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.
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.