The Moral Wiring of Giving and Receiving

A gift creates a relationship. Sometimes, it also creates a debt.

In Ghana, as in many societies, giving is part of everyday life. People contribute to funerals, support relatives, assist friends and remember those who have helped them. These exchanges build trust and reinforce the obligations that hold communities together.

But what happens when the same expectations enter politics and public administration?

A politician helps a constituent pay hospital bills. A businessman supports a political campaign. A public official is asked to help a relative secure a job. Each act may begin with a genuine desire to help. Yet each can also create an expectation that something will be returned.

The difficulty begins when personal obligations influence decisions that should be made in the public interest.

The question is not whether giving is wrong. It is when the expectation to give back becomes a form of power.

When Relationships Meet the State

Political scientist Peter Ekeh explored the relationship between community obligations and the modern state in his influential 1975 essay, Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa.

Ekeh argued that colonial history helped shape two overlapping spheres of public life: one rooted in community and kinship, and another associated with the formal institutions of the state. His argument examined how these different loyalties can shape political behaviour.

His framework raises an important question for public life: when personal obligations conflict with official responsibilities, which takes precedence?

A public official may be required to treat job applicants equally. A relative, however, may expect special assistance because of their relationship. A politician may want to help a supporter who has contributed money or time to a campaign. The supporter may believe that the relationship deserves a reward.

Helping a relative or supporting a friend is not inherently corrupt. The problem arises when public authority is used to satisfy private obligations at the expense of established rules.

A personal relationship can create a moral obligation. It does not automatically justify the use of public resources.

The Gift and the Obligation

Anthropologist Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan examined this tension in his 1999 paper, A Moral Economy of Corruption in Africa?

He argued that corruption should be studied not only as individual misconduct but also through the social practices and expectations that surround it. His research examined how gift-giving, solidarity, negotiation and the distribution of resources can become connected to corrupt practices.

This helps explain why people involved in the same transaction may describe it differently.

One person may call a payment a gift. Another may see it as appreciation for a service. A third may understand it as the price of securing a decision that should have been made without payment.

The description alone does not settle the matter.

Consider a payment made to a public official after a service has been completed. Depending on the circumstances, it might be a legitimate expression of gratitude or an attempt to influence future decisions. If money is offered to secure a contract, bypass a queue or obtain preferential treatment, calling it a gift does not change its purpose.

The important questions are what the payment is intended to achieve, what the recipient is expected to do in return and whether the exchange compromises an official duty.

The language of generosity can sometimes hide the real nature of a transaction. That is why the relationship between the giver and the recipient matters as much as the money itself.

From Reciprocity to Political Patronage

Politics does not begin and end at the ballot box. In many communities, people also judge their representatives by the help they provide: a contribution towards medical bills, support for a school, assistance to a family in need or a project that improves the community.

This creates an important relationship between the politician and the people. The politician provides assistance, and the community may respond with gratitude, trust and political support.

The career of Kwame Ohene Frimpong, Member of Parliament for Asante Akyem North, offers an example of the role personal assistance can play in constituency politics.

According to the Asante Akim North Municipal Assembly, Frimpong supported the reconstruction of the Agogo Central Mosque, helped fund a classroom unit at Savior M.A. School in Asante Akyem Agogo and led the groundbreaking for a clinic in the community.

These projects addressed community needs and formed part of his reported philanthropic activities. They also illustrate why voters may see an elected representative as more than a lawmaker. The representative may also be expected to act as a benefactor, providing assistance where families or public services fall short.

Such contributions can meet genuine needs and earn public trust. They are not, by themselves, evidence of corruption.

The more difficult question is what happens when personal generosity begins to influence official decisions, access to public resources or expectations of political loyalty.

Political scientist Jean-François Bayart examined how the control and distribution of resources can become closely connected to political power in his book, The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly.

In simple terms, those who control access to valuable resources may gain influence over the people who depend on them. Political relationships can then develop around the expectation that support will bring assistance, while assistance will help maintain support.

This does not mean that every donation, political relationship or constituency project is corrupt. The concern arises when public resources, official decisions or government contracts are used as private rewards for loyalty, financial support or personal connections.

At that point, public office risks becoming a means of repaying private debts.

Frimpong was detained at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport in May 2026, a development confirmed by Ghana’s Parliament. The initial parliamentary statement did not disclose the circumstances or charges. His reported community projects should not be treated as evidence for or against any allegations connected to that detention.

The wider issue is not about one politician. It is about a system in which citizens may depend on individual representatives for help that public institutions are expected to provide.

When access to assistance depends on who you know, who helped you or whom you supported, public service risks becoming a personal favour rather than a public right.

The Boundary Between a Gift and a Bribe

The distinction between a gift and a bribe cannot be determined by the amount of money exchanged or the name given to the transaction. It depends on the circumstances.

Was the recipient already obligated to provide the service? Was the payment intended to secure preferential treatment? Was public authority being used for private benefit? Would the decision have been different without the payment?

These questions move the discussion beyond cultural stereotypes and towards the institutions, incentives and relationships that shape corruption.

Traditional systems of reciprocity are not inherently corrupt. Religious offerings, charitable giving, family support and community contributions can strengthen social bonds and provide essential assistance.

The problem emerges when the obligation to reciprocate overrides the obligation to act impartially.

A public official who awards a contract to a friend because of a personal debt has crossed a different line from a neighbour who contributes money to help a family pay funeral expenses. Both acts involve relationships and obligations, but only one necessarily involves the misuse of public authority.

The distinction matters because treating every exchange as suspicious would ignore the important role that generosity and mutual support play in society. Treating every exchange as harmless, however, would allow personal relationships to become a cover for the misuse of power.

The challenge is to recognise the difference.

What the Envelope Represents

Consider three situations: money given to a bereaved family, a donation to a religious institution and a payment to a public official.

All three involve giving. But their purposes and obligations differ.

The first may express solidarity. The second may express faith or charity. The third may be legitimate compensation in some circumstances, or an improper inducement in others.

Money alone does not determine the moral meaning of an exchange. The relationship, the expectation and the power attached to it matter.

This is where the political question lies.

A society can depend on generosity and reciprocity while also requiring public institutions to operate according to transparent and impartial rules. The challenge is to preserve the social value of giving without allowing personal obligations to determine access to public services, contracts or political influence.

Corruption, therefore, cannot be explained by greed alone, or by culture alone. It also depends on how institutions manage competing obligations, how power is distributed and whether rules are consistently enforced.

Where public services are difficult to access, citizens may turn to people with influence. Where institutions are weak, personal connections may become a practical route to getting things done. And where political loyalty is rewarded with access to resources, the distinction between serving the public and serving a network of supporters can become harder to maintain.

These pressures do not remove individual responsibility. They help explain why rules, transparency and accountability matter.

The Real Cost of Giving Back

The obligation to give back is not the problem. In many circumstances, it is what makes communities work. People contribute because they remember who helped them. They support others because they understand that they, too, may one day need help.

But public institutions have a different responsibility. They must serve people according to established rules, not according to personal debts.

A public hospital should not give priority to a patient because someone knows the person in charge. A government contract should not be awarded because a bidder funded a political campaign. A public job should not go to a relative simply because refusing would cause offence.

These are not arguments against relationships or generosity. They are arguments for clear boundaries between private obligations and public duties.

The central challenge is to build institutions that can respect community ties without allowing them to determine public decisions.

The question facing public life is not whether people should give or receive.

It is whether the obligation to give back should ever take precedence over the duty to serve the public.

‍

Editorial References

• Peter Ekeh, Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa: A Theoretical Statement (1975).
• Jean-Pierre Olivier de Sardan, A Moral Economy of Corruption in Africa? (1999).
• Jean-François Bayart, The State in Africa: The Politics of the Belly.
• Asante Akim North Municipal Assembly, profile of Kwame Ohene Frimpong and reported constituency projects.
• Ghana News Agency, parliamentary confirmation of Kwame Ohene Frimpong’s detention at Schiphol Airport in May 2026.