the corruption question demands a different leadership answer

It is an old problem in Kenya’s world and the World Bank has spelt it out in numbers. Its 34th Kenya Economic Update has a special focus on governance constraints to economic growth and job creation.

Its finding is hard to argue with: corruption is making Kenya’s financial difficulties worse, adding costs equivalent to about 2 per cent of the country’s annual economic output. This is money that could otherwise go towards serving Kenyans.

The report also reveals that nearly four in every ten businesses identify corruption as a major obstacle, while almost half of medium-sized businesses say they have to give gifts or bribes to get things done.

When corruption becomes unbearable, even the corrupt begin to complain!

Corruption is opportunities denied, businesses discouraged, public services made more expensive and young people left struggling to find meaningful work. The Bank estimates that ambitious governance reforms could support up to 7.7 million additional and better jobs by 2035. This shows how much is locked behind integrity.

The question, then, is not only what the numbers say, but what kind of leadership can answer them. Here, a distinction between doing good and being redemptive proves useful. Praxis, an organisation working at the intersection of Christian faith, entrepreneurship and societal transformation, describes the redemptive as creative restoration through sacrifice. It proposes three ways of building: exploitative, ethical and redemptive.

The exploitative approach is about taking all one can get. Its underlying philosophy is, “I win, you lose.” It seeks advantage, possession and control. Look again at the World Bank’s findings and you will recognise it: the bribe demanded before a licence is issued, the secret deal that enriches a few and indebts everyone, the tender decided before it is advertised.

The ethical approach moves beyond this. It is about doing things right, playing fair, observing the rules, solving problems and adding value. Its aspiration is, “I win, you win.” The redemptive approach takes the argument further. It is about creative restoration through sacrifice. Its philosophy is, “I sacrifice, we win.” It is motivated by the desire to bless others, renew culture and restore what is broken.

This is a significant progression. It suggests that being ethical, while necessary, is not necessarily the same as being redemptive. One can observe the rules, conduct business honestly, treat people fairly and still do very little to restore a broken system. One can be a good leader without necessarily becoming a redemptive leader. Goodness is important, but there is a further moral responsibility that goodness alone may not fulfil.

Consider public leadership. A government may build roads, construct hospitals, employ people and deliver services. These are good things. Citizens should expect them, and leaders should be held accountable for delivering them. But what if public resources are wasted, communities are displaced without justice, workers are exploited, institutions are weakened and citizens are left more dependent on political patronage? The projects may be visible, but the moral cost is hidden.

A good job is not necessarily a clean job. A project built at an inflated cost or awarded through opaque arrangements is not merely an administrative irregularity. Its moral foundations are questionable. The ribbon is cut, the speeches are made, and the bill is quietly passed to a generation that was never consulted.

Citizens should not have to choose between good delivery and clean governance. They deserve both. When public resources are used responsibly, trust becomes a natural possibility. And trust, once restored, is itself an economic asset: citizens pay what they owe without resentment.

In redemptive thinking, leadership ceases to be merely an exercise in acquiring, exercising and retaining power. It becomes a responsibility to use power, resources, imagination and influence for the restoration of human flourishing.

The Christian story is fundamentally redemptive. Jesus announces a mission that includes good news to the poor, freedom for captives, recovery of sight to the blind and liberation for the oppressed. His mission is not simply to make life more comfortable for those already enjoying its benefits. It is to enter situations of brokenness and announce, demonstrate and initiate restoration.

The ministry of Jesus also gives us a particular understanding of power. Greatness is redefined through service. The Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and give his life for others. This is not an invitation to weakness or an abdication of responsibility. It is a radical reorientation of power: power exists to serve life, not to feed the appetite of its possessor.

A redemptive approach requires integrity in the means, human dignity in the processes and restoration in the intended outcomes. It also requires sacrifice. This is perhaps where redemptive leadership becomes most demanding. Leaders must sometimes surrender personal advantage, political convenience, institutional privilege and even the opportunity to take credit for the good that others accomplish.

In the language of the World Bank’s findings, that means walking away from the kickback, opening the tender to scrutiny, publishing what was once secret and letting independent institutions examine the books, even when the findings are uncomfortable. They must be willing to build institutions that can outlive them, empower citizens who can question them and create opportunities for people who may never vote for them.

Redemptive leadership does not mean that leaders become saviours. No political leader should occupy the place that belongs to God. Neither does it mean that every public problem can be solved through sacrifice alone. Good policies, technical competence, sound institutions, public participation and accountability remain indispensable.

Leadership is guided by a moral imagination that sees beyond immediate gains and seeks the restoration of people, relationships and institutions. Reform without that imagination becomes another document on a shelf; imagination without reform becomes mere preaching.

It is time we moved beyond asking whether our leaders are doing good. We should ask whether their leadership is making good more possible, more sustainable and more widely accessible. We should ask whether they are merely managing existing conditions or transforming the conditions that perpetuate human suffering.

Good leadership delivers benefits. Ethical leadership ensures that the benefits are pursued through responsible means. Redemptive leadership goes further: it restores what is broken and creates conditions for people to flourish.

That is the movement from good to redemptive, and it is the movement that can finally answer a 2 per cent drain on our economy and a far greater drain on our trust.