Can democracy exist without corruption?

**Dougal** · 28-03-2007, 10:14 AM

I spotted this in today's Nation (Wednesday 28th March) and thought it worthy of discussion.

The intertwined bodies of Democracy and Corruption loom over the Kingdom of Thailand.

Their latest showdown looks like anything but. The World, Heaven and Hell gasp in absolute amazement as what started off as an epic battle between the Angel and the Demon seems to be transforming into something beyond anyone's imagination.
Are they still fighting? Nobody can really tell. Each swore to send the other to hell, but now their mutual fiery hatred has somewhat subsided. They have stopped trading blows and their thunderous roars have ended. Democracy is now strangely subdued, and somehow willingly so. Corruption, looking much stronger, surprisingly does not try to finish the job. Instead, his powerful skills of persuasion seem to be all that is at work for the moment, as Democracy struggles to remain conscious and, more importantly, alive:

Corruption: Come and join me, my dear friend. Now you know who's real and who isn't.
Democracy: We are still fighting, aren't we? But who are you? Who am I?
Corruption: That's the whole point. That's what I've been trying to tell you since we started this silly war. I will refresh your memory. I'm the real essence of politics - almost everywhere on earth. You are just something that was imagined by those who don't have the real power. You are always a flash in the pan at best. But forget about all that. We are about to become one, just like we used to be.
Democracy: But I … I can't. This country still has hope and faith. I just can't abandon the people.
Corruption: Who says you have to do that? I'm offering you a way out here. All you need to do is open your mind and accept the ultimate truth.
Democracy: What's the ultimate truth?
Corruption: YOU CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT ME. That's the truth that I've been trying to say all along. Show me a democracy untainted by graft and I will show you that it's only in your dreams. You need me to sustain yourself, dear boy. You need me to finance your progress. You need me to win an election. You need me to keep your political challengers at bay.
Democracy: But there's real goodness in this world. There are a lot of people who are honest, decent, and who never steal or frame others.

Corruption: And who will never be players in politics. Don't you see? Our pact is for the people who really matter. No political power can be maintained through decency. Honesty is democracy's worst enemy.
Democracy: You can't be right. Only through honesty can I live.
Corruption: You've got it all wrong. See what happened to you in Thailand? Things were going so well until some idiots started thinking that a political leader should be as clean as a baby. They accused a popular and efficient leader of lacking honesty and the rest is history. My friend, if you demand that honesty be a prerequisite in politics you are in for a long, vicious coup-election cycle.
Democracy: Are you saying Thailand's democracy crumbled because of the clamouring for graft-free politics?
Corruption: Yes, but I'd rather call it sheer stupidity. And I'm saying it's time you stopped being so ungrateful. I have been practically funding you but what have I got? I'm your guardian angel but I'm called your number one enemy. Do you really think that's fair?
Democracy: You love to twist and distort. You're trying to possess me, just like you did Dictatorship or Fascism.
Corruption: If you don't accept me, Dictatorship or whatever will take your place. Don't get me wrong here; whatever possesses you will strike a deal with me in no time. But trust me, people would rather see me with you. We are a perfect match because we can complement and defend each other.
Democracy: A lot of people will be deeply disappointed in me.
Corruption: Only those who are extremely self-delusional. Many more have adjusted themselves to the reality some time ago. Politics is about grabbing and taking over resources. Governing is just a side issue. You can talk ideologies all you like, but at the end of the day it's all about who gets what.
Democracy: You're quoting a movie again!
Corruption: Nice to see you're warming to this a little. But to tell you a little secret, I think "Star Wars" sucks. No Jedi ever returns. They all become Darth Vader, and Darth Vader they remain for eternity.

Democracy: I'm the last line of defence. You have consumed every other ideology. I'm nothing if I condone abuses and graft.
Corruption: You already have. I'm just proposing that we make it official so that we can spare the world a repetition of the Thai circus.
Democracy: Allowing you to prevail over me would mean that things would go downhill. This is crazy.
Corruption: Going downhill ... are you kidding me? It's already a goddamned freak show out there. The Thai "elite" protesting against corruption called themselves "pro-democracy", but some blame them for your destruction. The poor Thai villagers want to protect their elected, albeit corrupt leader and surely they can be a truly democratic force. A scandal-plagued former leader has portrayed himself as a champion of democracy. A military junta calls itself your guardian. Come on, let's end this nonsense.
Democracy: Supposing I agree, what do I get in return?
Corruption: You will live. When everyone accepts me as a fact of life in democracy, no power hungry generals can take advantage of a little graft here or a little scandal there. You will have your space - elections, the right to assemble, freedom of speech and so forth. Stop believing in fairy tales and we both shall live happily ever after. Now, do we have a pact or not?

And Earth, Heaven and Hell continue to hold their breath ...
Tulsathit Taptim

**Wallace** · 28-03-2007, 11:03 AM

Actually, Darth Vader was defeated by the forces of good. This reads like someone's failed English O level in creative writing. Appalling.

Corruption is a human condition. It has nothing to do with the political system within which political leaders operate. It's harder to get away with in a freer and more open society in which politicians are held to account. Given the poor choices for political systems in the world, democracy's probably better than most at containing it, but that's all. Equating Thailand with democracy is like comparing Zimbabwe with socialism. As long as there is a ruling elite who control everything, you can call it what you like, it's still a dictatorship. It just happens that the dictators in Thailand were very clever at hiding behind a very flawed democratic process.

If the new lot are incapable of removing the cancer from Thailand once and for all then it will have all been for nothing. Plus ca change........

**Dougal** · 28-03-2007, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Wallace

It has nothing to do with the political system within which political leaders operate. It's harder to get away with in a freer and more open society in which politicians are held to account.

I'm not so sure Wallace. Yes, 'democratic' politicians are held to account but they also want to get elected, and as far as I can tell from experience that usually involves bribing the voters in some way, either directly by buying votes at the booth or by offering promises to one group or another i.e. tax cuts. That seems to me to be corruption; by my definition anyway. Dictators or unelected governments are in a better position to root out corruption - if they so desire. Heavy emphasis on that last phrase.

**DrB0b** · 28-03-2007, 11:37 AM

What an awful piece of writing. Did somebody actually get paid
for it? Interesting thread title but the article is unreadable.

I think corruption goes with power, any power - from being a patrol
leader in the scouts to being supreme generalissimo of the country.
It's just a question of what level of corruption, from giving a friend
a job he's not the best choice for to turning a blind eye to murder
to bleeding a country dry to enrich yourself and your cronies
(when you're that powerful
you can longer have friends, only cronies).

The best we can do is try to minimise corruption, I don't think we'll ever
get rid of it completely.

**Dougal** · 28-03-2007, 11:46 AM

^ I've edited it to make it a bit more readable. The writer is obviously Thai so probably needs to be given a bit of leeway on style. It reminds a bit of Plato's dialogues.

But it is the concept of the article that is interesting not the content.

**stroller** · 28-03-2007, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Wallace

As long as there is a ruling elite who control everything, you can call it what you like, it's still a dictatorship.

Oligarchy is the term for it, I think, it may mask as some sort of democracy.

**man with no head** · 28-03-2007, 02:22 PM

It is impossible to have any political system sans corruption due to the fact that it's human nature to sell one's soul for gain (otherwise organized religion wouldn't exist either).

A representative democracy is inherently more corrupt than a pure democracy since power is being given to someone else to make decisions. It is that buffer which allows for PACs, lobbies, etc. to exist and influence legislation and direction of the country.

Would the war in Iraq, for example, have actually taken place were it not for the chance for many industries to make huge profits (and thus funnel some of the money back into campaigns for those who supported the war? Any wonder why even Hillary seems unable to 'apologize' for voting for the war considering how much money she needs to run for President?)?

Corruption is an inherent part of any human system. The question is the transparency of it.

**sabang** · 28-03-2007, 04:14 PM

Actually I believe there is no Political system that exists without corruption, once you add humans.
Corruption is merely institutionalised theft. Theft is born of greed and vanity.
Show me your most ideal capitalistic society, show me your most benign socialist nirvana, and I will show you corruption.
We cannot change human nature, we cannot change individual greed and vanity (greed is a subset of vanity imo). We can erect a framework of enforceable rules, ethics and morals so that the person might have cause to think twice or more about the potential consequences (i.e. pain and disgrace) of his actions.

**Wallace** · 29-03-2007, 09:34 AM

Good post, sabang. Democracies lend themselves better to having a framework which is enforceable, and which make sure that politicians are more scrutinised than ordinary people. After all, if they are acting as representatives, then they should always be aware that they can't get away with anything that results in personal gain.

A true democracy would never have sent troops to Iraq, or anywhere else, without a vote (I don't mean a parliamentary vote, either. The PM in the UK can wage war without parliamentary blessing, and certainly without asking the voters). Most EU countries voted on whether to become part of that organisation, but politicians always claim that waging war is far too important to be left to the whim of the electorate. In my opinion, this is one of the biggest failings of modern democracy - not letting the people decide on the big issues. A purer democracy, of course, requires that the electorate are educated and informed, but then, that raises lots of other questions.

**Butterfly** · 29-03-2007, 10:31 AM

There is not so much corruption that is the problem, but more the incompetence of a system. Is democracy more capable of producing competent civil servants than any other system ? there is a strong correlation between civil servant competence and lack of corruption. If they take pride in their competence, they are less likely to be corrupted.

**DrB0b** · 29-03-2007, 12:52 PM

It's necessary to define corruption first in order to seperate it from similar
crimes such as theft or fraud. I'd define corruption in this context as "the
abuse of public power or influence for private profit".

Corruption is inversely related to economic development, the richer a
country is the less overall corruption there is in its public life. It's obvious
to all of us that Thailand is more corrupt at all levels of governance than
an economically developed western country. Thailand has had several
forms of government over the last century, from absolute monarchy
to representative democracy, from a civil-service oligarchy to military
dictatorships yet corruption has always been present from the lowest
levels of the body politic to the highest. This cannot be solely related
to the form of government as the form of government has changed
many times over the years. What has not changed is the relative
economic backwardness of the country, the low earning potential
of public servants, and the social acceptance of corruption as a legitimate
perk of power. I believe that small-time corruption is related
to low incomes and a lack of personal honesty encouraged by
the dishonest (and unpunished) example of powerful people at higher
levels. High level corruption is a result of flawed political and
social systems.

I believe that the economic backwardness of a country and its incidence of
corruption is related not only to the form of its government but also to the
transparency and accountability of that government.

Fighting corruption is a priority of many governments, or at least a
stated priority. In non-democratic, or perhaps non-transparent, regimes
the fight against corruption is more often a political tool than a genuine
attempt to create a more honest society. For example, a new regime
not subject to the full rule of law may institute anti-corruption laws
in order to punish it's political enemies and persecute members of
the old regime.

In todays economic system (called the 2nd economic system to
differentiate it from the 19th century economic system) democracy is
seen as not only a system of political organisation but also as a system
for organising economic activity. Markets can't deliver unless there is
a political system in place which can ensure competition, the safeguarding
of property rights, and general predictability and stability in the political
situation. But Democracy cannot provide these things unless there is
also a system of checks and balances on those with power, a free media,
and accountability of government servants. Together the economic and
political dimensions serve to strengthen each other resulting in better
governance of the people and a stronger economy.

Corruption is a symptom of bad governance, improving the
performance of government by enforcing ethical, moral, and legal
standards within that government would be the first step towards
defeating corruption. Another necessary step would be
educating the population in the harm corruption causes them
personally and ensuring that the people are able to express
their attitudes to corruption and the corrupt in a safe and
representative manner.

Three problems must be solved to effectively fight corruption, firstly the
constitutional structure of the state should be designed so as to place limits
on the use of power, secondly the political structure should be such that
politicians and government are seen as servants rather than rulers,
and thirdly society itself must be mature enough to see corruption
as a serious issue threatening the very fabric of that society.
Reducing corruption through strengthening the democratic
process also improves the economic well-being of the country thus
helping reduce corruption... A virtuous circle

.

Summing up I believe that although corruption is present in the
democratic system that system still provides the best means of minimising
and, perhaps, defeating corruption. It also provides the best means of
implementing the necessary safeguards to ensure that corruption will not
threaten the health of the state again.

**Dougal** · 29-03-2007, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Butterfly

there is a strong correlation between civil servant competence and lack of corruption. If they take pride in their competence, they are less likely to be corrupted.

I would rather say that a civil service based on a meritocracy and rewarded accordingly is less likely to be corrupt than one that does not pay adequately and/or relies on patronage for advancement.

A meritocracy will encourage competence, those found to be incompetent will leave when they fail to advance.

Of course an adeautely paid civil service in Thailand would almost certainly need additional tax income.

**blackgang** · 29-03-2007, 10:17 PM

But still, if they had a competent civil service in Thailand they would only have half as many police and others culls.
So they could lay off 1/2 and pay more. But somebody has got to weed em out, should hire one good one and fire 2 I guess and that way keep it running.
But you would have to start at the top, thats where most of the trouble and corruption is now.

But to answer the question,, Yes it is possible, until you elect a few politician/Lawyers, then it is over..

**Dougal** · 29-03-2007, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Corruption is inversely related to economic development, the richer a
country is the less overall corruption there is in its public life.

Do you have a source for that Dr BzeroB? Or is that just one of those self evident truths?

Originally Posted by Dr BzeroB

It's obvious to all of us that Thailand is more corrupt at all levels of governance than an economically developed western country.

Not obvious to me.

Transparency International rated Thailand on its 2005 corruption perception index at 3.8 - not particularly high but better than Poland and Romania and just behind Latvia, Greece, Slovakia and the Czech Republic all EU states, and also better than Russia or Argentina - hardly economically backward.

Malaysia, Botswana and Jordan - not exactly economic power houses either - all rate higher than Thailand.

The rest of your post reads like a political manifesto. You aren't related to ENT by any chance are you?

**Dougal** · 29-03-2007, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by blackgang

But still, if they had a competent civil service in Thailand they would only have half as many police and others culls.

That's hardly unique to Thailand is it? But I take your point. What seems to happen, in my experience at least, is that it becomes necessary to bribe people to leave by offering redundancy incentives. The result is that the most competent, who can expect to get jobs elsewhere, take advantage of the scheme and the time servers and old lags stay. It comes back to rewarding competency adequately.

**Dougal** · 29-03-2007, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by Wallace

but politicians always claim that waging war is far too important to be left to the whim of the electorate.

I'm not sure I would agree with that, to take the second world war as an example; had the British and French electorate been MORE prepared to support a war the German government might have been stopped before events had gone too far.

**DrB0b** · 30-03-2007, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Dougal

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Corruption is inversely related to economic development, the richer a
country is the less overall corruption there is in its public life.

Do you have a source for that Dr BzeroB? Or is that just one of those self evident truths?

Originally Posted by Dr BzeroB

It's obvious to all of us that Thailand is more corrupt at all levels of governance than an economically developed western country.

Not obvious to me.

Transparency International rated Thailand on its 2005 corruption perception index at 3.8 - not particularly high but better than Poland and Romania and just behind Latvia, Greece, Slovakia and the Czech Republic all EU states, and also better than Russia or Argentina - hardly economically backward.

Malaysia, Botswana and Jordan - not exactly economic power houses either - all rate higher than Thailand.

The rest of your post reads like a political manifesto. You aren't related to ENT by any chance are you?

The title of your thread is The intertwined bodies of Democracy and
Corruption loom over the Kingdom of Thailand. Democracy is political,
show me how you divorce democracy from politics. Maybe my post does
read like a political manifesto and you don't like that so how's about some
constructive criticism from you and your solution to solving the problem of
corruption in an apolitical way? Why not tell me why my analysis is wrong
and tell us how you think the problems of corruption should be solved. If, for
example, you think the root cause of corruption is incompetence why not tell
us why you think that and in what ways improving the competence of public
servants would decrease corruption? Agreed, I shouldn't have said that
something was obvious to all, if I was still able to edit my post I'd change it
to "obvious to me" but then it's the nature of the medium and a side effect of
writing essays in my lunch break that I come across as being absolutely
certain about something when really I'm just expressing an opinion.

I'm also not sure that Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, or the others you mention can
be considered economically developed. Compared to the core EU countries
and countries such as the USA, Australia and other similar western countries
they certainly are not. I did also tie in economic development with political
development and I don't think that the countries you mentioned are politically
developed.

Again, if you don't like or don't agree with what I say why not write a
reasoned refutation of it? The main reason I post in issues is because I'm
interested in learning things and it's good to debate with people who have
different opinions to mine. If I'm convinced that something I've said is wrong
then I have no problem with changing my mind.

By the way, what's with the BzeroB? Are you trying to be rude? If so, Why?

Links:
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/I...s/complete.pdf
http://www.publications.parliament.u.../1124/1124.pdf
Jones Day - United States - The Elements of an Effective Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Program (20/03/2006) from Mondaq
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/39/36872226.pdf
http://www.transparency.org/building...oecd/oecd.html
http://www.icftu.org/www/PDF/Burma-I...rt-January.pdf
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/paci/principles.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/2/19567549.pdf?channelId=34861&homeChannelId=33725&f ileTitle=Fighting+Corruption%3A+What+Role+for+Civi l+Society%3F+The+Experience+of+the+OECD
http://www.publications.parliament.u...dm/165/165.pdf
http://www.tilac.org/download/ti_usa.pdf
home - Transparency International
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/13/1899138.pdf
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/Portal/Default.asp
http://pioneer.netserv.chula.ac.th/~ppasuk/honestmistakemonash.doc
Essay On measuring Corruption

(for those of you oversensitive to the sight of 80 column posts this was written in EMACS on a vt100 terminal and I'm not going to change it now)

**Dougal** · 31-03-2007, 09:00 AM

Originally Posted by DrB0b

By the way, what's with the BzeroB? Are you trying to be rude? If so, Why?

I am a bit tied up this weekend to answer your full post. But B0b aka BzeroB is the spelling of your nic isn't it rather than BOb - so I'm not being rude, just pedantic

.

**Dougal** · 03-04-2007, 09:37 AM

Well the tiltle of the thread is 'Can Democracy Exist without Corruption' prompted by the article in The Nation - clearly written in reference to the current politicla cliimate in Thailand, but there is no reason why the question should not be posed against any 'democratic' country. I have put 'democratic' in quotation marks merely to indicate that I do not see democracy as an absolute state.

Probably like most people my initial reaction to the question would be say 'yes' democracy can and should ideally exist corruption free. But having thought about it in more depth I am now less sure of my ground.

I would now be more inclined to say that, given human nature, corruption is inevitable and perhaps the challenge is not so much to eliminate it but to create checks that limit the worst excesses of those in a position to practice it.

Does corruption exist more or less in one country rather than another, or to put that another way is corruption more rife in Thailand than the UK? I wouldn't like to say. My personal opinion is that corruption is more accepted in Thailand as a part of life and that when complaints are heard regarding coruption they are rather more in the nature of dissatisfaction by the complainer that they are not getting their fair share at the trough. In the UK corruption tends to be swept under the carpet until some particular event makes it unavoidable, whence everyone throws up their hands in horror and then goes back to fiddling their tax returns or whatever.

Should corruption be accepted or even encouraged? As I said above I think that demcocracy should strive to limit corruption and in post #12

I would rather say that a civil service based on a meritocracy and rewarded accordingly is less likely to be corrupt than one that does not pay adequately and/or relies on patronage for advancement.

In that respect I think that the west in general has a more meritocratic society than anywhere in the East that I have seen - but it has not eliminated corruption by any means.

Can corruption be eliminated? No I don't think so and as there is a link between corruption and crime in general I am sure that the type of totalitarean state that would be in existence in a totally honest society would be one that I would not want to live in.

To take it to its logical conclusion, if there were no crime there would be no change in society and no need for government to manage that change. I think that's how ant hills work isn't it?

**stroller** · 03-04-2007, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dougal

Probably like most people my initial reaction to the question would be say 'yes' democracy can and should ideally exist corruption free.

That's on the same level as saying communism or anarchism are obtainable.
'Human nature' always seems to have the final, ugly word in any idealistic enterprises.

Btw, democracy is implemented in a variety of systems, 'pure', direct democracy is undesirable IMO, it's mob rule of the majority.

**Dougal** · 03-04-2007, 04:16 PM

^ Stroller, you are quoting me out of context. I said that was my initial reaction and then went on to clarify my position. I also indicated that I was using 'democracy' in a wide sense, without going off at a tangent to provide my own interpretation of that elusive beast.

**stroller** · 03-04-2007, 04:37 PM

I have read your entire post
Sorry, I didn't mean to misrepresent what you said, just putting in my own 2 cents worth.

Thread: Can democracy exist without corruption?

Thread Tools

Display

Can democracy exist without corruption?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions