Comments will be left open on this opinion, until I see reason to close them. That rarely happens. But I shall be ruthless, and arbitrary, with comments that, ahem, don't advance the discussion.
The What
People fairly often say that the development of a (let's not mince words) backward country is hindered by a corrupt government. They also sometimes say that a developed country is held back from the growth it could achieve by corruption. In each case, they are talking about money being extorted by government employees (let's not call them "public servants"). But often in the former case, and occasionally even in the latter, the word "corruption" doesn't really apply, and is in fact an undeserved compliment to that country's government. A different word cries out to be used.
The WhyI readily confess to being a pedant. Am I pedantically asking journalists and opinionators to draw a distinction that makes no difference? No; this time there is a difference, and it applies to the cause of the problem, wherefore also to its cure.
Extortion is inevitable when greed meets circumstances that allow extortion. Trying to make people less greedy has turned out to be a waste of time; one might hope that, as a country grows more prosperous, its people, and its government employees, would feel more comfortable financially, and that this would assuage their greed for money, but in fact many of them still desire more of something, and quite often that thing is money (or can be bought with money). Greed seems to be ineradicable, even by major religions. So a useful remedy to these ills must aim at the circumstances, not the greed. If we call the circumstance we want to change by its true name, and are clear in our minds what it truly is, then we can usefully plan how to change it.
The How
I'll start with the early meaning that gave rise to the use of "corrupt" as a metaphor for a deficiency in government. Don't worry, I'm not going to invoke the word's Latin origin. Many of you have probably heard or read the phrase "where moth and rust doth corrupt". I've also seen "corruption" used to describe the decay of a corpse after burial, and the verb "corrupt" translates what Socrates was accused of doing to the morals of young Athenians. What is the abstract notion behind all of these? Something that was good is being turned bad: the earthly treasure, the healthy flesh, or the children's innocence / obedience.
Corruption is a change for the worse. Rust that doth corrupt is chemically described as oxidation: for example, iron turns into iron oxide. But Australia has gigatonnes of iron oxide, and we do not call it "corrupt iron" or even "rusted iron", but simply "iron ore"; it has been in its oxidized state for gigayears, after all. A corpse wherein worms, maggots and mites are making a meal is quite different from a shovelful of loam where the same is happening: the latter is not "corrupt soil" but topsoil, and those little beasts in fact make it healthier. A wild animal at the age of sexual maturity does not have corrupt morals; it is simply doing its damnedest to mate. We can call something corrupt only if it was once and/or should now be in a better condition.
Now I hope you can see why I regard "corrupt" as being sometimes an undeserved compliment: it implies that a government was once good (perhaps that most of it still is!), or that the people whom it rules have at least a genuine expectation that it will be good. So now I must talk about the origins and evolution of governments.
Gentle reader, I beg your indulgence. You may have heard this part before, but I'm going to write it again, as succinctly as I can. If you're already familiar with the "stationary bandit" story and the rise of Western democracy, good for you. If not, here's a video and a Wikipedia summary. And in any case, please read my condensed version:
- In a farming culture that stores a surplus of food or other goods ...
- bandits descend from the mountains to steal it.
- Gangs of bandits clash; farmers try to defend their food; farmers get hurt.
- A far-seeing bandit chief settles near some prosperous farms and offers to repel other bandits ...
- in exchange for a percentage of their surplus.
- If/when they accept, his interests become intertwined with theirs.
- He offers also to protect them from criminals among their own, and from any of his own bandits who, umm, exceed their orders.
- He forbids them to protect themselves without his approval. Now he's starting to be a government.
In 2024, much of Earth has got at least to stage 7, and most of it to stage 8. But there is further to go. At stage 8, the bandit still takes what he wants, when he wants it; the farmers cannot make him stick to the percentage that was agreed at stage 5. They certainly don't have votes and cannot replace him.
Historically, though, a select few bandit chiefs have been pushed / persuaded / enlightened to rule their subjects with such a gentle hand that technology can advance and the startling prosperity of the modern world (which you, dear reader, probably take for granted) can grow. This prosperity can make the chief's successors far more powerful than less enlightened chiefs who get stuck at stage 8. These successors often go so far as to grant freedoms, even votes, to (some of) their subjects. The bandit gang has truly become what we call a government, and is starting to be democratic.
The trouble is, the path to this level of prosperity and freedom is long, narrow, and bumpy (enlightenment is difficult, oh yes). As I see it, the path can be walked at all only in cultures with very low levels of internal strife. This last point is arguable; what is evident is that many nation-states imitate superficially the institutions of democracy, market capitalism, and so on, but beneath the surface, the bandit stays at stage 8 and rules with a hard hand. (Aside: why are sham elections so widespread? How is "democracy envy" so powerful?
I don't understand.)
Why It Matters
In a genuine democratic government, most of the enlightened ex-bandit's troops wield pens or keyboards, and the goals for which they strive are the security and prosperity of their subjects. They are seriously expected (not least by their chief) to do good for the people, and most of them do. Any greedy ones who extort bribes have fallen short of this expectation. By their greed they have made a good government less good, so they can truly be said to have corrupted it. The remedies for this corruption are well known, effective, and widely used: investigation, publicity, and occasional punishment for disobedience. In short, enforcement of the local norms of good government.
But what of bandits who have stayed at stage 8, with or without sham elections and sham laws that guarantee sham rights? Their goal is the prosperity of the chief bandit. The subjects (who, by now, mostly work on assembly lines rather than farms) accept rule by stationary bandits because the alternative is worse, but they know that, like their parents and grandparents, they must pay bribes if they want to be left alone to get on with their jobs. The bandits are no worse than their parents were, nor any worse than their brothers in arms; they haven't fallen short of what their chief, or his subjects, expect of them. They aren't corrupt in any useful sense of the word, because they never were very good, and the same goes for the government they serve. So we should not call them, or it, "corrupt"; the word just doesn't apply.
Now if well-intentioned foreigners urge on a stage 8 regime the remedies that work in developed countries, they will just waste both time and diplomatic goodwill. Norms of good government don't even exist at stage 8. Everyone already knows what these bandits are doing, so investigation and publicity will change precisely nothing. They haven't disobeyed their chief, so he will see no reason to punish them. Stage 8 is at best an
inchoate government, and asking it to behave like a fully grown one next year is futile. If only we knew how to help it grow up, that would truly improve matters, but as I said, the road is long, narrow, and bumpy.
The Word
There is, of course, a word we can use of these not-really-corrupt governments, and it'll be 100% accurate (albeit 0% diplomatic). Diplomats may speak of "lack of state capacity", but in grim fact, there is no state, just a chief. A simpler term, more widely understood, is the one I've been using all along. The problem a stage 8 country faces, that some journalists call "corruption", is a government of bandits, by bandits, for bandits. Banditry.
