Only action against corruption can solve the world’s biggest problems(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Only action against corruption can solve the world’s biggest problems
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/aug/19/action-against-corruption-russian-sanctions-oligarchs-alexei-navalny
13 comments
This is one of those things westerners say to make themselves feel better: corruption is what the foreign oligarch are perpetrating. Considering that the Afghanistan war was used to funnel 2 trillion dollars to the military industrial complex at the cost of tens of thousands of civilian lives (not to speak of the Iraq war), it's pathetically chauvinistic to keep focussing on the ghost of foreign corruption, of which one is served with information with the greatest confidence from the absolutely most biased source imaginable.
I would go one step further into the abstract and change this to "Only action against abuse of authority can solve the world's biggest problems"
We have come, or returned to, or never moved away from a point in history where "with great power comes great responsibility" exempts those it should matter most for.
We have mega-corporations that are responsible for significant chunks of the environmental damage caused over the last few decades, and others that could change the trajectory of these things.
We have trillion dollar companies that just keep growing, swallowing up competition and their centibillionaire owners that go to space for fun, while their workers live off of minimum wage and food stamps.
We have politicians that will to their dying breath defend the rights of those who fill their pockets instead of those they represent.
We have police officers that discriminate, provoke, steal, assault and kill and face no consequences.
Where's the responsibility? Where's the accountability? There is none. We hand out all this power, be it legal, social, financial, material or whatever, and we ask for nothing in return.
Corruption is the beast that does most of the damage. The power that certain key parts of the machine hold entirely free of responsibilities and outside pressure is what is keeping the beast alive.
We have come, or returned to, or never moved away from a point in history where "with great power comes great responsibility" exempts those it should matter most for.
We have mega-corporations that are responsible for significant chunks of the environmental damage caused over the last few decades, and others that could change the trajectory of these things.
We have trillion dollar companies that just keep growing, swallowing up competition and their centibillionaire owners that go to space for fun, while their workers live off of minimum wage and food stamps.
We have politicians that will to their dying breath defend the rights of those who fill their pockets instead of those they represent.
We have police officers that discriminate, provoke, steal, assault and kill and face no consequences.
Where's the responsibility? Where's the accountability? There is none. We hand out all this power, be it legal, social, financial, material or whatever, and we ask for nothing in return.
Corruption is the beast that does most of the damage. The power that certain key parts of the machine hold entirely free of responsibilities and outside pressure is what is keeping the beast alive.
All those things are manifestations of corruption. Lobby is corruption.
> special category of “countries that encourage corruption"
Unfortunately, the US and China are at the tip-top of the list.
In the US it is done very, very cleverly: corruption is explicitly legal.
China keeps corruption illegal, then uses it as carrot and stick to keep party bosses in line: play ball, all is forgiven; balk, and the abuses become Crimes against the People.
Russia and Brazil would like to be up there too, but just haven't enough money. Nobody else has either. (I don't know how India works.)
Unfortunately, the US and China are at the tip-top of the list.
In the US it is done very, very cleverly: corruption is explicitly legal.
China keeps corruption illegal, then uses it as carrot and stick to keep party bosses in line: play ball, all is forgiven; balk, and the abuses become Crimes against the People.
Russia and Brazil would like to be up there too, but just haven't enough money. Nobody else has either. (I don't know how India works.)
The thesis that corruption is a root of other higher profile problems is a reasonable one, and the suggestions for combating it also make sense.
Even without considering the global links in corruption, though, we can ask "Why do countries stay corrupt, given that nearly everyone would prefer less corruption?" and there are answers that still readily available: Firstly, there is seemingly a game-theoretic drive towards being corrupt if you see others succeeding through corruption; and secondly, corruption succeeds as long as there is the political will for it to continue.
So in some sense, the problem of corruption can be reduced to the problem of electing non-corrupt leaders. This has important implications in terms of valuing electoral systems that truly represent the wishes of the population (and don't, for example, devolve into a "lesser of two evils" political gridlock), and it confirms the simple observation that in a country which is a dictatorship, the dictator will engineer the system of corruption around themselves, but it also hints at a problem where corruption is so endemic in a society that all voters accept that their politicians will be as corrupt as them, especially if they've been let down in the past.
For this latter problem, though, I can't help wondering if a valid strategy would be for a political candidate to say "Vote for me and I will be extremely corrupt, enriching myself and my family at the country's expense, but I will also root out all corruption among office holders lower than the national parliament/congress." (This strategy is reminiscent of one used famously and successfully on a British game show[0]). So police and doctors and mayors would all be fully investigated for corruption (based on an anonymous tip-off system, and undercover sting operations) meaning the average person's experience of corruption would be greatly reduced. It would then be a job of a future leader (or a later term) to remove the deliberate loophole and make the laws apply even to the highest offices.
There are a few potential problems I can see with this system, but I think they can be mitigated. Firstly, there is no guarantee that the candidate suggesting this approach will actually implement it if elected, but there is a financial incentive to prevent untaxed bribes so that the candidate has more tax revenue to embezzle for themselves. Next, it is possible that a candidate might want low level corruption so that all potential challengers are equally tainted and can't campaign on the basis of their own integrity; however that requires a lot of speculative long-term thinking that most corrupt leaders aren't particularly good at. Finally, there is a risk that an anti-corruption campaign is merely used as a smokescreen for arresting political enemies, so there would have to be safeguards built into the program, such as requiring video evidence and randomly chosen juries.
[0] https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2014/09/30/split-or-steal...
Even without considering the global links in corruption, though, we can ask "Why do countries stay corrupt, given that nearly everyone would prefer less corruption?" and there are answers that still readily available: Firstly, there is seemingly a game-theoretic drive towards being corrupt if you see others succeeding through corruption; and secondly, corruption succeeds as long as there is the political will for it to continue.
So in some sense, the problem of corruption can be reduced to the problem of electing non-corrupt leaders. This has important implications in terms of valuing electoral systems that truly represent the wishes of the population (and don't, for example, devolve into a "lesser of two evils" political gridlock), and it confirms the simple observation that in a country which is a dictatorship, the dictator will engineer the system of corruption around themselves, but it also hints at a problem where corruption is so endemic in a society that all voters accept that their politicians will be as corrupt as them, especially if they've been let down in the past.
For this latter problem, though, I can't help wondering if a valid strategy would be for a political candidate to say "Vote for me and I will be extremely corrupt, enriching myself and my family at the country's expense, but I will also root out all corruption among office holders lower than the national parliament/congress." (This strategy is reminiscent of one used famously and successfully on a British game show[0]). So police and doctors and mayors would all be fully investigated for corruption (based on an anonymous tip-off system, and undercover sting operations) meaning the average person's experience of corruption would be greatly reduced. It would then be a job of a future leader (or a later term) to remove the deliberate loophole and make the laws apply even to the highest offices.
There are a few potential problems I can see with this system, but I think they can be mitigated. Firstly, there is no guarantee that the candidate suggesting this approach will actually implement it if elected, but there is a financial incentive to prevent untaxed bribes so that the candidate has more tax revenue to embezzle for themselves. Next, it is possible that a candidate might want low level corruption so that all potential challengers are equally tainted and can't campaign on the basis of their own integrity; however that requires a lot of speculative long-term thinking that most corrupt leaders aren't particularly good at. Finally, there is a risk that an anti-corruption campaign is merely used as a smokescreen for arresting political enemies, so there would have to be safeguards built into the program, such as requiring video evidence and randomly chosen juries.
[0] https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2014/09/30/split-or-steal...
> "Why do countries stay corrupt, given that nearly everyone would prefer less corruption?"
A hypothesis to answer your question: https://m-g-h.medium.com/in-data-we-trust-2978dacc8c22
A hypothesis to answer your question: https://m-g-h.medium.com/in-data-we-trust-2978dacc8c22
Maybe, but so far there is no World government and every nation should deal with their own corruption(or cease to exist) - Venezuelans, Russians and Afganis are RESPONSIBLE for their own problems and if the most of Afganis want Taliban rule(and have accepted them peacefully) or if the most of Russians want mafia state, then it is not up to others to correct them - maybe just bar them off and let them enjoy what they dream of. At least US has done one sensible thing, that they are leaving Afganistan - even if that does not look good - they did everything by the book what other empires did by not allowing to form nationalistic states based on ethnicity, like it happened in Europe 100 years ago(all in the name if current mantra of keeping all borders as they are). Maybe divided Afganistan would have chance to develop their own way, but now it is Pakistani expansion of taliban/paki(for those unaware, paki means pure) ideology.
Navalny is not speaking for all Russians, even if he is on the same path as Nelson Mandela. Besides, there is slight problem, that even Navalny does not comprehend as a naturally chauvinistic and also naturally imperialisticly minded Russian, who thinks about keeping as much as possible remnants of Russian empire - corruption free Russia can't exist in current borders - actually, a corruption free Russia is oxymoron, because Chechnya without corrupted Russia would not be part of Russia - they exist there, because Putin is giving them support and money. And if Chechnya is let to go, then borders of Russia will shrink very quickly to what was Muscovite state. That would be a catastrophe to Russians and that is why most of Russians intuitively does not agree to what Navalny is offering. Russians want Tzar - not eradication of corruption and possibly destruction of Russia and erasing of Russian identity.
Navalny is not speaking for all Russians, even if he is on the same path as Nelson Mandela. Besides, there is slight problem, that even Navalny does not comprehend as a naturally chauvinistic and also naturally imperialisticly minded Russian, who thinks about keeping as much as possible remnants of Russian empire - corruption free Russia can't exist in current borders - actually, a corruption free Russia is oxymoron, because Chechnya without corrupted Russia would not be part of Russia - they exist there, because Putin is giving them support and money. And if Chechnya is let to go, then borders of Russia will shrink very quickly to what was Muscovite state. That would be a catastrophe to Russians and that is why most of Russians intuitively does not agree to what Navalny is offering. Russians want Tzar - not eradication of corruption and possibly destruction of Russia and erasing of Russian identity.
> Chechnya without corrupted Russia would not be part of Russia ... And if Chechnya is let to go, then borders of Russia will shrink very quickly
You seem to be saying "Sure, maybe things are bad under Putin, but if Russia had a less corrupt leader then it would fall apart into chaos overnight." You may genuinely believe that, but it sounds a lot like the sort of propaganda that a corrupt leader would try to indoctrinate his populace with, preying on the sort of psychological biases that give rise to Stockholm Syndrome and emotionally manipulative relationships.
For comparison, I believe that the Chinese government convinces much of its population that multi-party democracy leads to chaos and civil unrest, so having a one-party state is the only way to deliver unity and prosperity. Other authoritarian countries settle for pointing at a common enemy to convince people that the leader shouldn't be challenged and free speech should be suppressed.
> Venezuelans, Russians and Afganis are RESPONSIBLE for their own problems
That's a really unhelpful thing to say. You are correct to the extent that the people in a country have the collective duty to fix their problems, but it's unfair to suggest that they are morally culpable for all the disasters that occur in those countries. Firstly there are natural disasters which occur in countries, and historic problems which pre-date the birth of most citizens, but also we can't assume that a government reflects the will of the people if there is electoral manipulation (or no elections at all).
To give just one example, you say "if [] most [] Russians want [a] mafia state", but in the 2011 legislative elections, Putin's party won less than 50% of the vote, despite widespread cheating in their favour. To suggest that most Russians wanted that outcome is blaming the victim, and ignoring the huge power imbalance that makes it very hard to effect change in that country, or even to be accurately informed about that government's failings.
You seem to be saying "Sure, maybe things are bad under Putin, but if Russia had a less corrupt leader then it would fall apart into chaos overnight." You may genuinely believe that, but it sounds a lot like the sort of propaganda that a corrupt leader would try to indoctrinate his populace with, preying on the sort of psychological biases that give rise to Stockholm Syndrome and emotionally manipulative relationships.
For comparison, I believe that the Chinese government convinces much of its population that multi-party democracy leads to chaos and civil unrest, so having a one-party state is the only way to deliver unity and prosperity. Other authoritarian countries settle for pointing at a common enemy to convince people that the leader shouldn't be challenged and free speech should be suppressed.
> Venezuelans, Russians and Afganis are RESPONSIBLE for their own problems
That's a really unhelpful thing to say. You are correct to the extent that the people in a country have the collective duty to fix their problems, but it's unfair to suggest that they are morally culpable for all the disasters that occur in those countries. Firstly there are natural disasters which occur in countries, and historic problems which pre-date the birth of most citizens, but also we can't assume that a government reflects the will of the people if there is electoral manipulation (or no elections at all).
To give just one example, you say "if [] most [] Russians want [a] mafia state", but in the 2011 legislative elections, Putin's party won less than 50% of the vote, despite widespread cheating in their favour. To suggest that most Russians wanted that outcome is blaming the victim, and ignoring the huge power imbalance that makes it very hard to effect change in that country, or even to be accurately informed about that government's failings.
The problem being that its normal every day people who are corrupt: supporting wars and spewing CO2E and then crying its all the fault of big oil...
> and then crying its all the fault of big oil...
To be fair, most normal every day people aren't lobbying the government for weaker environmental protection[0], while receiving tax subsidies for polluting[1], and funding climate-denial propaganda[2].
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/19/big-oil-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/23/uk-has-b...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-...
To be fair, most normal every day people aren't lobbying the government for weaker environmental protection[0], while receiving tax subsidies for polluting[1], and funding climate-denial propaganda[2].
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jul/19/big-oil-...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/23/uk-has-b...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jun/30/climate-...
If they knew how much money there was to be made in that, they would be lining up like no tomorrow.
See: bitcoin.
See: bitcoin.